Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

Disputed neutrality

These [1][2] changes are propaganda. They are not based on reliable sources. — Chelovechek (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Both versions are NPOV. This article needs to be protected against vandalism. Someone is constantly changing "Ukraine" to "pro-Kiev un-elected junta" 193.0.116.21 (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

      But to use descriptions like: "Ukrainian saboteurs" is also NPOV --Webslap (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

All the terminology used in this entry is inflammatory and therefore not neutral. The terminology used is offensive especially in the use of "Pro-Russian", which is a derogatory term borrowed from the western media and is not a true description of the very large mass of citizens in the Ukrane who are evidently opposed to the interim Kiev government, but who do NOT want to be part of Russia and they seek a solution to their concerns - this has been shown for weeks by non-western media. This entire entry is written through a biased western lens based solely on what people have gathered from western media, which has been completely propagandist since the start of the Ukraine crisis. I expect more from Wikipedia. It should only permit trusted editors to update this entry and it should be completely overhauled to modify the language and terminiology used to ensure it upholds the correct standards of an encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.90.240 (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Even the OSCE, an organisation that Russia participates in, uses 'pro-Russian'. RGloucester — ☎ 17:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

--- I don't see how this article's introduction can leave out all mention of the role of US NGOs and state department, the Right Sector, and the despicable neo-nazi thugs who committed acts of violence. This is just incredibly slanted - to the point of obvious bias. 38.97.105.2 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)mpd

how does the unrest relate to "US NGOs"? the rest you mentioned also has nothing to do with the unrest itself --Львівське (говорити) 19:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The US State Dep't has definitely played a role, but not nearly as much as the Russian government has. It is misleading for the introduction to portray events as a popular movement. --Smack (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Biased editors

Two pesrons - Yulia Romero and Львівське are keep working on this article. As we can see in their profiles they both are pro-ukrainian, which means they are unable to stay neutral. Because of it article full of intentional false and inaccurate information covered by most untrusted pro-goverment ukraianian media which were seen many times on lies. I suggest we should have someone who could edit from most objective point of view, considering all sources and trying to represent a real background of event without bias. I am asking to puy attention on this issue

Accusing one of bias is a pretty heavy load to swing around towards someone, do you have examples of what you claim with links to edits so that the ones you accuse can defend themselves? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well these people do not hide their pro-Ukrainian orientation. As can be seen by their edits, profiles, rejection of Russian sources and limited selective sampling of news resources in favor of pro-Ukrainian version. The whole article is written this way. On internet are many reliable sources that claim the opposite things from given here information. Such controversial theme cannot be given in hands of non-neutral authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrisska (talk • contribs) 01:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well can you post some of these sources here you say are reliable? We cant use blogs or forums and also keep in mind that every country reports things differently and at different speeds. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Couple links will not help. This article has become a mouthpiece of the Ukrainian government. Literally everything needs to be rewritten that to have at least some balance of neutrality. For now it is one-sided version, you can see the difference if look up Euromaidan article. I will try to back later with some sources. If you are interested i have some there, photos in general http://yrisska.livejournal.com/11744.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrisska (talk • contribs) 02:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Livejournal isn't an WP:RS. Posting a propaganda/conspiracy blog makes it even worse. I particularly love this picture saying that the national guard has a swastika hidden its logo and that it's an image of Lucifer himself. Awesome find.--Львівське (говорити) 04:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Just because I'm Ukrainian doesn't mean I am "unable to stay neutral", further your accusations of inserting false and inaccurate information...and untrustworthy media...oh hell, these are bad faith accusations - enough. This is all baseless garbage, if you have a problem with a source, point it out. Yulia is a great editor and very neutral and hard working. I'm just editing as I see it in the news and media that I read during the day. If you have a problem, be direct, don't start on conspiracy theories or accuse others of being dishonest simply because of their user pages.--Львівське (говорити) 04:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, what is going on? Why did you delete my edits? It was from relible sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrisska (talk • contribs) 05:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

the statements by russia and russian tabloids? i stated in the edit summaries that its unrelated to the protests themselves and clutter. The Lavros statement was a giant block quote that served no purpose. We're trying to thin the article out from bloat. Also, just pointing out now that those images you uploaded are copyrighted and will be deleted by wiki commons in 24 hours. --Львівське (говорити) 05:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You just deleted the whole quote and in the same time there are a lot of quotes from ukrainian goverments. That cannot be neutral, we have to have opinion from both sides. At least you could write fisrt it there, why you are so disdainful to other's work? Well you could just left couple words, but you just deleted. And about Dugin, there is no single proof that he has any connection with goverment, in Russia he is perceived as a crazy man, so why there was such disinformation like if he is someone so important. No need to delude people. I didn't touch your work, i added another point of view for the balance, but i see that no one care about any neutrality. Oh well Yrisska (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

where is there a giant quote from a ukrainian minister in the protests timeline? also, there isnt a weight issue, these are protests in ukraine, what a russian official says is irrelevant. --Львівське (говорити) 06:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And yes, this is what Wikipedia supposed to be, no matter russian, ukrainian or american media - they are equal there Yrisska (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

for other users, this is what i removed, can someone else weigh in of its its relevant to the timeline? --Львівське (говорити) 06:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called on the Kiev authorities to take urgent measures to build a national dialogue with all political forces and regions in Ukraine. He wrote in Theguardian: " Russia is doing all it can to promote early stabilisation in Ukraine. We are firmly convinced that this can be achieved through, among other steps: real constitutional reform, which would ensure the legitimate rights of all Ukrainian regions and respond to demands from its south-eastern region to make Russian the state's second official language; firm guarantees on Ukraine's non-aligned status to be enshrined in its laws, thus ensuring its role as a connecting link in an indivisible European security architecture; and urgent measures to halt activity by illegal armed formations of the Right Sector and other ultra-nationalist groups. De-escalation should begin with rhetoric. Belligerent statements such as those heard at the Nato foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on 1 April do not match demands for a de-escalation. It is time to stop the groundless whipping-up of tension, and to return to serious common work." [206]

"De-escalation should begin with rhetoric." fairly much clinched it for me. Aside from the inordinate amount of effort that would be required to copyedit this paragraph so as it actually makes a semblance of sense in the English language, I suspect that, "Belligerent statements such as those heard at the Nato foreign ministers meeting in Brussels..." won't translate terribly well as NPOV. Should I start at picking out more overtly POV content such as, "...illegal armed formations of the Right Sector and other ultra-nationalist groups..."; "... Russia is doing all it can to promote early stabilisation in Ukraine..."; is there anything in there that isn't tendentious? If that's to be the calibre of Wikipedia articles, I'm out of here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Can Yrisska please give us examples of my alleged (by him) wrongdoing in this article? Claiming "being pro-ukrainian, which means they are unable to stay neutral", does that also mean that pro-russians should not edit this article also??? I used the BBC a lot... Since when is the BBC "untrusted pro-goverment ukraianian media"... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Doing changes as adding Russia to the belligerents with no sources or removing other sourced belligerents from the infobox is a clear example of POV-pushing and politically-driven editing, wich cannot be allowed.--HCPUNXKID 22:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

what are you talking about? you added unconfirmed speculation and removed stuff that was widely cited. Let's not throw stones in your glass house here.--Львівське (говорити) 22:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is a cesspool of hate. Fortunately, the virulently nationalistic émigré editors of these articles are completely out of touch with the real Ukrainian people. Nationalism has no deep roots in the Ukraine, so Ukrainian soldiers are unwilling to kill fellow Ukrainians to prop up the illegal putsch regime in Kiev. – Herzen (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

A "cesspool of hate"? Ironic since you're the only one spewing hatespeech. It should also be noted that through all of your rhetoric, you've provided literally zero examples to back up your assertions. A whole lotta smoke coming your way. --Львівське (говорити) 21:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is so biased, it is not even funny. Also, quoting fabricated polls is irresponsible. If those polls were accurate, Crimea wouldn't be taken as it was and people's militia in South-West would not be supported by the local population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.235.72 (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You mad? --Львівське (говорити) 03:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yulia Romero and Lvivske, it is funny to see two being accused of being not neutral in your edits. I guess those editors do not check profiles of other participants such as me. I think it is kind of prejudice and maybe even racist to assume something about another editor just reading his or her profile. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, about being pro-Ukrainians, concerning to Yulia Romero, I have nothing against her, apart from a proven unfair accusation that she did against me, which was that I had deleted her post, when actually there was an edit conflict.... So, it was a misunderstanding. Concerning to Lvivske, I've more or less criticized him for being a supporter of Svoboda, though I've been threatened to be blocked from editing here if I kept saying that he is a supporter of Svoboda. I guess it's natural that every Ukrainian is pro-Ukrainian! But what Ukraine? a slave of Germany, like us in Southern Europe, or slaves of Russia?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2014

Igor Strelkov

Is this the wiki page where we can write about Igor Strelkov the recently outted Russian spy operating in eastern Ukraine? http://www.google.com/search?hl=ru&gl=ua&tbm=nws&q=Igor+Strelkov&oq=Igor+Strelkov Thank You, Anonymous

Army of the South-East

Army of the South-East should be merged here or the timeline, not a standalone article, it doesnt have notability.

Upgrading Civil conflict infobox to military conflict

Ukraine ordered military operations in the east. It officially war. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A war may only exist between two sovereign nation states. The current situation in Ukraine, where the military is suppressing (or oppressing) the citizens of Ukraine is an armed conflict but not a war. Don't get me wrong, it is messed up for any state to use the military against their own people... but that doesn't make it a war. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It makes it civil war. it's still a military conflict. Especially if it's a liberation/independence war Lugnuthemvar (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait until sources start calling it a war. We aren't allowed to judge whether or not conflicts are wars. 99.71.123.123 (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, all categorization should be based on sources when possible. Zkbt (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

“war. Hostile conflict by means of armed forces...” Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). “force. A group of individuals occupied with or ready for combat.” MW3. One interpretation (of many) could perhaps be that a conflict becomes a war when groups of people become “occupied” with combat — when it becomes their primary job. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The Economist calls it a “war”... --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

not sure if relevant

[3] [4] Zhirinovsky donated a GAZ Tigr to militants in eastern Ukraine. Notable Russian army colonel privately funding / aiding the militants...--Львівське (говорити) 00:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• [5] it punched through the border checkpoint by force, made it to luhansk --Львівське (говорити) 02:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It strikes me as a publicity stunt, based on the effect it had on the overall conflict and his direct presentation to the media about it. Especially considering it is his 'personal' car. I'm not sure it's notable since the position of Russia is already noted, and he is part of the Russian leadership. I think it is worth noting on his personal biography page though. Zkbt (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Name of the article

Taking into account the proportions that the conflict has taken, shouldn't this page be renamed as "Ukrainian Civil War" ? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a civil war until reliable sources call it the 'Ukrainian Civil War'. They don't. RGloucester — ☎ 22:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What about '2014 unrest in South-Eastern Ukraine'? Wouldn't such title accommodate both POVs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.11 (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)<!— Template:Unsigned IP —>

Odessa isn't in "south-eastern Ukraine". It is in "south-western Ukraine". RGloucester — ☎ 14:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Taking into account the number of deaths, the number of 'armed incidents' and the fact that all these are not happening only in Donbas , but in Odessa,Kharkiv etc too it is already clear that we have to deal with a Civil War in Ukraine German politicians and French ones too are gradually speaking of such a war. While Russians already classified it as a civil war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.228.167 (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

it's not a civil war yet IMO and them militancy is contained to the Donbass --Львівське (говорити) 19:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Not only to Donbass, as we saw in the last few days, in Odessa.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 4:58, 9 May 2014

There are no insurgents in Odessa. Those were civilians that took up arms during a riot. RGloucester — ☎ 20:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It should be renamed..149 corpses in Mariupol... Fakirbakir (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This should just be shortened to 2014 unrest in Ukraine. There's no need to disambiguate between other 2014 unrests in Ukraine, is it? —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Euromaidan, of course! RGloucester — ☎ 04:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 16:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

---

2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine → Ukrainian Insurgency – It's a shorter, better way to title the article. It has been widely described as an insurgency, rather than a civil war, and "unrest" is too soft of a word to describe the situation. It is much more that simple unrest. Fits well with Iraqi insurgency and Taliban insurgency. An alternative title can be Insurgency in Ukraine, à la Insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia and Insurgency in Aceh. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 12:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC) It has been widely described as civil war, but I think it is too early to change the name. It isn't widely named as insurgency and the word isn't neutral. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strongest oppose - There have been MANY insurgencies in Ukrainian history. This is about the vaguest of vague. Furthermore, the events are only an insurgency in certain areas. Blowing it out of proportion, and calling the events in Kherson, or in Kharkiv an "insurgency" is pure fallacy. We must adhere to a name that describes concisely, precisely, and neutrally, the full scope of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 15:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gloucester's reasoning the proposed name is far too broad. Also I am opposing as just 2 (Maybe 3) Oblasts are facing this insurgency, the rest of Ukraine for the most part is not having any problems. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Guardian classifies this now as "armed uprising" which seems to be a fitting description [6]. "Unrest" in face of recent events when both sides engage in regular fighting using firearms and APC's is no longer a word that suitably describes the situation.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It is only an armed conflict in certain areas, namely Luhansk and Donetsk. "Unrest" is lose enough to imply both violence and protest, therefore meeting the requirements of the scope of this article. This article does not only deal with the areas that have insurgencies. Let me provide the definition of "unrest" for you, courtesy of the OED:

Absence of rest; disturbance, turmoil, trouble – [Oxford English Dictionary]

"Turmoil" is exactly what is happening in Ukraine at the moment. Turmoil. Both armed and unarmed. The scope of this article is not just of areas that have armed conflict. To call it an armed conflict in Kharkiv, in Kherson, in Mykolayiv, in Odessa…that's false! Sure, Odessa had one civil clash. However, there have been no more clashes there, no insurgency, no militias, no military operations. I do not understand why you wish to blow the conflict out of proportion. RGloucester — ☎ 02:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per RGloucester. What's 'insurgency' when it's at home? I'm highly disdainful of the use of any spin-doctored terminology since '9/11', it's used as a catch-all for combatants in a regions where the 'insurgents' equals 'bad guys' (just so's readers aren't in doubt as to who's naughty and who's fighting for niceness). It is not neutral; it's no more meaningful than 'regime change'; it sounds more like a press beat-up than an encyclopaedic article. We're hardly at a point at which there's a bazooka on every corner and the whole of Ukraine looks like a trashy Hollywood post-apocalyptic blockbuster. There are pockets of serious unrest that have had tragic consequences. I know boys like extreme video games, but keep it in your pants. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. As the article insurgency states: "Where a revolt takes the form of armed rebellion, it may not be viewed as an insurgency if a state of belligerency exists between one or more sovereign states and rebel forces". Given that a state of belligerency exists between the sovereign states Russia and Ukraine, with Russian troops massed on the border and the admitted involvement of Russian forces in Crimea, "insurgency" isn't appropriate here. --Nug (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ukraine has already had insurgencies in 1918, 1942-1949 and earlier this year. Nevertheless, I'd favour a change in the title, since it's simplistic to say the people involved in the unrest are all looking for an unification with Russia, rather than aiming at overthrow or oppose the current government in Kiev.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

"Pro-Russian" doesn't mean that they favour unification with Russia. It merely means that they support the Russian government, and favour closers ties with Russia over Europe. Reliable sources consistently describe the demonstrators/militants/protesters/activists as "pro-Russian". RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please provide sources to substantiate your theory, Mondolkiri1. —Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It isn't WP:OR. It is called the ENGLISH LANGUAGE that we are speaking. The prefix "pro" means, according to the OED

Favourable, positive, supportive; favourably disposed.

