Talk:2011 Georgian protests

	Georgia (country) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mischaracterisation of RT's reporting

Yalens has completely mischaracterised the nature of RT's reporting. If one bothered to watch the complete report, one would notice at the 42 second mark that it is in fact Nino Burdzhanadze who compares Misha's government with that of North Korea, particularly in direct relation to protestors being beaten and taken away where they are beaten more by Georgian police, and then taken to hospitals where they are not allowed to be visited by family and loved ones. Yalens' editing on this article is grossly POV and is mischaracterising the entire report by RT. This needs to be fixed, and I would suggest Yalens' themselves fixes it. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 23:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification (sorry, I missed the quotations). That still IS the title, but I will change it nonetheless to make it clear that it was the quote.--Yalens (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, dont' remove my "original research", I am going to put in the the sources right now...--Yalens (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I edited in POV way at all- I simply reproduced what I saw in the sources I used (starting with the Economist and NYTimes, and then going to Russia Today for the other perspective) with the intent of expanding a short page. Now that my mistake is fixed, can we remove your tag, Russavia? I've just added all my sources, and pretty much every sentence is cited so I dont' see how there can be an issue with that or "OR". Anyhow, I might be open to just deleting the analysis section, if it becomes a major point of contention.--Yalens (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your edits are very POV. Why have you used article bylines (titles) as information for the article, instead of information which is actually contained in the articles and/or videos? Provocative headlines are used the world over by media, and often the headline will have nothing to do with what is contained in the article itself. Also, the reworking of information by yourself doesn't make sense, so I will go thru and make changes myself to the article to bring it up to NPOV standards. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave the POV tag there, as there apparently is ... still... a dispute, though you are reading far too much into it. (edit: and I'm pret-ty sure that if the RT headline says witch hunt, RT is implying that it is a witch hunt, so I don't see what your problem is)--Yalens (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion from Yalens' talk page

(with permission, this was copy-pasted)

“

The most recent version looks fine to me. Some editors are just a bit quick on the trigger with WP:POV allegations... -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

”

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 Georgian protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711091323/http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21533&Itemid=133 to http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21533&Itemid=133

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the false citation from the Economist. There is no such statement in the Economist article. The user/contributor was engaged in misinformation.