Template:Did you know nominations/Nelya Shtepa

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 ^talk 11:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Nelya Shtepa

(

)

... that elected Sloviansk mayor Nelya Shtepa has been jailed since 11 July 2014 for allegedly colluding with pro-Russian separatists?

Created by RGloucester (talk). Self nominated at 18:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC).

New enough, neutral, interesting, of sufficient length, no close paraphrasing. Hook is verified. Only issue I have is that 1 in-line source appears to be missing for 1st statement in life section. Appears there may have been another source as the rest of the paragraph has this same reference, but the data for the first sentence is not in the reference. Please clarify. SusunW (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added the source. Seems I messed-up whilst I was working on the draft. RGloucester — ☎ 20:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Good to go! Thanks for the quick response. I figured since you did reference it separately that it was just an oversight. SusunW (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Symbol delete vote.svg There are several problems with the article, for example it misleads the reader that Shtepa stated at the beginning of protests that she was forced to support anti-Kiev protesters. This statement was made only after she was arrested by Ukrainian authorities and threatened with life imprisonment by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyMoloboaccount (talk • contribs) 18:31, March 11, 2015

I would note to uninvolved persons that the above editor is being disruptive. He is following my edits because of a dispute elsewhere. If one were intelligent, one would ignore him. What he says is incorrect. She made a statement about feigning support for the protesters right after the Ukrainian military operation began in April, before even her detention by Ponomaryov. That's what the cited source says, and also what the article says, but Molobo is too busy trying to make a point to read the source.

Here is a direct quote of the source, dated to 22 April 2014, for your pleasure:

But as central authorities dispatched troops and military vehicles to retake the buildings and key infrastructure facilities in the east, Shtepa quickly changed course. She called the men insurgents and their presence an "occupation." She complained that they had seized and demolished her office and began referring to army troops dispatched by the Kiev government to fight the gunmen as "our, Ukrainian troops."
Shtepa explained her U-turn, saying that she had pretended to be on the gunmen's side in order to free dozens of hostages from the buildings that the insurgents stormed.
Speaking on a popular TV show last Wednesday, Shtepa complained of lootings by the insurgents and claimed that they were the Russian military: "Today, these already are Green Men," Shtepa said in a reference to military men aligned with Moscow. Little is known about the armed men other than their pro-Russia sentiments; it's not even clear whether they are Russian or Ukrainian or a mixture of both.
The following morning, she walked into city hall for a meeting with Ponomarev — and wasn't seen again for five days.

Molobo's canard has been easily disproven. Please disregard him. Much obliged, RGloucester — ☎ 23:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I read all the sources initially and had read the controversy of the reverted edit. That edit clearly had a POV. I do not wish to be part of an edit war. In fact, the above allegation has nothing to do with the DYK nomination or approval. The article was neutrally written and supported by the links given. The hook was verified with adequate sourcing. The unsigned "delete vote" appears to be a personal issue and not related to the validity of the article. I know neither party in the dispute, and reviewed it to donate a QPQ for another article. SusunW (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The only problem identified in the no vote has been refuted and the article's recounting is supported by reliable sources. This looks good to go. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 02:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this hasn't gone forward? RGloucester — ☎ 14:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Struck the disruptive comment... from a second pair of eyes the article is good to go. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)