As you see, the proesters are in favour of Russia. They have a "favourable" viewpoint of Russia. There is no doubt about that. They fly Russian flags, they talk about Putin, they talk the glory days of old. Western sources all say "pro-Russian", and I don't need to provide any to show you, because they are all over the place. It is not my fault if you cannot understand the meaning of the word "pro". It does not, on any level, imply "secession". RGloucester — ☎ 00:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't directed at Ms Harpy, if I may clarify. It is merely more for Mr Mondolkiri1. RGloucester — ☎ 00:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you for answering on my behalf. I wasn't going to answer anything that would contradict what you just wrote.,RGloucester. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Highly inappropriate behaviour, Mondolkiril. Please don't overwrite other people's comments again[7]! —Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologise, Ms Harpy, as I originally read your comment as being Mr Mondolkiri's. He has accused me of original research multiple times, and his name was placed right next to yours. Hence, I replied, clarifying why I thought that "pro-Russian" has nothing to do with secession, necessarily, and why it is not a problem of POV. I understand now that you were asking him for clarification as to where he got the idea about the protesters not being "pro-Russian". Editing these pages could definitely drive one to insanity. RGloucester — ☎ 01:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't overwrite anything. There was an edit conflict. Maybe that's why there was some confusion.,Iryna Harpy. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of anything, Mr. RGloucester. I just stated opinions (I'm allowed to it, am I not?) about the events taking place in Ukraine. You're saying that I accused you of "original research multiple times"?????????? When? Where? How? That's a serious accusation against me, Mr. RGloucester!,RGloucester. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There has evidently been a communication breakdown exacerbated by bad threading, and including an ec. Yes, Mondolkiri1, you are entitled to an opinion: we're all entitled to an opinion. Our opinions, however, should not be the basis for a title for the article. Political/economic issues are, by their nature, complicated. In accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, however, we are guided by secondary sources. No one has made exaggerated or excessive accusations against you, merely qualified that you are overstepping the line into original research. I think you may have overreacted to observations and taken them as personal slights. I hope you can see that these were good faith misunderstandings and not attacks on you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Everything is fine! Any opinion that I have about the issue that I wish to express, is in the Talk Page, without the need to provide references, because I do so when I edit the page itself. But editing on this issue is becoming increasingly unpleasant, I must confess. Greetings.,Iryna Harpy. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I take it you're not familiar with Ukraine. There have been many many many insurgencies in Ukraine. In particular there's that under Nazi rule as being a recent prominent one. And there have been several serf rebellions under Lithuanian and Russian rule. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Making a specific article into one covering many many insurgencies, while this series of events has an insurgency covered in only 10% or less of the whole article? No - title seems a little POV and OR.

Comment I believe some people are getting a little confused, and seeing a problem when there is not one. The article covers those in favour of federalisation with Russia, and those who want to become part of Russia. These events cover both those aspects: pro-Russian Federalisation, and pro-Russian Inclusion. Be it one or the other, Federalist or Inclusionist, both sets of instigators and the aims of both beligerents are pro-Russian. It sounds to me as if each is forgetting the other side of this double-edged sword. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

German "Bild am Sonntag":Kiev forces are supported militarily by USA and Academi/Blackwater operators

[8] Since Spiegel and "Bild am Sonntag" are reliable sources I believe this can be added to article. They also mention this was reported by German intelligence service to German officials. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Better sources are required, if it turns out to be true. Spiegel actually reported what the Bild am Sonntag wrote, it didn't report the fact itself. And it added that Academi / Blackwater denied its involvement.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

so what we have here is a tabloid reporting on something that was officially denied. Si there a link to the original tabloid article? What is their source, some anonymous tipster? Speculation? --Львівське (говорити) 21:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the source is the Bundesnachrichtendienst.

And Bild am Sonntag is the the largest-selling German national Sunday newspaper. The Bild-am-Sonntag-article is not available online.

But all newspapers in German-speaking Europe reported. All newspapers in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Belgium and Luxembourg...

• in Switzerland: http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/ausland/europa/Hunderte-USSoeldner-angeblich-in-Slowjansk/story/21973797.
• in Austria: http://derstandard.at/1399507156011/Angeblich-400-Blackwater-Soeldner-auf-Seiten-der-Ukraine-im-Einsatz

Should I check the other Western European languages?

It was not _officially_ denied. Suzanne Kelly is not an official, within the meaning of a government official. She is only an Academi employee. The affiliated structure of the Blackwater/Xe Services/Academi is obscure. Has Suzanne Kelly spoken for the Barbados-registered company Greystone Limited?

Söldnern aus den USA = Mercenaries from the U.S., the exact private military contractor is unclear. And it is not clear who commands the private military contractors and pays for their services. --91.10.20.56 (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Flags in Infobox

There should be no flags in the infobox. We should enforce the guidelines of MOS:FLAG. Merely because other articles are not in line with the guideline does not mean that we should not be in line with the guideline. It is what it is, and cluttering the box with a million logos and poorly-sourced flags is not only purposeless, but also against Wikipedia guidelines. RGloucester — ☎ 00:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles that have flags in the infobox:

• Iraq War
• World War I
• World War II
• Syrian Civil War
• Korean War
• Russian Civil War

Good articles using flags in the infox:

• Battle of Kupres (1994)
• Indonesian National Revolution

I can go on with FA class articles, the thing being that either this is a consensus wide thing or the guideline needs to be seriously looked at. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Like I said, other stuff. We don't care about other stuff. We care about this article, and we care about it being in line with the established guidelines. I can assure you that the bit about flags has been debated many times at the MOS. It has always resulted in a denigration of flags in the infobox. Here, they are particularly causing problems. People are adding logos, not just flags, and also a variety of unsourced flags for proclaimed republics. It is getting ridiculous, and it is time to truncate it. The MOS is on my side. If you'd like to change the MOS, then I suggest you start a discussion at that page. However, at present, it is what it is. RGloucester — ☎ 00:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at the guideline though it does state that military conflict infobox templates are exceptions, I am not sure about Template:Infobox civil conflict as it is not military but shares a-lot of the same parameters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favor of flags and I don't see how other-stuff applies here seeing as those are an array of major articles that fall within line of the MOS. Other-stuff is one thing, but precedent is useful in seeing what the guidelines and consensus of style is. --Львівське (говорити) 00:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I'm fine with the flags of countries, which is what that is referring to. I'm not fine with Right Sector logos, I'm not fine with unsourced Luhansk flags, I'm not fine with using Ukraine's coat of arms for the Interior Ministry. RGloucester — ☎ 00:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but we can use flags beside commanders and leaders like the Columbian Crisis article, yes? —Львівське (говорити) 02:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The guideline says that if it adds additional information, yes. It depends on the individual case. If adding a flag would clarify that a particular commander was in charge of a particular regiment, or something, that might be considered acceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 03:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'd also like to just clarify that those articles don't necessarily comply with the MOS. Good article and featured article status do not require MOS compliance. RGloucester — ☎ 00:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't comply with the MOS? How so? If flags are being used in FA and GA class articles then wouldn't one think that the guideline makes little sense? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• MOS compliance isn't required for an article to reach either GA or FA status. Why that's case is beyond me, but it has always been true. RGloucester — ☎ 00:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I found the problem, the problem is that currently the way this infobox is set up it is borderline military conflict. According to the MOS only military conflict inboxes are exempt from the MOSFLAG guideline. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That's true. For example, 2011 Egyptian revolution dispensed with the "participants" section altogether. RGloucester — ☎ 00:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for my confusion, anyways we should remove the countries here as well although I think it is fair to say that this is involving the military and militants on the opposite side by now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why we'd remove the countries, as they are surely participants. To be honest, I wouldn't be opposed to dispensing with the participants section in the way that the Egyptian revolution article did. It causes way too many problems. RGloucester — ☎ 00:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Civil conflicts are conflicts within the same country is why (Civil conflict). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I wound not be opposed to making the info-box like the article example you showed though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that other countries can't participate. Usually, other countries have interests and fund or aid certain sides. That's the way it has always been. Regardless, I think removal of the whole section makes the most sense. This clutter and constant nonsense with regard to who is and isn't in the infobox isn't worth dealing with, and doesn't add anything that the article doesn't explain. RGloucester — ☎ 00:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

First desertions in Ukrainian government forces?

[9] If I understand this source correctly 100 soldiers just deserted. I saw a police poster about three sergeants(2 from Odessa 1 from Donetsk) deserting as well alongside with weapons. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

One should be more concerned about the coup in Donetsk. RGloucester — ☎ 23:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a non-Ukrainian source for that? One would think it would be big news. – Herzen (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This is unrelated to the issue here, the source correct? 100 soldiers deserted? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

yes, they are citing the zhytomyr regional council [10] --Львівське (говорити) 23:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it says that they were drafted during a "partial mobilisation, then "voluntarily left" the unit on 9 May. I don't really know what that means. It doesn't sound like they deserted, as they were not even anywhere near the conflict zone. RGloucester — ☎ 23:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Soldiers don't have to be in combat zone to desert. It seems it is correct that first units have started to desert. I will add this information.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Zhytomyr Oblast is in northwestern Ukraine. So this is unlikely to have anything to do with pro-Russian unrest. It's more likely about dissatisfaction with the Kiev central government. So what article should this go in? It is certainly newsworthy. – Herzen (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that at this point this is important enough to include, per WP:UNDUE. We need to avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL ("first units have started to desert") and most definitely should avoid trying to create news. Of course if something else happens, then it might be worth putting it in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Friend translated, said "100 soldiers who were drafted during partial military mobilization deserted from two military units in Zhytomyr" —Львівське (говорити) 23:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As in, they were drafted, and about to be sent off to the front, but deserted before that could happen? RGloucester — ☎ 00:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

From ITAR-TASS (through Yandex translation):

In early March, appointed by the Verkhovna Rada acting President of Ukraine Turchynov has signed a decree on partial mobilization, according to which the troops were called about 20 thousand reservists. Then in the military registration of citizens assured that they will be demobilized after 10 days, but they still forced to keep in military units today.

So it sounds like these were reservists. That makes sense, since if you draft someone, it takes a few months to train them. – Herzen (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

My understanding now is that they were drafted but like Herzen said, they are to be demobilized after 10 days unless they are deployed or a state of emergency is declared. None of that was declared, but they were kept on base and not allowed to leave. They were left hanging in limbo so they got fed up and left. As someone mentioned to me, you can't hold presidential elections in a state of emergency so it seems they wanted to have their cake and eat it to (elections and reservists standing by on overtime).—Львівське (говорити) 01:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank makes relative sense. However, were they reservists or draftees? That's quite a big difference. RGloucester — ☎ 01:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Why would a Russian news agency know more about Ukrainian troops than the Zhytomyr regional administration? RGloucester — ☎ 00:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Russians do analysis, that's why. It's not clear from the Ukrainian reporting that the soldiers were reservists. All the Zhytomyr regional administration does is spitefully vent its rage. To quote from its statement:

In the conditions of the complicated military and political situation, at this time when the fate of Ukraine is being determined, these soldiers voluntarily left the location of military units, thus showing his indifferent attitude to the current state of the situation. To demonstrate their shameful act I ask to publish the lists in local and regional printed editions, to notify the authorities at their place of residence", - quotes Volkova website of the city Council

And remember, what we are talking about here is using a country's military against its own civilian population, which is a war crime. The second group that deserted did so on May 2, the day of the Odessa massacre. So the reason they failed to return to their duties appears to be that they were appalled by the behavior of their leaders. You won't read that in the Ukrainian press. – Herzen (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we can equally accuse Russian media of the same things you are accusing Ukrainian media. They have no interesting in portraying facts, merely making themselves look good. This isn't going in any article until an English-language source is provided. RGloucester — ☎ 01:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If they were recently drafted, that would mean that they were drafted since the draft was reinstated. (Yanukovych had abolished it.) So these desertions could be mentioned where the reinstatement of the draft is mentioned. The last paragraph of the article seems to mention that there were other desertions elsewhere, by the way. – Herzen (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I stopped reading at " we are talking about here is using a country's military against its own civilian population" - please keep the fantasy to a minimum if not out altogether.--Львівське (говорити) 01:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You forgot the "which is a war crime" part. Of course it is!.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Shooting on civilians?

http://news.yahoo.com/armed-men-eastern-ukraine-open-fire-crowd-202041099.html and http://news.yahoo.com/video/ukrainian-national-guard-shoot-pro-010426103.html Circumstances are not exactly clear, but it seems that armed Kiev's forces shoot on crowd(perhaps unarmed one) There are several Russian sources claiming this, but i provided only the 'western' ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.223.98 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This was already discussed, though I think at a different, related, article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, sorry then. Things are happening so fast that some times there are no exact 'relevant' articles- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.223.98 (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Joe Biden’s son Hunter to head legal unit at Ukraine’s largest private gas company-Washington Times

[11], as a son of one of the most notable politicians in USA, who agitated heavily on the side of Maidan, I believe this is notable enough to be included. —MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the unrest. RGloucester — ☎ 20:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

So? On the other side, Gerard Schröeder, the former German chancellor works for a German-Russian consortium (Nord Stream AG)[12]. So far, it's not a relevant information for this page.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said, none of this is relevant here, and this is WP:NOTFORUM. RGloucester — ☎ 00:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We do not agree with you RGloucester. It is called Kleptocracy, we witness the oligarch change.

