Talk:Head of the Republic of Crimea

History section
The history section contains claims like In the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution led by pro-European nationalists hostile to Russia, the rise of pro-Russian protests in Ukraine led to the so-called Crimean crisis, parallel to the outbreak of the war in Donbass. No source given. Our article Revolution of Dignity tells a totally different story and is well sourced. This is just one example for pro-Putin propaganda. Also: Why should this be relevant for this article ? Rsk6400 (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What part of that sentence don't you agree with? Because it's all well sourced at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. There's no mention of President Putin (nor would it be wrong) nor propaganda at all, just historical facts, and we could easily say that Revolution of Dignity is pro-Ukrainian and pro-Western propaganda. The historical background is fundamental to umderstand the role of the Head of Crimea and its relation to the previous administration. I assume good faith, but be aware that your anti-Russian (or anti-Putin) POVs may be viewed as bias. It can't justify the deletion of the entire, well-sourced, history section. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Est. 2021, please respect WP:TPG, comment on content, not on the contributor. I don't want to be accused of an "anti-Russian" POV nor of any bias. If you think I showed something like that in my edits, provide diffs and discuss it at WP:ANI, but not here. Where is the source for "nationalists" ? For "hostile to Russia" ? For "the rise of pro-Russian protests ... led to the ... crisis" ? Rsk6400 (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As I assumed your good faith, I'm in fact not commenting about you as a contributor. I'm commenting about the ideological statements made on this encyclopaedia, informing you that your repeated mentions of Putinundefined to justify the deletion of an entire sourced historical background section that never mentions him may be interpreted as unrelated anti-Putin bias, just to remind you that encyclopedic articles can not be "pro" nor "anti" anything, we just have to collect all the info right and left on the topic in a single page. As far as I undestand, you contest them being defined "pro-European nationalists hostile to Russia", so if you contest a specific word or period, check cn. Every statement may meet a reference. Regards. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, I found something interesting about the mentioned statement.    Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)