Jump to content

Talk:Ukraine–NATO relations: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by 105.104.142.7 - "it talksa about nato, very rellevant"
Line 112: Line 112:


About 51 % wish now to join nato. One of the candidates to elections, promised he would join nato, however currently ruling officials refuse so far, admission <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:813B:18CC:E1B9:501|2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:813B:18CC:E1B9:501]] ([[User talk:2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:813B:18CC:E1B9:501#top|talk]]) 15:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
About 51 % wish now to join nato. One of the candidates to elections, promised he would join nato, however currently ruling officials refuse so far, admission <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:813B:18CC:E1B9:501|2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:813B:18CC:E1B9:501]] ([[User talk:2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:813B:18CC:E1B9:501#top|talk]]) 15:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
===western ukraine should ask nato for fly zone so putin aka sta'lin jr forgets about it and he needs to be eliminated, kyiv offensive dates, patriarch kiril is false patriarch===
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ukrainian_Orthodox_Church_(disambiguation)&diff=1090073578&oldid=1079008126 <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/180.245.166.213|180.245.166.213]] ([[User talk:180.245.166.213#top|talk]]) 07:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/105.104.142.7|105.104.142.7]] ([[User talk:105.104.142.7#top|talk]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== CGTN source ==
== CGTN source ==



Revision as of 17:13, 31 May 2022

Russia-NATO

Russia is not a member of NATO, not going to be a member and it is not intending to join military or any other alliances with Ukraine. But Russia is mentioned 6 times in this article.

I propose to move all Russian concerns from this article into "Russia-NATO relationships". --DmitriyR (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia may target its missiles at Ukraine if its neighbour joins NATO and accepts the deployment of a US missile defence shield.[24]
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin allegedly declared at a NATO-Russia summit in 2008 that if Ukraine would join NATO his country can contend to annex the Ukrainian East and Crimea[10]
This sort of info should be in this article, unless you consider these statements normal... — Mariah-Yulia (talk)

Of course the NATO–Russia relations should be expanded with this info too a little bit of WP:Fork is sometimes necessary. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the UKR-RUS tensions in it's own paragraph and expanded NATO–Russia relations a bit. — Mariah-Yulia (talk)

Government source for polls

Every single independent poll, whether it's Ukrainian, American or Russian, shows the same figures low figures of about 17-22% in support of joining NATO. Yet the Ukrainian government keeps reporting completely different results, saying there's apparently much more support. They claimed that according to a Razumkov center poll, support was at 30%. Yet when we go to Razumkov's website, it shows support is half that. What a joke, do they think people are that dumb? Please stop inserting this ridiculous propaganda into the article, unless it's to show the huge contrast between government figures and every other independent source. LokiiT (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore. After 2017 things changed in a huge way.104.169.24.168 (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Ukraine–NATO relations

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ukraine–NATO relations's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "RatingJuly12":

  • From Ukraine: The language question, the results of recent research in 2012, UA: Rating, 25 May 2012
  • From Ukraine–European Union relations: The language question, the results of recent research in 2012, RATING (25 May 2012)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 01:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ukraine–NATO relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ukraine–NATO relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ukraine–NATO relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

possible error

There could be an error: "that in contacts with Moscow" instead than "unlike Moscow" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas-topway-it (talkcontribs) 13:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

The link about the Russian military invasion of 2014 relates to the ongoing military invasion (2022) and not the one from 2014. 109.252.171.114 (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: Which link are you referring to specifically? Could you provide a snippet of the relevant text? The article is quite stuffed with links and so I cannot reasonably parse out what may be the perceived error. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022

On Request of guarantees of Ukraine's non-accession to NATO The anchor tag href uses Cyrillic, Instead of Alphabet, hence resulting in 404, thus showing "The article that you're looking for doesn't exist."

Please change to "FILE/" instead of "Файл" NutShards (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I don't see Файл anywhere in either the wikitext source, or the actual HTML source. All links seem to be working fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, did you talk about the picture contained in the section? Could you please if it is working now? P1221 (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am referring to image, and I checked it and it is now working as intended, Sorry for not giving out clear info on the error NutShards (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source for Enhanced Opportunity Partner

[1]. --Lyrono (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of Sweden's politicians for upcoming now wants to join nato

Anyone with editing rights may it be changed.


https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/applying-join-nato-would-destabilize-security-situation-swedish-pm-says-2022-03-08/

About 51 % wish now to join nato. One of the candidates to elections, promised he would join nato, however currently ruling officials refuse so far, admission — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:813B:18CC:E1B9:501 (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CGTN source

The CGTN source is the only one which counts the deputies for and against the motion in State Duma. If a more reliable source can be found use it. In the meantime, this doesn't seem like falsified information, therefore the blanket CGTN ban makes no sense here. Armduino (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the article text for which you used CGTN as source was for the statement that the Duma asked Putin to recognize the breakaway territories. This article fact was widely reported in reliable sources, and in fact had such a source (Radio Free Europe) right next to the CGTN ref. There was no need to use the CGTN source. Only in your most recent edit re-installing the CGTN source did you add a statement about the vote counts in the Duma on the issue; this data was not so widely reported and the RFE source didn't give it, unlike (I presume) the CGTN article. Still, that data was reported by some reliable sources (I found an acceptable one in the second set of 20 search results from Google), and even the questionable but not deprecated source Tass was a top result for the data.
After you added the Duma vote data to the article (of some slight interest, I suppose), Amigao once again removed the CGTN reference and added a {{cn}} in its place. I will presently replace the {cn} with the source I found (Fortune) which gives that Duma vote.
Basically there is no need to rely on the deprecated source CGTN, and like all deprecated sources, it should be avoided. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]