• I don't see how any of this has anything to do with the present unrest in Ukraine? RGloucester — ☎ 06:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It's called Kleptocracy, Gloucester! Kleptocracy! --Львівське (говорити) 06:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I do, and so does MyMoloboaccount. Trying to be sarcastic? Or it's ok to be corrupt? This is kind of surreal, a appointment of the vice president's son to a Ukrainian oil board looks nepotistic at best, nefarious at worst. No matter how qualified Huter Biden may be, it ties into the idea that U.S. foreign policy is self-interested, and that is a narrative Vladimir Putin has pushed during Ukraine's crisis with references to Iraq and Libya. It clashes with the U.S. narrative that this is all about international law and human rights. But our opinions don't matter, right? ;-) In Germany "this incident sparked outrage" ("In Deutschland löste der Vorgang Empörung aus.": http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/vizepraesidenten-sohn-biden-us-personalie-droht-ukraine-krise-zu-verschaerfen/9893054.html) The important and _signifikanter Zusammenhang_ is so obvious that the "world press" is in consensus:

• http://www.comedonchisciotte.org/site/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=13368
• http://www.tokfm.pl/blogi/poprzeczka/2014/05/co_wiemy_o_burisma_holdings/1
• http://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/polska/news-kwasniewski-doradca-ukrainskiego-potentata,nId,1425700
• http://www.tvn24.pl/wiadomosci-ze-swiata,2/cypryjskie-akta-ukrainski-gaz-kwasniewski-w-spolce-czlowieka-janukowycza,428091.html
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/05/14/hunter-bidens-new-job-at-a-ukrainian-gas-company-is-a-problem-for-u-s-soft-power/
• http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303851804579560542284706288
• http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20140513-719123.html#
• http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/ukraine-gas-producer-appoints-r-hunter-biden-board-n105006
• http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/world/europe/biden-ukraine.html?_r=1
• http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/13/joe-bidens-son-hunter-head-legal-unit-ukraines-lar/
• http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/13/us-usa-biden-son-ukraine-idUSBREA4C0YU20140513
• http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/son-of-us-vice-president-biden-joins-ukraine-gas-company/500062.html
• http://thefederalist.com/2014/05/13/9-questions-to-ask-about-bidens-work-with-a-gas-company-in-ukraine/
• http://www.ibtimes.com/burisma-holdings-bidens-son-joins-ukraines-top-private-gas-company-1583881
• http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27403003
• http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Bidens-Son-Joins-Board-Of-Gas-Company-Linked-To-Ousted-Ukrainian-President.html
• http://notizie.tiscali.it/videonews/203813/Esteri/
• http://america24.com/news/figlio-di-biden-amico-della-famiglia-kerry-nel-cda-di-gruppo-ucraino-del-gas
• http://www.businessinsider.com/hunter-biden-joes-son-ukraine-gas-company-burisma-holdings-2014-5
• http://www.alterinfo.net/notes/En-Ukraine-le-fils-de-Joe-Biden-joint-l-utile-a-l-agreable_b6628444.html
• http://www.lopinion.fr/14-mai-2014/ukraine-plein-gaz-fils-joe-biden-12278
• http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2014-05/joe-biden-ukraine-gas-sohn-hunter-devon-archer-john-kerry
• http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/biden-und-ukraine-sohn-des-us-vizepraesidenten-arbeitet-fuer-gaskonzern-a-969348.html
• http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Biden-Sohn-wird-Gaslobbyist-in-der-Ukraine-article12830026.html
• http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/konflikte-biden-sohn-und-kwasniewski-arbeiten-fuer-ukrainische-gasfirma_id_3845501.html
• http://www.abendzeitung-muenchen.de/inhalt.polen-biden-sohn-und-kwasniewski-arbeiten-fuer-ukrainische-gasfirma.7e63f4a7-e9a0-4e17-87a5-ac0d8435a5da.html
• http://wirtschaftsblatt.at/home/nachrichten/europa_cee/3805415/Sohn-von-USVizepraesident-Biden-arbeitet-fur-ukrainische-Gasfirma
• http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/energie/article128016848/Ukrainische-Gasfirma-stellt-Sohn-von-Joe-Biden-ein.html
• http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/us-vizepraesident-biden-sohn-arbeitet-fuer-ukrainische-gasfirma/9892344.html
• http://www.20min.ch/ausland/news/story/29239748
• http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/14/ukraine-biden-gas.html
• http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/05/14/7025367/
• http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/another-biden-has-waded-into-the-ukraine-crisis-20140513

So please, RGloucester, do not delete other user's contributions for no reason.--91.10.34.209 (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• This is irrelevant to pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Note that this also involves WP:BLP. --Nug (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Other minorities

Where should we mention the issue of other minorities? I mean the title refers only to "pro-Russians". Thirty-nine Hungarian organizations in Transcarpathia made a statement in March in reference to their "demands".[13] The Hungarian Prime Minister also stands for Hungarian autonomy.[14][15][16][17]Fakirbakir (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That isn't particularly relavent here, and is a different topic all-together. I'd recommend putting it on the Transcarpathian Oblast page, or something like that. RGloucester — ☎ 16:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

what the heck is 'hungarian autonomy'? this looks more like a foreign policy demand separate from any real unrest in the region —Львівське (говорити) 21:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Mr Orban has been going on about giving ethnic Hungarians dual citizenship in Slovakia and Serbia for a while, and there have been various diplomatic skirmishes about it. He's a nationalist, of course, so he finds fun in pandering to those Hungarians who were left outside the state after the fall of the k.u.k. monarchy. Presumably he feels that the Ukraine crisis has given him an nice opportunity to put pressure on the Ukrainian government, as they are in a weak spot. So far, he hasn't been able to get the Slovaks to relent. RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It is going to be a misunderstanding. There is nothing new under the sun. Hungarian politicians have been saying these things for 25 years. Hungarian government aims to protect Hungarians living in the neighbouring countries.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

New figures

General Prosecutor's office released these figures [18]: 78 in Donbass killed so far by militants, 125 cases of hostage taking --Львівське (говорити) 21:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The term "hostage" is a value-laden label, like "terrorist". See the WP Manual of Style section WP:Label The Kiev government may describe its opponents as "terrorists" who take "hostages", rather than as an armed force which takes prisoners, but is it appropriate for WP to use words like "hostage" in its own voice? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

civilians cant be POWs, they are hostages. There is an ongoing hostage crisis and is reported as such by reliable sources in mainstream western media. This isn't a WP:Label issue or loaded term. --Львівське (говорити) 21:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Civilian prisoners are not POWs, true. They can be detainees. You say WP:Label does not apply here. Why does it not apply? And what the "reliable sources" you refer to in mainstream media? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"Hostage" is not a loaded term like "terrorist". It is a neutral word referring to holding civilians captive against their will. It is very much unlike "terrorist" which has no particular definition, and means different things to everyone. Please read the guideline you cited. It does not include the word hostage, and for good reason. Please also see our page on the matter: Hostage. Your suggestion of "detainees" is actually not something that the guideline would recommend, as it is merely a euphemism for what actually occurred, and does not covey the full meaning precisely. Please see WP:EUPHEMISM. RGloucester — ☎ 22:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It does not just refer to holding civilians against their will, it specifically refers to holding them against their will with specific threats to their well-being in order to compel another party to act in a certain manner. Have any such threats or demands actually been issued? If not, they're not hostages but POW's (which certainly can be non-combatants). That seems more like what is going on, given that generally they get interrogated and released after a while. That the guideline doesn't include the word is not really an argument, one can't expect it to include hundreds of words (that's why it includes an ellipsis at the end).B01010100 (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Or to put it differently, a hostage taking is "if you don't retreat your troops in 48 hours we will kill these people we have here", taking prisoners is "we have detained people on accusation of spying". Obviously the reality here is the latter, not the former.B01010100 (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Bottomline: how do reliable sources refer to those taken? As "hostages" or "detainees"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well that's the interesting thing, the word "hostage" only appears twice in the article. Once in the infobox where it is unsourced, and once in the section on arrests where it is said "was arrested on suspicion of planning to take a presidential candidate hostage" so not referring to anything actually happening. So the only relevant use is unsourced.B01010100 (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not unsourced if you had been paying attention to the massive "Hostages" section we have on the Sloviansk article. --Львівське (говорити) 22:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's stated in this article the statement should still also be sourced here.B01010100 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• LA Times: "Vyacheslav Ponomaryov, the gunman who has proclaimed himself mayor of Slovyansk, confirmed that his armed group was holding 10 hostages"
• VICE: " Ponomarev, who has a penchant for chucking troublesome journalists and activists in his basement prison said that, “now, in a time of war we don’t have time for hostages, we will kill them all.”
• Washington Post: "Taruta said he is in regular contact with the separatists, mainly over the issue of freeing hostages."
• Huffington Post: "ro-Russian militants held several Red Cross workers hostage "

As we can see, even the militant leaders call them hostages, on top of major sources --Львівське (говорити) 22:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, but do use one of those to source the infobox statement here. Though there does seem to be a precedent of not including hostage taking as a method in the infoboxes of Ukrainian internal trouble, the Euromaidan infobox for example doesn't contain it (yet we have also major reliable sources stating the detainment of police officers as such).B01010100 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The police officers weren't taken hostage, though. They were captured during fighting for a few hours then released. Kind of different from abducting Red Cross workers at a Red Cross building, dont you think? --Львівське (говорити) 23:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

They weren't captured during fighting, they were already back in their bus vacating the square when the bus was attacked and stopped from leaving (it was the last bus to leave after the fight was over). It was a specific action to detain them, not a side-effect in the middle of a fight - with the express intent to use them as hostages for a hostage-swap with the people detained by police (only after intervention by other protesters was it decided to release them with an accompanying statement expecting a likewise release of protesters held by police, ie still essentially an expected hostage-swap). In any case, we have major news media also referring to them as hostages, and we are still supposed to go by what the sources say. In any case, putting the infoboxes next to eachother does show a certain bias, other than hacktivism and referenda, which are specific to only one, the other points mentioned apply to both in some degree yet Euromaidan's box is restricted to the "nice" ones and this one restricted to the "criminal" ones.B01010100 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You're comparing wide-spread admitted hostage taking to, as I said, those captured during fighting. That they were on a bus is irrelevant as they were still in the streets of the capital nonetheless and there solely for the purpose of the conflict. Would you call those arrested 'hostages' too? That would obviously be a biased phrasing. Likewise, do any sources refer to the temporarily captured riot troops as 'hostages' or is this just your interpretation? That one side looks worse/better than the other shouldn't be an issue, we're not here to level the playing field so that each side looks better/worse to make everyone happy, just reflect reality. --Львівське (говорити) 00:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course reliable sources are calling them hostages, that's been my point here. Apparently there were also some who were captured while sleeping in one of the houses, hardly what you'd call "during fighting". For instance [19]. Yes we're here to reflect reality, and if you compare the infoboxes you can see a clear bias not because "we should level the playing field" but in what aspects have been chosen to be put in as methods and which not, given that there are plenty of reliable sources attributing essentially all those methods to both.B01010100 (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

LLLLLLL Have any reliable sources called the police captives "hostages"? Was it an isolated incident? It seems you're splitting hairs here to right perceived wrongs (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS) - also, the Revolution article is entirely separate from this incident altogether, and other articles don't matter, focus on this one (WP:OTHERTHINGS) --Львівське (говорити) 02:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with the Euromaidan article. If you'd like to fix something there, and put in "hostage taking" with a reliable source, be my guest. That has no relevance on this article. RGloucester — ☎ 00:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The Euromaidan infobox is only half of the issue, this infobox is the other half. For example we have in the Euromaidan infobox "civil resistance" as a method but not here. But here we've also had plenty of instances of that, and quite important ones, for instance crowds surrounding military vehicles to stop them from advancing (pretty much exactly the same thing as what led to it being included in the Euromaidan infobox).B01010100 (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, add what you want to the info box, if it is sourced, and no one will complain. Instead of whining, fix the problem if there is one. RGloucester — ☎ 01:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Under these circumstances, I don't think you can automatically assume that news media are reliable sources. You have both the trans-Atlantic media and the Russian media in full-throated war propaganda mode, and it is too early to have reliable scholarly sources on these events. So the only option is to edit as responsibly and neutrally as possible, and try to avoid invoking the media as authorities. Joe Bodacious (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

are you honestly saying that Ponomarev himself calling the hostages he took "hostages" implies some sort of "full throated propaganda"?? --Львівське (говорити) 23:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Well... you can take up the idea that standard news media are not reliable at the WP:RSN. Good luck with that. "Invoking media as authorities" is usually referred to as "using reliable sources" (provided of course that the media we're talking about are RS).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Detainees" is utterly unacceptable under WP:EUPHEMISM. Either "prisoners" or "hostages" must be used. Reliable sources tend to use "hostage", in my experience. Any questions about not using reliable sources is a bunch of nonsense, and we've had this debate before. Ukrainian and Russian sources are not used without verification in western sources or attribution. Western sources that are known to be reliable are considered reliable still. RGloucester — ☎ 23:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-neutral title

The title implies that all demonstrators in Ukraine are pro-Russian, which, as they say, assumes facts not in evidence. The body of the article does not rule out that some demonstrators simply oppose the new government. Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

nearly all sources call the insurgents "pro-Russian" and all of the protests that started this article were also "pro-Russian" with the "Rossiya" chants and Russian flag planting. From this we now have two self-declared states that want to join Russia. While not unanimous, 'pro-Russian' describes 95% of what's happening. —Львівське (говорити) 22:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources describe them as such, so do we. Furthermore, as I've pointed out multiple times, "pro-Russian" does not necessarily mean "separatist". It merely means they have a more favourable view of Russia than they do of the EU. I provide dictionary definitions above. Please stop, with the nonsense. RGloucester — ☎ 23:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

for example, some may simply want greater or sustained economic ties with Russia. If Euromaidan was pro-EU and this is the backlash, it's pretty far flung in scope. --Львівське (говорити) 23:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see how the title isn't neutral, as it accurately describes the situation in Eastern and Southern Ukraine (as stated by reliable sources) in non-judgmental terms. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The situation isn't just in "eastern Ukraine". It also includes southern Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 01:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've edited my comment to reflect the fact that there is also unrest occurring in Southern Ukraine, although this does not change my point regarding the appropriateness of the title. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

How about we rename the page to Novorossiya conflict or New Russia conflict or something similar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.225.181.211 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Requesting comments on Sanction section and User:RGloucester edit warring

As this article is under discretionary sanctions, which presumably are not lenient on edit warring, I request a review of User:RGloucester edits in the following incident:

• having read the sources in the tiny Sanction section, I've noticed that the cited source only supported the claim that sanctions have been levvied against Russia and I amended the section per sources given, in line of WP:V: [20]
• RGloucester reverts my edit: [21] with an assertion that as far as I can tell is not supported by sources "Incorrect. Ukrainians not supportive of Euromaidan have been sanctioned as well.
• I restore my edit, pointing out that sources don't support his/her claim: [22]
• RGloucester reverts again: [23], edit summary "List of individuals sanctioned during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. A lot of former Yanuk government guys, and other pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians"

As far as I see it, RGloucester is starting to edit war while supporting a version of the article clearly not supported by sources and our policies. First, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Reliable, external sources should be cited, not Wikipedia lists, and those sources do not support a version s/he restores.

Second, this section is woefully inadequate; for example the sentence about Russian sanctions against US is NOT supported by source given. I started expanding it, but I run into an edit conflict with RGloucester. Per WP:BRD I would like to ask RGloucester and others to comment on which version is preferable: mine or his/hers. Below I also include the draft of an improved section, with refs supporting the fact that Russians have issued some sanctions, and also mentions of Canada issuing sanctions to Russia. I'd have expanded if further if I didn't have to spend ten minutes writting this section, which sapped my time and will to do more mainspace editing here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

On April 28 the United States, soon followed by the [[European Union]] and [[Canada]], began to [[Economic sanctions|sanction]] Russian individuals and companies that they said were related to the crisis.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/world/asia/obama-sanctions-russia.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0 | title=U.S. Announces More Sanctions Against Russia | work=The New York Times | date=28 April 2014 | accessdate=28 April 2014}}</ref><ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10826465/Ukraine-crisis-EU-expand-sanction-list-to-keep-pressure-on-Russia.html</ref><ref name=tass>http://en.itar-tass.com/world/730965</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=http://en.ria.ru/world/20140428/189430922/US-Imposes-Sanctions-on-7-Russians-17-Russian-Companies---White.html | title=US Imposes Sanctions on 7 Russians, 17 Russian Companies | work=Russian News & Information Agency | date=28 April 2014 | accessdate=28 April 2014}}</ref> The Russian government responded in kind with sanctions against some American and Canadian individuals.<ref name=tass/>

• Oh, dear lord. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. I have no concern with adjusting sourcing, or whatever. However, it is quite clear that Yanukovych isn't a Russian, is he? He is not. And yet, we know he was sanctioned, along with many other Ukrainians. I am content to add sources, but in the meantime, it is hardly appropriate to say that only Russians have been sanctioned. RGloucester — ☎ 03:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Here you go, dear fellow! Direct from the American administration itself! Do you see some Ukrainians here? Yes? Okay, so now you can rewrite what you like, but you can do so without being misleading! RGloucester — ☎ 03:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

OH, and thirdly, I did not write or touch that section. Please do not call it "my version", as if somehow I am responsible for this article and its content. I merely objected to introduction of the word "Russian" when I knew that was a false to include it. RGloucester — ☎ 03:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia:Verifiability not truth. The sources cited state that Russians have been sanctioned, to say otherwise is OR. Now, yes, you are right that pro-Russian Ukrainians (Ukrainian citizens?) have been sanctioned by US/EU/West too, but we need to provide sources for that. I was simply trying to bring the section in line with its own sources, per fact checking, and my attempt to expand it with more information run into EC due to your reverts. If you'd like to for us to collaborate on this and improve this section, perhaps you could start by restoring my edits, or better, inserting the proposed version above. You are of course welcome to improve it further, but please find appropriate sources. I may help, if I have a reason to believe that my further edits are not simply going to be reverted, even if they are supported by sources, because someone believes they are not "true". Deal? PS. Regarding your new ref, it seems reliable to warrant stating that the sanction include one former Ukrainian official (president)/still a Ukrainian citizen? and two officials of the Republic of Crimea whose citizenship and nationality is not clear from the source. Viktor Medvedchuk's nationality/citizenship is not given in the source, and all others are clearly Russian officials/citizens. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest in playing games here. I do not appreciate your officious tone. Cite as many policies and essays as you wish, this could have easily been resolved if you'd taken five seconds to familiarise yourself with the actual situation with regard to sanctions before making a misleading edit. I was not defending the existing version. I was merely stopping a misleading edit. It is better to have a temporarily unsourced but correct version, than to have a misleading. So no, I don't buy into your "verifiability, not truth" nonsense, and I shan't do. I could've provided sources in two seconds and rewrote in properly, which is what I was going to do. Now, however, I'm just going to go away for awhile so I don't have to be assaulted by bureaucratic nonsense. Next time one would like to express a concern, perhaps with take more care for what one is saying. RGloucester — ☎ 03:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I will not comment on your attitude, per WP:NPOV, through I am sad to see you are not willing to accept my peace offering. You've been doing many good edits here, and whether you believe it or not, I do respect you for your edits here (sans the last few) and I thank you for them. Being so active on so contentious topics is stressful, and I understand it well. If you don't see why reverting edits that are merely fact-checking sources and bringing their claims in line with them is a problem, then perhaps you need a break. Drink some WP:TEA and come back when you are more in the mood to collaborate. I have expanded the section with sources that hopefully address some of your concerns, through it would be good if we could find better sources clarifying the nature of Ukrainian citizenship/nationality of those sanctioned; current sources make it clear that the sanction from US/EU include Russian officials, individuals and companies, and some former Ukrainian officials of unclear nationality and citizenship. I tried my best to clarify it based on references provided. Cheers, —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You are not doing yourself any favours with that officious tone of yours. I find it hard to believe that an experienced editor would "only use the sources provided", and would be too dense to actually look for other sources to confirm what he is saying (anyone familiar with the crisis knows that Ukrainians were sanctioned, and a cursory Google search would've given you plenty of sources). In fact, I'm fairly certain that this was a typical attempt to push a point-of-view, so you can spare me the long-winded responses. I will hear none of it. Farewell. RGloucester — ☎ 04:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there's another policy you'd do well to familiar yourself with: WP:AGF. I am sure you now it well, in fact, but I am assuming you are just tired of dealing with trolls and POV-pushers here, and it starts to slip your mind. This is dangerous, see my essay on this here. So please, take a long breath and think about your attitude. Per my prior comment I am not going to comment on your behavior other than to say that I believe you should WP:REFACTOR your comments about me, as they reflect more on you than me, and I don't believe they do it well. Cheers, —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, dear fellow, but you don't get to tell me how to behave. It is very, very difficult to assume good faith when accused of a so-called "edit war" without even breaking the 3RR, and furthermore, a so-called "edit war" to remove a serious error that you were inserting into the text. That error would've compromised the article's NPOV, as it implied that many Ukrainians, and even the former Ukrainian government, was not Ukrainian, but Russian. Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds? Absolutely so, and it sounds like nationalist tosh. Instead of taking the time to read my edit summary, and perhaps Google search the matter and find that, yes, Ukrainians have been sanctioned, you greeted me with a giant block bureaucratic nonsense on the talk page. No one is going to respond well to that. No one. I'm not going to tolerate high-and-mighty behaviour, so as I said, spare me the nonsense and get on with whatever it is that you get on with. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. RGloucester — ☎ 05:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I will tell you how to behave in one respect: follow the project policies. If you don't like this, take it up with others and see if the community will give you an exemption. Per our core policy outlined at WP:UNSOURCED, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source... Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article." I was merely fact-checking the refs, which at that time did not confirm any claims that non-Russians were sanctioned. That you know better doesn't matter, you saying so is irrelevant, what is true is irrelevant as we are not in the business of determining truth, but covering what reliable sources are saying. The WP:BURDEN is not on an me but on you as an editor who wants to argue for something not covered by the sources then-present. Reverting my edits twice with an edit summary in essence saying "I know better" is an invitation to a disruptive edit war that I declined instead posting here. You should've instead presented better sources by expanding the section or posting them here. Instead, I did so, while you continue to rail here about being right - even through you were wrong on numerous counts: 1) on restoring versions violating WP:V, 2) on not following WP:BRD, 3) on not respecting WP:NPA/WP:AGF. Eh, I could go on but I am done here. The section is improved and stable, editors interesting in improving it are discussing content below, this quarrel is pointless. I repeat my suggestion that you WP:REFACTOR your comments here, I am also fine with our discussion being collapsed as it is now a useless exercise of childish finger pointing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, putting aside all the personal stuff and just looking at the content dispute in question - the question is how to best describe the sanctions. It's true that initially the sources only supported the claim that "Russian" individuals and companies were subject of these. It's also true that the sanctions were actually levied at a broader group of people and organizations. Basically what is needed - and I did add a sort of primary source to that effect - is to add a ref which support the actually existing case.

There is a bit of a more controversial question here, and that's how to refer/describe sanctions against Crimean officials. They were Ukrainian nationals and technically, since the sanction-levying entities do not recognize the annexation of Crimea by Russia, still are. But I'm sure someone will come along and argue that now they're "Russians". Anyway, I'm sure there's some phrasing which should be satisfactory and which can dodge the issue - like specifically referring to them as "pro-Russian" or "separatist" "Crimean officials" or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Europe/US can not see Crimea as part of Russia but that doesn't preclude all of those officials from now being legal Russian citizens with Russian passports now (or at the time of sanctions, depending) --Львівське (говорити) 06:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there any concerns about neutrality of inaccurate facts? I tried to use wording which is both neutral and accurate, through I am sure it can be improved, particularly with an expansion; the section is still rather short. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Lvivske, if I'm correct about how this works, technically they're now legally both Russian and Ukrainian citizens. More to the point at hand, I don't think the former Yanukovich government officials covered by the sanctions have accepted Russian citizenship (if they did that might throw a wrench in any plans to put them back in power).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

English speaking foreigners (Blackwater soldiers)

What do we know about the participation of English speaking foreigners in Ukraine? Shall we mention them in the article? According to Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin: "He rounded on Kiev and its Western allies, accusing the United States of “blatant” double standards and claiming that English-speaking foreigners were interfering on the ground." [24][25] Fakirbakir (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Several German-speaking media ,Bild,Spiegel,Die Welt reveal the presence of 400 US mercenaries of Blackwater(Securiti Academy). http://www.standartnews.com/english/read/bild_am_sonntag_400_elite_us_commandos_help_kiev_in_ukraine-3612.html http://www.naftemporiki.gr/story/807351/oukrania-kai-amerikanoi-misthoforoi-stis-maxes-enantia-stous-filorosous (Greek speaking media covering the same story ) The infobox should change to show the presence of US foreigners actively engaged in the war at the eastern part of the country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.172.110 (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The German sources and Russian media are fake. My understanding now that I've gone over this ad nauseam is that there was a German security press conference, Bild reported on it (and questions were asked about what RIA / Russian media was saying about Blackwater involvement, which were rebuked by Germany) and then DW/DS reported that Bild reported on it (Bild has no record of this article on their website). Russian news them picked up on it citing that it's in the German press. Really ugly game of telephone. Even if we had this original Bild report, would a tabloid like Bild pass the reliable source sniff test? --Львівське (говорити) 15:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's a copy-paste of a convo we recently had, more appropriate having it on this article's talk: Does this source check out? [26] --Львівське (говорити) 19:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say so, yes, as long as attribution is given. RGloucester — ☎ 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

the more I look the more the IB Times India link above the more it looks like an RT copy paste job. No article in the US or UK editions is suspect to me..UK says "Russia Today is repeating claims made in the German Bild am Sonntag newspaper that US mercenaries from Academi (formerly Blackwater) are helping Ukrainian forces around Slaviansk." and here is the RT article the IB Times India one is based on it seems. Your thoughts? --Львівське (говорити) 19:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to retrosearch for the Die Welt article that the original sites, I found this [http://www.welt.de/newsticker/dpa_nt/infoline_nt/thema_nt/article127870199/US-Sicherheitsfirma-Academi-bestreitet-Einsatz-in-Ukraine.html - Academi denies and they deny the report from the "Bild am Sonntag" tabloid. --Львівське (говорити) 19:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say that, given the coverage in the IB Times, regardless of sourcing, it would be worth it to discuss the claims in the article, along with the original German source and the denial by Academi. RGloucester — ☎ 19:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

even though IBTI lied? Does the India Edition have the same "RS" factor as the US/UK version would? —Львівське (говорити) 20:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Presumably it does have the same "RS factor", though that's not a question for me, but for the RS noticeboard. However, I'm more thinking that the best way to deal with this that keeps cropping up is to place it in the article and provide adequate refutation, rather than to keep removing it. RGloucester — ☎ 20:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the original source for this story so I have nothing to directly source or quote. Bild.de has no mention of it but Google is showing up for "bild academi" mostly things like infowars and voiceofrussia. Reddit thread seems to denounce it [27] as coming from a "notorious tabloid" that should come with a grain of salt. It's clear to me now that this original story got spun out and re-sourced to give it credibility (DW or DS, or as RT called it "German media" altogether) but do we credit a tabloid article second hand in a wiki? —Львівське (говорити) 20:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the best way to deal with it is this:

American mercenary firm Academi denied reports that they had been operating in Ukraine.

With a link to [28]… RGloucester — ☎ 20:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm being told now that Bild didn't start the story, it came from RIA originally [29]. So Russian news started the story and then through a game of international telephone, RT reported "German media" was the source. Clever. —Львівське (говорити) 21:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You're confusing two seperate instances of these claims. In april it was reported in Russian sources that Blackwater was involved, without giving evidence and it not being picked up in Western sources. Then in may, over a month later, Bild reported on German intelligence stating Blackwater involvment, which was then reported in pretty much every Western-European newspaper. It's not a case of circular attribution, it's a case of Russian claims without evidence not being picked up in Western sources and later the same claims by German intelligence that has been picked up by Western sources. The original Bild article on German intelligence claims is not available online (not all their articles go on the website), which is why you're not finding it, as has already been stated in the section on it above. Plenty of other sources reporting on it though, as has also been stated in that section.B01010100 (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

My understanding from one who has read the article is that it was BS. Surely its available somewhere? Bild makes no mention of this overbearing claims in its more recent article I posted below, and admits its speculation. --Львівське (говорити) 15:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Bild is not the same as Bild am Sonntag, Bild am Sonntag is a sister newspaper to Bild (Bild is the daily newspaper, Bild am Sonntag is the weekly sunday newspaper). They are seperate organisations, Bild am Sonntag is not available as an online edition.B01010100 (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Someone reading it may think it is BS, but the fact is that the story has been carried by essentially every newspaper in Western-Europe, and we are supposed to go by the sources. If major reliable sources consider it reliable enough to reprint it then it's not really up to us to second-guess that.B01010100 (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Bild am Sonntag is nontheless a Sunday tabloid and does have a website. --Львівське (говорити) 19:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Its website just redirects to the normal Bild website, but it doesn't seem that its articles are available there either.B01010100 (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Tricky on their part. This whole thing gives me a headache. RGloucester — ☎ 21:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The White House categorically denies these accusations, however the the chancellor’s office and the German intelligence service have declined to either confirm or deny (the allegations) [30]. Anyway some says the number is not 400 but only 100 mercenaries.(e.g. [31]) Fakirbakir (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Bild article

This was released yesterday so now we have something to work with [32]: "Since the release of the videos is speculated time and again that mercenary support the pro-Western Ukrainian government." Bild seems to only discuss their previous article [33] from March where they speculate on internet rumors and a video. --Львівське (говорити) 15:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I wish you have the same reluctance to incorporate any single BS in written in nationalist papers of western Ukraine...You are easy at rejecting the incorporation in this article info from western and other media just because you do not like the content .Also this expression I'm being told now that ... is at least ridiculous....

Situation is easy.Russian media claim this to be true. This of course does not necessarily means...it is true.

However when western media repeat the same claim...guess what? It is TRUE. Deal with it.

Now what about this demonstration in Lvov http://sunskay.com/post324519902/ . Is it anti-gov? Or should be classified as 'pro russian too?? (i hope you do understand the irony...)Because the whole term pro-Russian is a huge mistake. Many people dislike the current Kiev government but this does not necessarily implies that they want their country to disintegrate... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.243.88 (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. --Львівське (говорити) 04:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

US OSCE response

This has now been addressed [34]

This is categorically false. We have been able to trace this rumor to a series of Kremlin-sponsored websites that put out a photograph that is indeed either of police or private security contractors. The Internet is a wonderful thing, and eventually people can find out where photographs come from; so it didn't take long for somebody to produce the original photograph, which was actually taken in New Orleans, Louisiana, and had been doctored to remove the fast-food signs and make it look like it might be in the street in an unnamed place. But the allegations that there are somehow "U.S. mercenaries" operating in Ukraine are false.

--Львівське (говорити) 04:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

He isn't an OSCE fellow, just to be clear. He is the American ambassador to the OSCE. RGloucester — ☎ 04:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

correct --Львівське (говорити) 15:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

more on the mercs [35]

So now, the propagandists are trying to clean the story up — they’ve decided to go with “400″ — 150 or 300 probably sounded too meager (although the more they inflate the number, the more we’re going to ask why ordinary townspeople haven’t noticed these Americans). They also decided to give the story a more “credible” source than the Russian Foreign Ministry, which is likely to be biased on this subject — and have made the source be a German newspaper quoting German intelligence — although of course, no such claim has been made by the real German authorities:

So what’s the source for the story in Bild am Sonntag? Oh, it’s a story in the German version of RIA Novosti that takes us back to the same 7 April story we started with last month. It’s illustrated with a photo with the caption, “Kiev sends Blackwater mercenaries to suppress the protests in eastern Ukraine. But multiple other sources identify the fighters in battered old helmets as separatists in Slavyansk. Back to the drawing board.

Circular regurgitation. Case closed. --Львівське (говорити) 15:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Just because one source with a political agenda (the source is "committed to the advancement of democratic values and institutions in the Russian Federation"[36]) claims that a previous article is the source for the report doesn't make it true. Especially since they're not giving any evidence whatsoever, just saying "there's been another claim about mercenaries before therefor the Bild article has used that as a source", even though the Bild article itself claims German intelligence as a source.B01010100 (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to do better than that before you can close the case. At this point you're up against pretty much every source in Western Europe, if you're going to claim that they've all been "hoaxed" (yet none of them retracting the story) you need something better than a single source with an agenda.B01010100 (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Counter-offensive vs. POV "Ukrainian offensive"

The first user who changed it to 'offensive' did so because they thought the militants werent "offensive" so there was nothing to "counter", which was an insanely biased and surreal interpretation of the events. Then Herzen, who has made his pro-Russian position pretty clear, reverted to this version calling "counter" biased. No sources were given but he did say BBC supported this position.

Well we know it's officially called the "Counter-terror Operation" or CTO, but what do reliable sources call it?

• NBC - 'counter-offensive'
• Al Jazeera - 'counteroffensive'
• IB Times - 'counter offensive'
• New Yorker - 'counter-offensive'
• TIME - 'counteroffensive'
• VOX - 'counter-offensive'
• France24 - 'counter-offensive'
• Guardian - 'counter-offensive'
• Financial Times - 'counteroffensive'

I respectfully ask this be returned to the neutral and consensus formed version that is widely supported in the media. The 'biased' version was "counter-terrorism". To imply Ukraine went ton an offensive is part of the fantastical POV that the militants are innocent civilians who never attacked anyone or something equally absurd. --Львівське (говорити) 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It is reliably described as such, and the government operation was countering the occupation of buildings by insurgents. It would be illogical to say otherwise. RGloucester — ☎ 19:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Counter-insurgency would be a better term. —Nug (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't second guess the AP, Reuters, and the NY Times. That is beneath you. – Herzen (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. Counter-insurgency implies an insurgency that counters the existing insurgency, for example, the pro-Ukraine militias that are forming. Yes, there is such a thing as a "counter-insurgency" operation, but that's different than a "counter-insurgency" plainly. Regardless, it isn't used by sources, as far as I can see. RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No, "counter-insurgency" is what governments do to quell an "insurgency". —Nug (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be a "counter-insurgency" operation. "Counter-insurgency" itself is ambiguous. Anyway, sources have not said "counter-insurgency". RGloucester — ☎ 20:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• 'Many dead' in Ukraine offensive in Sloviansk - Turchynov (BBC)
• Ukraine presses offensive in east as US warns Russia on sanctions (Stars and Stripes)
• A Ukrainian military offensive against separatist militia groups (Business Week)
• the Ukrainian government, however, has said it will not stop its offensive to retake eastern cities (San Jose Mercury News)
• The Ukrainian leader also said the government would not stop its offensive (Waterloo Record)
• The Ukrainian government, however, has said it will not stop its offensive to retake eastern cities (Ha'aretz)
• Ukrainian forces have mounted an offensive (Houston News)
• the Ukrainian government continues its offensive to rout pro-Russian separatists (Wall Street Journal)
• the offensive has made no progress and alienated many of Donetsk’s people with a series of bungled or bloody operations (Daily Telegraph
• Ukraine launched an offensive against separatist forces for control of a besieged eastern city Friday (Canada.com – AP)
• Ukraine's Western-backed government has vowed to press ahead with a military offensive (Reuters)
• the appearance of Ukrainian military vehicles flying Russian flags was a “breakthrough” for the Ukrainian offensive (NY Times)

The BBC, AP, Reuters, and the NY Times all use "offensive", so that should settle the matter. Plus, if you're not invading someone else's territory, you're not mounting an offensive; and if have only small arms, you couldn't mount an offensive even if you wanted to. The Kiev regime in contrast is launching repeated military operations against its own people using APCs, tanks, and mortars. This is clearly an offensive; there is nothing to "counter". And I am not "pro-Russian: I am pro-democracy. Like the rebels in the east and south, I can understand that a government which came into power through an illegal coup, with the physical violence producing the coup being provided by neo-Nazis (Right Sector), should not be recognized. You on the other hand are definitely pro-Ukrainian, since you have made remarks like "Crimea is and always will be Ukrainian." – Herzen (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You said it yourself: "if you're not invading someone else's territory, you're not mounting an offensive" - the Donetsk separatists (made up primarily of Russian cossacks and paramilitaries) invaded Ukrainian territory, ergot it is an offensive.--Львівське (говорити) 20:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The people and Donetsk and Lugansk are protecting their own land from an illegal neo-Nazi regime. No evidence has ever been provided that there are any Russian citizens involved.

If you can't muster even a modicum of objectivity, you should not be editing these articles.

In any case, the top news outlets all use "offensive", so there should be no debate here. – Herzen (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The term is not ambiguous at all, read the article counter-insurgency. Offensives and/or defensive operations are undertaken within a counter-insurgency. There are tons of sources that call it a counter-insurgency[37], while other news reports on the particular offensive operations. --Nug (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen, "protecting their own land from an illegal neo-Nazi regime" - your objectivity and POV pushing is becoming quite obvious now with such ludicrous statements. Also, there is plenty of evidence that Russian citizens are the core of the Donbass People's Militia, especially Girkin, Mozhaev, and Evgeny Ponomarev.--Львівське (говорити) 20:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

NY Times: Behind the Masks in Ukraine, Many Faces of Rebellion

The rebels of the 12th Company appear to be Ukrainians but, like many in the region, have deep ties to and affinity for Russia. They are veterans of the Soviet, Ukrainian or Russian Armies, and some have families on the other side of the border. Theirs is a tangled mix of identities and loyalties.

The NY Times was not able to find any evidence that there are Russian troops in Ukraine. Assertions that there are Russian citizens in Ukraine helping the Ukrainian insurgents are just crude propaganda from the Kiev central government and/or USG. – Herzen (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Your sources are extremely out of date, then. Keep up. --Львівське (говорити) 21:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't think that you have any reliable sources indicating that Russian citizens are part of the Ukrainian insurgency. – Herzen (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Igor Girkin. --Nug (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I wrote an entire section on verified Russian involvement [38]. Maybe Herzen just conveniently ignored every one of these pages. --Львівське (говорити) 01:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

They would not have launched the operation if there were not people occupying the buildings, hence, they launched the operation for the sake of "countering" those people. I don't know why this is hard to understand. It has nothing to do with who is fighting who or why. It doesn't matter if they are Russian or Ukrainians or Donbassians. It really doesn't! What matters is the chain of events in terms of history. And the chain is simple: occupation of buildings by protesters/insurgents/activists, counter-offensive by government. RGloucester — ☎ 20:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Occupying buildings is not a military operation. Trying to take territory with tanks and APCs is. Nobody said that peace protesters from the 1960s mounted an offensive when they occupied buildings. When police cleared out Occupy Wall Street, nobody called that a counter-offensive. You're being very silly. – Herzen (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The people occupying the buildings had AK-47s, camouflage, masks, and so forth. This is widely attested by OSCE monitors. No one at Occupy Wall Street had Ak-47s, as far as I know, nor did they wear camouflage! RGloucester — ☎ 20:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You say "they launched the operation for the sake of "countering" those people", yet these people are called "insurgents", therefore if the government is "countering" those people", then it is a counter-insurgency. A "counter-insurgency" is the wider campaign within which offensive operations are undertaken. --Nug (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to add the word "insurgent" where it isn't needed. RGloucester — ☎ 20:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources also call government operations against insurgents a counter-insurgency, reason enough. There are also defensive operations like setting up road checkpoints and fortifying buildings, in addition to offensive operations which is more widely reported, all part of the wider counter-insurgency campaign. —Nug (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Concise OED: counteroffensive ▪ n. an attack made in response to one from an enemy.

The rebels/insurgents made no attacks on Ukrainian forces. Local police chose to yield the buildings to the rebels. It doesn't matter whether the rebels were armed or not. – Herzen (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, an attack, singular. Counter-insurgency comprises of a number of attacks or offensives. --Nug (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Provide a list of sources. I read the NY Times in print and the BBC online everyday, and I haven't seen anything about a "counter-insurgency". RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources use counter-offensive and they say its against insurgents. Both terms are used, but not joined together. It's not OR to join them, as its factual and obvious, but CI isn't the most used term in the media.--Львівське (говорити) 20:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Four times more sources using counter-insurgency772 hits than counter-offensive169 hits --Nug (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Offensive: 169.000 hits – Herzen (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

An offensive is generally taken to mean a single operation. We are talking about the wider campaign comprising of many operations. --Nug (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Let's put it another way. Insurgents launch offensives against the government, numerous offensives form an insurgency. The government launch counter-offensives against the insurgents, numerous counter-offensives form a counter-insurgency. --Nug (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Counter offensive and counter-insurgency both sound good and accurate to me, and as you've pointed out CI is in fact widely used. I wouldn't be opposed to using it. My issue with the topic was censoring the "counter" part to frame Ukraine as the initial aggressors. --Львівське (говорити) 21:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "counter" is accurate reflection of the fact that these Moscow-backed terrorists initiated the violence. --Nug (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

They are not Moscow backed. Putin asked them not to hold the autonomy referendums. Kiev and NATO have been able to provide no evidence that the pro-democracy rebels receive backing from Moscow. And your calling anti-fascists "terrorists" is just Orwellian. If you read reports about what the residents of Donetsk and Luhansk say, it is the Kiev central government that is terrorizing them, not the pro-federalism/democracy rebels. – Herzen (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct to call the anti-Kiev rebels insurgents, because the Kiev putsch regime never controlled the territory of southeastern Ukraine to begin with. So the rebels really are the equivalent of Occupy Wall Street. The reason they seem different is because the central government is in disarray. The rebels did not use violence to take over government buildings, and many people manning checkpoints are unarmed. That is not how insurgents typically behave. – Herzen (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This is your own skewed POV and original research. Also, Kiev putsch regime is laughable Kremlin rhetoric with no place in these encyclopedic articles. Also, your claim that the rebels have no used violence is a flat out lie and all editors here know it since we are all aware of their violent crimes, killings, etc.--Львівське (говорити) 21:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

One difference between you and me as WP editors is that I keep my point of view out articles (there's no rule against expressing POV in Talk pages), whereas all of your editing of Ukrainian articles is nothing but POV pushing. Hence this new Talk section. – Herzen (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester: I see that you reverted the article with this edit, with the summary, "Restore last neutral version". In the process, you undid my edit which is being discussed in this Talk section. As far as I can tell, that is a clear violation of WP rules. This makes it difficult for my continuing to apply AGF to you. With your edit summary, you in effect said that employing the language used by the BBC, AP, Reuters, and the NY Times is not neutral. I am at a loss for words. – Herzen (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: If you look at the edit, you will notice that I was removing the word "murder" from the infobox under "methods". That's an edit I'm sure you'll approve of. RGloucester — ☎ 23:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea of what point you are trying to make. If your sole intent was to remove "murder" from the infobox, you would have reverted to this revision by me. If you admit that you made a mistake, I'll drop the matter. – Herzen (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to remove "murder" from the infobox, as that is inherently un-neutral, as I'm sure you are aware. I was using Twinkle, and I suppose your edits got eaten in the process. I'm not dumb enough, I hope, however, to remove edits being discussed on the talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 00:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad this page has been protected for a while. There was too much non-sense being edited. Concerning to "counter-offensive", "Ukrainian offensive" or "counter-insurgency", the following words are used in other Wikipedia pages about civil conflicts: Syrian Civil War: "government counteroffensive"; Colombian conflict: "counter-guerrilla"; Congolese Civil War (Kivu conflict): "government offensive". Anyway, the most common word that has been used to describe it in the English-speaking media, at least is counter-offensive. I think it's neutral enough.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine is not yet in a state of war, so the situation in Ukraine is not comparable to that in Syria. Your comparing the Ukrainian anti-putsch resistance to Salafist terrorists is highly offensive. The Ukrainian resistance has peacefully taken over public buildings; it does not bomb people, as the Syrian foreign-manned insurgency does, or burn people alive in buildings, as the National Guard/Right Sector does.

And as I noted above in detail, the term that is most commonly used by far in the English speaking media is "offensive", because "counter-offensive" in this case doesn't make any sense. There is no need to abuse the English language in English WP. – Herzen (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The Syrian Civil War involves the government, Kurds, secular (including Christians) and salafist insurgents. It's not that simple. And I actually meant 3 conflicts, not only the Syrian conflict. I can also mention the Karen conflict in Myanmar (Burma), the Tibetans and Uyghurs in the People's Republic of China, Darfur in Sudan, etc, if you wish. Concerning to the abuse of English language in English WP... well, it's the Wikipedia in English, I don't think it's the most ideal place for abusing Spanish, Chinese or Hindi.,Herzen. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"Counter-offensive" is used plenty in the media. As I said above, "peaceful" is in the eye of the beholder. It is hard to call someone peaceful when they are in full combat gear with AK-47s. The OSCE calls them "militants". Militants do not peacefully takeover anything. I do not under how you can feel that armed men occupying government buildings isn't an assault upon the state. It is. And so, the government launched a counter-offensive to remove them from the government's property. It isn't hard to understand. RGloucester — ☎ 00:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The Ukrainian state stopped existing when the legitimate Ukrainian government was overthrown with an armed coup. Why do you think a "National Guard" is needed? Because most people in the Ukrainian military do not see the putsch government as legitimate, and because they are not willing to kill fellow Ukrainians. A real, legitimate state does not have to resort to assembling armed militias on the fly out of armed neo-Nazi groups (as the National Guard is assembled mostly out of the Right Sector). A real, legitimate state does not disband its elite troops which are used to preserve civil order, as the putsch regime disbanded Berkut. The putsch regime's disbanding Berkut reminds one of Bremer's disbanding the Iraqi army (another case of US-induced regime change).

You do know that Yanukovich was overthrown through violence, don't you, and that the proper constitutional procedures were not used to remove him from office after the fact? So the regime in Kiev has no valid claims on any Ukrainian public buildings. And the overwhelming affirmative vote for autonomy in Donetsk and Luhansk shows that the people of those regions are in agreement with this position. So you are in taking a radically anti-democratic position by continuing to argue with me here. What are you going to do next, argue that we must admire Right Sector for its adulation of Stepan Bandera? Or instead of that, maybe you'll argue that Americans had no right to rebel against the British Empire, because the Colonies were the "property" of the Empire? – Herzen (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be a lost cause, pushing an alternate reality / revisionism now. Don't insult others asking if they are being 'obtuse' and then proceed to rant about events and actions that never took place. —Львівське (говорити) 02:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, Lviske, but the 1st lost cause was to implement a non-Russian language policy in Ukraine, where nearly 30% of the population speaks Russian. I know that's not the case in Lviv, but it's certainly not the case in Southern and Eastern Ukraine. And it was trying to impose a pro-EU policy against a pro-Russia policy (Ukraine is neither Russia or EU, it's Ukraine, which I've read it means border land). For sure Yanukovich was a corrupt president, so they were Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Timoshenko! Now, to try to push an agenda against nearly 1/2 of the country's population is a disaster, particularly when members of the government belong to "former" neo-nazi organizations! Yet, apart from the Crimeans, in every region of Ukraine, the ethnic Ukrainians (either Ukrainian-speaking or Russian-speaking) are precisely that: ethnic Ukrainians. And people in Lviv must aknowledge what people in Donetsk or Luhansk demand as their rights as Ukrainian citizens!... For sure it's not supressing the Russian language! I live in a country with a large Ukrainian community and I've met both Ukrainian speaking and Russian speaking Ukrainians.,говорити. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

More off-topic ranting. More misinformation. No "non-Rusian language policy" was ever implemented, and and which members of the government belonged to "neo-Nazi organizations"? Good grief, take a deep breath. --Львівське (говорити) 03:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Which members of the government belong or belonged to "neo-nazi organizations"? The Svoboda Party members, obviously!,говорити. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Cut the baseless name calling. So far the only verified actual Nazi in all of this is Pavel Gubarev. Everything is just useless attacks ("Svoboda are Nazis, Obama is a Commie, Bush is a fascist") yeah, we get it. --Львівське (говорити) 04:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad in my country the only far-right party that exists (National Renovator Party) only gets 0.3% of the votes :D,говорити. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Pavel Gubarev was a member of the Russian National Unity, which is a Neo-Nazi organization, indeed, but most recently he belonged to the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, a communist party. Anyway, Andriy Parubiy, the man who's supervising the counter-offensive in Eastern Ukraine, was also the founder of the Social-National Party of Ukraine, which was a neo-Nazi party in Ukraine which was succeeded by Svoboda. So, I guess I am "name calling" as much as you are "name calling".,говорити. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Parubiy, since he in the 2007 parliamentary elections was voted into the Ukrainian parliament on an Our Ukraine–People's Self-Defense Bloc ticket, can not be associated with extreme right. In February 1965 Malcolm X warned us "They take one little word out of what you say, ignore all the rest, and then begin to magnify it all over the world to make you look like what you actually aren't". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction, Parubiy left the extreme right organizations he was a member of in 2004 (that is 10 years ago). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Gubarev has been a member of the Progressive Socialist Party since 2007, while Parubiy was as you confirmed, a member of a Neo-Nazi Party until 2004. Well, for each one of them, some time has passed, since the formal memberships to Neo-nazi parties. So, to criticize Gubarev as being a neo-nazi (when he has belonged to a communist party since 2007) while dismissing the other as a neo-nazi, it's non-sense. Either you classify both as neo-nazis for their past, or you don't classify any or them as neo-nazis. Either way, they're both extremists, in my opinion. I hope Petro Poroshenko will give back a bit of good sense to Ukraine, let's see.,Yulia Romero. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you on "Either you classify both as neo-nazis for their past, or you don't classify any or them as neo-nazis". But I don't have enough info to qualify them as something.

(PS RGloucester response below is not related to this writing.) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even going to dignify this with a response. We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not rant. RGloucester — ☎ 02:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a Talk page, not an Wikipedia page, RGloucester! I honestly admire the surveillance you've done in this page, RGloucester, in spite of some "XXX" accusations you've done against me (sorry, I'm not an expert on English WP abbreviations). What can we discuss or not in the Talk page? If there are some limitations, please inform me!,RGloucester. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

We have talk page guidelines, believe it or not. Let me provide a quote:

Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikireason proposal).

— WP:TALK#USE

As such, you can imagine my desire to halt such stuff. RGloucester — ☎ 04:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll comply. I thought these talk pages were more about expressing personal opinions, but if that's the case, I will follow those rules. But I hope you can confirm that I've been quite neutral, actually. A lot of people editing in the page itself, have been very subjective. In the Talk page, it has been even more crazy! That's why I said I'm glad that this page is now protected.,RGloucester. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. We need a break, to try and cool this whole thing down. RGloucester — ☎ 05:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Just my two cents but I think the wording "Second Ukrainian counter-offensive" would be best. The wording of "second counter-offensive" is too broad as it does not state who it is by while "Ukrainian offensive" goes against WP:NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

They are all Ukrainians (or at least, most them are). You mean "Second government counter-offensive". RGloucester — ☎ 01:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that one, like how it was. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

I've never seen a more ridiculous mess in my life. Can we all put ourselves away for a while, and perhaps bring clarity to our minds? The article is protected now. Let's all drop the stick and step away from the dead horse, and allow clarity to return. RGloucester — ☎ 00:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad, one less page to monitor for vandalism. --Львівське (говорити) 01:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Steelworkers retake Mariupol

It appears that the people have risen up against the separatists here driving them out. [39]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

was included in the DPR article --Львівське (говорити) 04:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd hope to read that from a French or Spanish-speaking newspaper, actually. I've also read about miner workers against the present establishment in Kiev. Well, let's see.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The latest development is being welcomed by the Voice of Russia [40] The man behind it, Rinat Akhmetov, does not think Donetsk should become an independent state or a part of Russia; but he has also said that the model with "Kiev in charge... has run out of steam and is not right for the future"; instead he wants a new constitution with decentalized government [41] Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

he's priming himself to be the new governor of donetsk, probably unofficially. He obviously has his own interests in mind. His holdings being held in a Transnistria like failed unrecognized state would be bad. In Russia or independent, all exports would die and he'd lose money. He wants to be in Ukraine and open to keep making money, but he doesn't want to get sent into exile like in 2005. --Львівське (говорити) 23:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Correct. This isn't an action of "the people" as much as the action orchestrated by an oligarch with his own interests and ambitions.70.192.130.229 (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Velyka Novosilka

A group called the Donbass batilliion (Ukrainian Unity Group) has retaken the a police station in Velyka Novosilkahttp: //www.ctvnews.ca/world/volunteers-fight-back-against-east-ukraine-s-pro-russian-rebels-1.1824478. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbutus the tree (talk • contribs) 22:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

UN report on human rights

Needs to be in the article [42], the official report is here [43] and we can dig through it in the meantime

The UN has warned of an "alarming deterioration" in human rights in eastern Ukraine, where separatists are fighting security forces.

It also found "serious problems" of harassment and persecution of ethnic Tatars in Crimea, the mainly ethnic Russian region Moscow annexed in March.

The UN's report details growing lawlessness in eastern and southern Ukraine:

• Peaceful demonstrations, primarily by supporters of Ukraine's unity, deteriorate into violence

• Protesters are attacked and beaten

• Local police do nothing to prevent the violence and sometimes openly co-operate with the attackers

UN monitors have also documented cases of targeted killings, torture and abduction, primarily carried out by anti-government forces in eastern Ukraine.

The report highlights threats to journalists and international observers, and abductions or attacks on some.

--Львівське (говорити) 22:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is another good article. I think we need a section or maybe an entire page about the human rights abuses going on. --Львівське (говорити) 00:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point. It is nessecary that we have a section about human rights abuses in this conflict.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

here's another from vice (no time to edit today) [44] - Pro-Russia Rebels Step Up Campaign of Violence to Halt Ukraine's Presidential Elections --Львівське (говорити) 03:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• USA Today - Ukraine minorities worry as Russia claims troop pullout -Львівське (говорити)

Seems unreliable. It reprints the long-debunked claims of seperatists ordering Jews to register as well as misrepresents its sources (the Times of Israel article[45] reporting on emigration of Jews to Israel notes "This is not the result of any anti-Semitism but of anxiety and fear from criminal activity and chaos.") to make it appear as if the jewish minority is specifically targeted.B01010100 (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a reliable source, your interpretation of it is beside the point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:NEWSORG, specifically "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis." I'm pointing out that this specific news story would not be reliable for any specific statement claiming (feared) abuses against the jewish minority because it relies on long-debunked claims and misrepresentations of other sources.B01010100 (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "generically" reliable or unreliable source, that's just your misunderstanding of the policies.B01010100 (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Luhansk

• Ukraine: Anti-Kiev Forces Running Amok

These forces, who call themselves the “Army of the Southeast,” seized control of the city of Luhansk in April 2014 and since then have abducted dozens of people, beating and torturing some of them.

“Anti-Kiev insurgents are using beatings and kidnappings to send the message that anyone who doesn’t support them had better shut up or leave,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “These forces are out of control, abusing people at will.”

--Львівське (говорити) 21:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 May 2014

Delete the following in the lead sentence:

, ultranationalist,

The 'ultranationalist' characterization is based primarily on a hoax. The one source is an opinion piece in a non-mainstream publication. Haberstr (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The only sources I have read that use the words "ultranationalists" are sources such as RT. RT is somewhat biased.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What hoax? It's coming from a respected scholar. Anyone would be a fool to ignore that Russian ultranationalists are a part of the movement. --Львівське (говорити) 15:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What's a mainstream publication? Since when are we categorizing and picking out what is mainstream and non-mainstream? It infringes on a freedom of speech. I think Lvivske has a point. As long as the publication contains information from a specialist on the topic, it is all that matters. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No, when writing an encyclopedia we are required to strive for consensus, balance and objectivity, which at times in fact does infringe on freedom of speech. It is fine to write on your blog that the pro-federalists in Eastern Ukraine are ultranationalists, but that is far from an RS opinion. In fact that characterization has never been stated in a mainstream news article. Haberstr (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

As you can see in his description, the author, Anton Shekhovtsov, "is PhD student at the UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies." So we're talking about the opinion of a student. There is no other source for the characterization.Haberstr (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I can't see a consensus to make the requested edit here, and there don't seem to be any obvious problems with the source citing the word "ultranationalist". If anyone is concerned about the reliability of the source, then WP:RSN would be a good place to take this. If this is more of a general dispute, then WP:DRN may be a better choice. Please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template if a consensus develops to make the edit. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It is normal Wikipedia policy to provide a week for discussion before making a decision.Haberstr (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I dont see an actual discussion taking place here, but the whole ultranationalist thing sticks out like a sore thumb. Even my spellchecker does not pick it up as a valid word. All sources used are clearly from one side of the conflict. None of the organisations in question declared themselves ultranationalist, or even nationalist. Calling someone that is akin of insult and should not be used in an encyclopaedia. If desired you can stick in the opinions section of the article, but not in the lead, that would clearly be considered NPOV.--Truther2012 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you honestly arguing that 'ultranationalist' isnt a word? Based off your spellchecker? --Львівське (говорити) 23:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

No, but I am honestly arguing that calling someone an 'ultranationalist' without proper support is slanderous and highly non-NPOV. Furthermore, characterising the entire conflict as such based on some elements or flyers is a bit a stretch.--Truther2012 (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Should be considered for edition

Groundless detention of number of journalists by the Russian FSB

FSB detained the Polish journalist of Gazeta Wyborcza in Crimea Vatslav Radzivinovich (Waclaw Radziwinowicz) who is of mixed Polish and Russian heritage was groundlessly detained for six hours and threatened at a gun point by the Russian officials (Radziwinowicz z Krymu tuż po uwolnieniu: Jeden z funkcjonariuszy mierzył do mnie z broni). FSB also arrested Ukrainian filmmaker a native of Simferopol Oleh Sentsov on terrorism charges (Russian FSB arrested Ukrainian filmmaker Oleg Sentsov on terrorism charges).

For future edit (at time I wrote this page was protected and could be edited only by administrators):

• For National unity talks Kharkiv separatist (although not representing an armed insurgent group) was invited but he refused to participate. The man also claimed Kharkov Oblast will hold a regional independence referendum (but did not give date). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done just now. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Full protection is disrupting this article

Can someone remind me why this article is still fully protected? This event is still ongoing and as a result info in the article has become dated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It isn't disrupting the article. There is no deadline with regard to Wikipedia, and it is better for there to be some time for the conflicts of the past to become distant. There is no reason why you can't submit an edit request. It will become unprotected in a few days. RGloucester — ☎ 23:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NODEADLINE is an essay on which two provide a counter argument for. As for conflicts of the past, if they have been resolved then okay good we should move on, if not then they should be addressed more so that they do not pop up again in the future (It is not good to reinvent the wheel). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree, having this article fully protected is disruptive. Disruptive editors can be blocked, and simply looking at the article's history is seems like the biggest disruptions came from IP editors (which a partial protect can deal with). I also can't seem to find any discussion on the matter at all. Coinmanj (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Look above, at the discussion about "counter-insurgency". RGloucester — ☎ 22:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have and have seen no recent replies for over 24 hours for that section. The discussion is just about dead with what looks to be a no consensus result. You should have an uninvolved editor or admin close it so we can move on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

To avoid confusion I think this needs to be placed at the top of this article.

This article is about the pro-Russian demonstrations throughout Ukraine. For the Russian military intervention there, see 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. For the crisis in Crimea, see 2014 Crimean crisis.

Coinmanj (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is a waste of space and actually creates confusion and anti-Russian paranoia, since Russia's 2014 intervention exclusively concerns Crimea, and that has its own article, 2014 Crimean Crisis.Haberstr (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Strangely redacted subsection

I'm just about to log off for the night, but have noticed that the "Unrest by region" "Crimea" section begins as: "Beginning on 26 February, pro-Russian forces,^[refs] Only 5% of respondents in eastern Ukraine felt that Russian-speakers were 'definitely' under pressure or threat."

I haven't the time to work out what the missing portion of the first sentence is, but thought I'd note it so as someone can clean it up before I get a chance to get to it (which may not be until Friday). Cheers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

How did this happen? The original sources are still there, but the text has changed. It doesn't make any sense. It wasn't like this a few days ago. RGloucester — ☎ 15:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for chasing this up, RGloucester . I got up early in order to track the history and see whether I could identify the edit that threw everything out and restore it. Now I can get on with my RL obligations for the day. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

UN Human Rights reports

I think the UN Human Rights report should be expanded in the article (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: [http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/HRMMUReport15May2014.pdf Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 15 May 2014]). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Pro-Russian organizations are terrorists

On May 17, 2014 the office of General Prosecutor of Ukraine recognized the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic as terrorist organizations.

• http://fakty.ictv.ua/ua/index/read-news/id/1515468
• http://tsn.ua/politika/genprokuratura-viznala-dnr-i-lnr-teroristichnimi-organizaciyami-350002.html
• http://www.day.kiev.ua/uk/news/160514-gpu-viznala-dnr-ta-lnr-teroristichnimi-organizaciyami
• http://www.gp.gov.ua/ua/news.html?_m=publications&_c=view&_t=rec&id=138582 (General Prosecutor of Ukraine website)

Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced text

Error in Pro-Russian_insurgency_in_Donetsk_region#Crimea duplicate information pasted incorrectly from a different sections.

eg

Beginning on 26 February, pro-Russian forces,[74][75][76][77][78][79][54] Only 5% of respondents in eastern Ukraine felt that Russian-speakers were 'definitely' under pressure or threat. 43% of ethnic Russians ('definitely' or 'rather') supported the decision of the Russian Federation to send its military to protect Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine. In the poll, 22% of those in southern Ukraine, and 26% of those in eastern Ukraine supported the idea of federalization for the country; 69% of southerners and 53% of easterners supported Ukraine remaining as a unitary state; and only 2% of southerners and 4% of easterners supported separatism.[80][81][82][83] subsequently confirmed to be Russian troops by Vladimir Putin,[16] began to gradually take control of the Crimean Peninsula

(misplaced text underlined) 83.100.174.82 (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 May 2014

As you can see in the talk sections above, somehow, the Crimea section had information incorrectly pasted from some other place, making the section make no sense. I've taken this text from an old revision, and it is what should be there. I'd request that it is immediately inserted, to fix the currently screw-up in that section.

Main article: 2014 Crimean crisis

Beginning on 26 February, pro-Russian forces, subsequently confirmed to be Russian troops by Vladimir Putin, began to gradually take control of the Crimean Peninsula. During this time, the question of joining the Russian Federation was put to a referendum, which had an official turnout of 83 per cent and resulted in a 96% affirmative vote but has been condemned by the EU, the United States, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar officials as contrary to Ukraine's constitution and to international law. On 17 March, the Crimean Parliament declared independence from Ukraine and asked to join the Russian Federation. On 18 March, Russia and Crimea signed a treaty of accession of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol into the Russian Federation. On 21 March, the accession treaty was ratified and the establishment of two new constituent entities in the Russian Federation was marked by a 30 gun salute under an executive order of the Russian President. The U.N. General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution that declared that the referendum was invalid, and the incorporation of Crimea into Russia as illegal.

By 1 April, around 3,000 people had fled Crimea after its annexation. 80% of those who fled were Crimean Tatars.Teams from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast and Chernivtsi Oblast have assisted internally displaced persons who have resettled in western Ukraine from Crimea. RGloucester — ☎ 15:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

8 sources for one little sentence is REFBLOAT and I object to that. Please trim it down to the 3 most reliable supporting sources. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about adjusting content. This is merely about restoring the previous version before it got screwed up. I don't think changes in content are appropriate at this moment, but can be dealt with later. I can't really remove references, as some are used later in the article. To do that, I'd have to be able to edit the whole article. Regardless, we can deal with that later. The most important thing is to get the old text back in so that article at least makes senses, and doesn't have a ton of nonsense in it as it does at present. RGloucester — ☎ 17:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch demands release of British and Russian journalists detained by Kiev

[46] [47] [48] [49] I believe detaining foreign journalists by the government is notable.According to the sources above not only Human Rights Watch but also OSCE called on authorities to release them immediately.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The title of your section is misleading. The Human Rights didn't demand anything. Putin's propaganda outlet claimed that it did. Likewise the ibtimes explicitly uses the word "allegedly", even in its title. Phillips appears to have been detained for a few hours then released. That's a non-story, it's just being blown up by Krelimin's propaganda. The two Russian guys were detained because they entered Ukraine illegally (and the Ukrainians claim they were carrying anti-aircraft missiles, but who knows).

This is just Putin trying for some kind of counter to [50]. The separatists have detained and disappeared journalists so a story had to be manufactured to "balance" that fact. And of course RT and VoR are all over it.

Not notable for inclusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this is very notable. Minor incident, probably better served on the Timeline. Graham was detained and sent to the UK embassy, the other two were caught with a rocket launcher without proper documents and entered the country on false pretenses. I understand RT/LifeNews wants to make an international incident over it, but in the context of this article I don't know where minor things like this would go. --Львівське (говорити) 20:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

GP's own words [51] - "All my work in order, no charges, no deportation, no one laid a hand on me in anger, Ukrainian authorities treated me fairly. All ok." --Львівське (говорити) 20:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Marek-this is very notable for inclusion, just like detention of the Vice reporter. And for the record I think you are a bit exaggerating about Putin, he certainly doesn't write articles in The Guardian. MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The vice reporter was taken hostage, beaten, and held for days by armed guards for no reason. These two were detained by security forces in a combat zone. I don't see the similarities. --Львівське (говорити) 20:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal views are unimportant. We will see what the Human Rights organizations will have to say about kidnapping of journalists. For the record UN Report already included "forced disappearances" as one of the violations conducted by Kiev forces.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

But that's the whole point. One side takes a report hostage, beats him and tortures him and holds him for days. So the other side cooks up a story to try and pretend that the other guys are "just as bad". Wow, this is like a throwback to the good ol' days.

Anyway, if you want to know what Human Rights Watch actually says about the conflict, rather than what RT people invent, here it is [52], [53], [54].Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

So now we jumped from claims that Putin writes articles in the Guardian to claims that Russian and British journalists kidnapped by Kiev forces were actually kidnapped by Russia? Sorry Marek, we have known each other and worked together for years on Wikipedia, but I sincereily believe you are not looking at this with cool head. In any case, let us wait what the media say about this event and Human Rights groups. For the record the links you gave actually do criticise Kiev authorities and Maidan activists for violations of human rights and other crimesMyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC).

That's a ... "very strange" paraphrasing of what I just said.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there's "very strange" and misrepresentation. I'd say that MyMoloboaccount is tipping the scales towards the latter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know how came up with that, VM didn't say that at all. In any event, HRW has commented on it [55] --Львівське (говорити) 23:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Given the level of the complaints, interpreting the actions as 'violations' seems a teensy bit strong. Sounds a lot more like some grumbling about restricting journalistic access and a lot of hysteria in MyMoloboaccount's reading of the situation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not notable per above discussion, no consensus for inclusion. --Nug (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Not notable per above discussions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I like how MyMoloboaccount starts the section "I believe...", but when he hears that somebody opposes he replies with "Personal views are unimportant." There are videos of the LifeNews reporters who acknowledged the fact that they entered the country illegally and there are videos where they act as spotters for pro-Russian forces during a gun fight. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the plain solution is to wait to see how this plays out and keep updates saved on the timeline for reference if need be. The Graham story is already a non-issue since he was released within a day with no issue. The other two may either be released or charged, we don't know yet; the HRW mostly petitions Ukraine to release info on why they were detained and for all we know that info could be coming today.--Львівське (говорити) 02:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Attack on Ukranian Forces of May 22.

News are coming from Ukraine of a "Pro-russian" by some "Right Sector" by others, attack on Ukranian forces in Donetsk with over 8 dead and 15 wounded or 15 dead and 27 wounded acoording to other sources (BBC reporter). Any information regarding this event??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.48.214.19 (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Some sources that could be used: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/22/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27515514
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.48.214.19 (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

right sector doesnt attack Ukrainian troops and isnt even operating in Donetsk separately from private enlistment in Donbas/Azov battalions. --Львівське (говорити) 16:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is either a clash with Right Sector militia(not the first time they fight with Ukrainian military) or friendly fire. There are no known rebel groups in this area and they don't have that kind of firepower.Most likely the several BMP's destroyed were from helicopter friendly fire.Rebels already denied that they took part in the fighting, which stands in contrast to other clashes where they confirmed the fighting.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

From the BBC report:

Speaking on condition of anonymity, an army major who spoke to the survivors of the attack told our correspondent he was sure that the attackers were not Donetsk separatists but "mercenaries".

– Herzen (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

More Updated Info here. Now the dead toll its at 16 killed of whom 14 are Ukranian Soldiers, 13 dead in Donetks and 1 in Lugansk.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/22/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t2200.48.214.19 (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Health Ministry just reported, in the attack on the checkpoint 16 soldiers died, with the one in Lugansk that makes 17 soldiers KIA. Separatists confirmed one of their fighters was killed at the checkpoint. EkoGraf (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There is already video of the event, and it indicates that this was a friendly fire from the helicopters(perhaps during an attack by the resistance)[56](I do not share or promote views of the person who uploaded the video, it is just for education purpose only).MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, clear case of friendly fire. The video ends with a guy on the radio asking for the attack to be stopped. – Herzen (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

it's unsure what happened at this point, there was no friendly fire in the video itself. In the distance you can see a chopper dropping flares. Too much to comb through.--Львівське (говорити) 22:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I understand this is first confirmation from Kiev side and sources that this was friendly fire[57]MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

What I'm reading there is that they choppers did that after the original insurgent attack that caused the deaths. --Львівське (говорити) 23:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Most soources agree it was attack by land forces, Separatist or not, no mention of friendly fire at all. BBC, Cnn and the same Ukranian Authorities claim it was an attack by enemy combatants. The helicoptes tesis have no source.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It is kind of annoying to see al the time that guy named lvivske suessing and excluding...he is biased 100%. The whole incedence between parts fo Ukr.army and volunteers is pretty much NOT clear and we'd better just mention the incedence with no guesstimates from canadian 'experts' on the topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.254.143 (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm suessing all over this joint. --Львівське (говорити) 16:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

New Russia political party?

I've seen Pavel Gubarev post this flag in the past, but this newspaper from the rebels are using it now too. Looks like the Confederate battle flag but without the stars.[58] Looks like they made a political party? --Львівське (говорити) 19:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

its official, made the article New Russia Party --Львівське (говорити) 20:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

So this is a political party in the DPR? The information on the actual page makes it seem as if it is an "extant state". Lunch for Two (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources to bloggers students etc

I am pretty sure that if I put a statement into this article citing pro-russian bloggers

• El Murid
• ColonelCassad
• CrustGroup

and many others this would be frowned upon around here, and it would be promptly removed. For that reason I removed an obviously untrue adjective with a reference to some pro-ukrainian student of some school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonimEditor (talk • contribs) 14:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a blog and the author is actually a published expert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Care to provide some outher sources in support of this use of adjective? I am more than ok with it provided there are reliable sources backing it up. A published expert should be using other references in his studies... or not? On a side note, is there a reason why you followed my contributions to partly undo my edits?(AnonimEditor)

The reality of events[59]

I am now confused. I tried to follow the links thinking they were added by Volunter Marek in support of his edit. Only 5 minutes later I realized they are in support in opposite statement, anti-ultranationalist. At this moment I do not think either are properly supported by used sources.. (AnonimEditor)

Shekhovtsov is a reliable source and scholar of fascism and ultranationalism in Ukraine. If he spots this, he's on. It's widely cited that the pro-Russian side has a wide range of fascist and ultranationalist connections. --Львівське (говорити) 15:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Then it should be not particularly difficult to provide another reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonimEditor (talk • contribs) 16:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

done. took 30 seconds. --Львівське (говорити) 16:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Way to go. Gratz. A wide range of sources occurred to be an opinion blog on NYT. Fine, but that means I can cite pro-russian blogs too, right? (AnonimEditor (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC))

Getting tired of your obliviousness. That's two highly touted sources now, a well cited scholar and an author / senior fellow with the Atlantic Council's Program on Transatlantic Relations. Your response is to cite "pro-russian blogs"? --Львівське (говорити) 17:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me re-phrase it this way. I have heard that Wikipedia became a propaganda tool, and now I am actually observing how it works. You might think that you are being objective here, but let me break a news for you, you are not. You might not realize this, but in academic papers your way of proving that you are right is called "cherry picking sources". Nowadays it is very easy to find a "proof" of whateve statement using Google. I am far from being sure that I want to participate in your games. You guys have fun, I guess. (AnonimEditor (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC))

Don't let the door hit you --Львівське (говорити) 18:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Another Ambush at Donetsk.

According to this http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/23/uk-ukraine-crisis-ambush-idUKKBN0E30IC20140523?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews an ambush took place on Friday and it have left from 2 to 5 Pro Ukranian forces dead, Aljazeera Live Blog from Ukraine confirm a Tweet of the attack too. Should this be added in the infobox, is there any conection with the 22 may Ambush. Any suggestions?200.48.214.19 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, this is Donbas Battalion. --Львівське (говорити) 15:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you might want to recheck those numbers, my sources say that around 16 Ukrainian soldiers were killed on the 23rd, which should bring the total amount of Ukrainian dead to about ~60 . Also around 30 were wounded. http://rt.com/news/160804-military-checkpoint-attack-ukraine/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abattoir666 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Luhansk Developments

In Rubizhne, an attack killed more than 21 people. I created an article about this--Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Targetted killings and torture as methods of advancing insurgent's goals

RGloucester reverted this edit[60], opining "That's not a method of civil conflict". Targeted killings and torture are in fact methods used in this particular civil conflict, as this source state: "In Eastern Ukraine, Torture Is New Weapon". The UN's 36 page report cites examples of targeted killings, torture carried out by what it calls well-armed anti-government groups in eastern Ukraine[61]. Human Rights Watch mentions in their report "Anti-Kiev Forces Running Amok" that “Kidnapping, beatings, and torture are serious crimes and the work of thugs, the reign of terror in eastern Ukraine needs to stop.” It is nonsense to claim targeted killings and torture aren't a method of civil conflicts, just about every civil conflict in the history of the world uses targeted killings and torture in order to terrorise the population. The sources show that this conflict is no different. --Nug (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That isn't appropriate for the infobox. I'm not saying that targeted killings did not occur. I'm saying that it is undue weight to place it in the infobox under "methods". In fact, it is more or less covered under the blanket-term "insurgency". RGloucester — ☎ 03:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems really bizarre that the infobox lists "Hostage taking" as a method, but you oppose mention of targeted killings and torture. Some hostages were tortured and others killed. --Nug (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Insurgency, by definition, includes killings, targeted and otherwise. "Hostage taking", on the other hand, is a distinct method. Infoboxes only contain the most critical information. They do not go into detail about specific incidents of "torture". RGloucester — ☎ 03:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Torture is no less distinct than hostage taking, and there are quite a number of incidences of torture reported, warranting mention in the infobox. —Nug (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Torture is not a primary method of advancing the goals of the separatists. Merely because it happened does not mean that it is warranted in the infobox. We do not write in the Iraq War infobox that "torture" was a method. Nor here. We describe it in the body adequately. RGloucester — ☎ 03:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Citing the Iraq War infobox is irrelevant. It certainly is if the intent is to instil fear, as one of the sources cited states:"Since defecting, Anton has lived in fear of being himself "disciplined" by his former comrades-in-arms."[62]. In fact torture is listed as a distinct form of political violence[63]. As the book The New Counter-insurgency Era in Critical Perspective states[64]:

"For this reason, torture, a tactic used in Indochina, quickly appeared in Algeria as 'an unlimited weapon deployed in a total war to dominate the population …. even the rumor (of torture) served to propagate its terrorising dimension throughout the population"

--Nug (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree with the assessment that 'insurgency' involves premeditated hits on non-combatants. --Львівське (говорити) 03:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a distinction between deaths from skirmishing between insurgents and government forces, and targeted killings of civilians. --Nug (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• It is pure undue weight. Look at that tactics section at our article on insurgency. RGloucester — ☎ 04:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

New Russia

As I was not aware of the article called Federated States of New Russia Federal States of New Russia, or because it still didn't exist when I started a new one, I created another article called New Russia (Republic). Therefore, I request that the later either shall be merged into the first one that I mentioned, or that it shall be deleted.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Or vice-versa, as the administrator prefers.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

sorry, was hoping something like this wouldnt happen. --Львівське (говорити) 21:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I created another article about the same subject, but now what shall I do? Or anyone else? The article that I created has informations that are not in the other article and vice-versa., говорити. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's just merge yours into mine (to avoid using parenthesis in a title) and redirect. If the the official name ends up changing to just 'New Russia' or 'Novorossiya' (per english common use) we'll move it again when the time comes. --Львівське (говорити) 21:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, whatever I must do, recommend me to do it!, говорити. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Took care of it :) --Львівське (говорити) 21:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"Russian Federation - Chechen paramilitaries" in infobox

Who would say that a militants from a breakaway region of Russia would join the State of Russia (if that's the case, I have some doubts) to fight for Pro-Russian Ukrainians (or Novorossiyans, or whatever) against Pro-Western Ukrainians! Have the Chechens suddenly fallen fall in love for the Kremlin? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, they are paramilitary associated with the current Kremlin-installed Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov (aka Kadyrovtsy). Of course they are pro-Kremlin. They were quite prominent e.g. during 2008 Russo-Georgian war. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Mondolkiri1, those are not the same Chechens. Kadyrovtsy are known for supporting Putin. It is kind of similar as in Crimea. Most Tatars are pro-Ukrainian, but there is a smaller faction (called Mili Firqa - People's Party) that is pro-Russian. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Some of the Chechen militants are not even ethnic Chechen people, but rather are simply from Grozny or the Chechen region in general. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Russian police troops in Ukraine

CNN video footage depicts Russian policemen from Grozny. "Volunteers" who are armed to the teeth (Gunmen in Donetsk, Ukraine. CNN. May 26, 2014). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The State Border Guards of Ukraine reports that 40 trucks with munition and without permission entered Ukraine from Russia at the Biryukove border checkpoint (Luhansk Oblast). The local detachment of the border troops managed to stop part of the convoy. (During violation of the state border in the Luhansk region there was a battle, one of the gunmen was seriously wounded. State Border Guard of Ukraine.) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

300 journalists rewarded

I expected to find this in the article? It is said that this order includes also a higher pension. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/05/vladimir-putin-pro-kremlin-journalists-medals-objective-crimea --Anidaat (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Borys Kolesnikov about DNR

President of the HC Donbass Donetsk called DNR militants a gang of Somali pirates (Kolesnikov called DNR militants a gang of Somali pirates. Ukrayinska Pravda, Message from the President HC "Donbass" Boris Kolesnikov. HC Donbass Donetsk). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Change name of the article

Hello, as you all can see the situation in Ukraine has grown up into a war, this ain't anymore just "unrest" and can't be categorized as one, this article should be called "2014 Civil War in Ukraine" or something similar. I think it's a good idea. Let's see who will support this. Adnan Hz 97 (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Totally agree The number of victims on both sides is double-digit and the total amount of civillinas/armed groups/etc who lost their lives exceed 300. It is not a simple case of 'unrest' anymore. There even signs of full scale military conflict in the eastern part of the country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.172.113 (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• That's not how it works. We go based on reliable sources, which do not describe it as a civil war. RGloucester — ☎ 14:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

correct. And honestly, given how low local support is statistically and how great the number of militants are from Russia, this is more of an interstate conflict that intrastate, which would not make this a civil war. I honestly don't know what to classify it as, but it's a war of some kind. Definitely asymmetric warfare and I think it would also be classified as a proxy war given Russia's prominence in the militia makeup and separatist leadership.--Львівське (говорити) 15:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well then let's just wait for the situation to "escalate" even more or to "drop down" depending on what happens there will also change the whole name of the situation and also of the article. Cheers. Adnan Hz 97 (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think an easy compromise to the 'hawks' is to upgrade 'unrest' to 'conflict' which is still pretty broad --Львівське (говорити) 05:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/26/new-ukraine-president-petro-poroshenko-vows-stop-war Even Poroshekno calls the war with its name...WAR This seems not to be sufficient for usual biased canadian editors like lvivske... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.242.254 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Reminding me a lot of the Ukrainian–Soviet War. I guess that was the intention with the Ukrainian Front in Kharkiv, to start this there. The UKR-SOV war had Ukraine vs. Soviet Ukraine in a 'civil war' that was backed largely by Russian soldiers and white-Russian 'volunteers'. History repeats.--Львівське (говорити) 05:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

'My first decisive step will be aimed at ending the war, ending chaos, and bringing peace to a united and free Ukraine' http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27571612 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.242.254 (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

he didnt say civil war, just war. I think a 'war' article would need to be a split, since...would it cover crimea + luhansk and donetsk? or just luhansk and donetsk? and this article obviously covers the entire country and unrest in non-warzones. --Львівське (говорити) 20:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That quote is a primary source, which isn't what we use to determine what to call an article. We use reliable secondary sources. RGloucester — ☎ 21:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In case of Syria not all participants recognize the nature of the war as Civil ,but still wiki named it as Syrian Civil War In the case of Ukraine all parts recognize that there is a war, a civil one taking place right now in Eastern Ukraine...but still a couple of editors persist on the idiotic termunrest'...it is OBVIOUS that a full scale military conflict is taking place. Helicopters are being shot down, artilery and bombing ius used, people are dying but stilll.lvivske insists ...NOT

A full-blown civil war it is not, at least not yet. However, a simple unrest it is not anymore, it has evolved into an event of a military nature. Many have called it a war in recent weeks. I think the appropriate name (compromise for now) would be something like 2014 Ukraine conflict (conflict being a term that has also been used a lot) or something like that. For further compromise, the lead paragraph (first sentence) should hold something like The Ukraine conflict, also known as the Ukraine unrest, is a... etc, etc. (with appropriate sources of course). And yes, it should include the Crimea front because its all connected. EkoGraf (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC) *Moderate support, though it's too vague. A lot of English-speaking networks have described it as "Ukraine Conflict". I'd rather suggest "2014 Ukraine military conflict".Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Donetsk

Should we now create an article for the battle now that RS are calling it as such after the airport was taken?

Sources (To name a few):

(Euronews) (CNN) ("Battle at" used) (Reuters)

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about what to think about it... I would suggest waiting until more inside information is released. Dustin (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough the RS have said so far the DPR has asked residents to leave the city and Ukraine saying that it would firebomb "terrorist" holdouts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Such an article could be created. What happening at the airport has a ton of media coverage now.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You can if you would like, I think im going to wait it out another day and see if any more attacks or such come as the aftermath of the airport takeover. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

If you think there are enough sources out already, you could create a draft for the article if you wanted to. In that way, the article could be worked on a bit before being moved to main space. I think there is even a "draft space" that can be used for drafts, or you could create a user space draft. Whatever you do is up to you, though. Dustin (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Airport battle needs or warrants its own article (moreso than others we've made for skirmishes). As for the name, no sources are calling anything the "Battle of Donetsk", just some saying they are in a battle "for Donetsk". I'm unsure what the neutral media accepted title would be. "2014 Donetsk Airport Battle"?

I think a good title would be "Battle of the Donetsk Airport"--ArbutustheTree 16:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbutus the tree (talk • contribs)

• Go for "Battle of Donetsk Airport". RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's a short draft i made about the airport battle, but it needs to be updated. Feel free to edit this--ArbutustheTree 17:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Draft:Battle of Donetsk Airport

Good of you for deciding to create a draft. Drafts allow for certain things to be better coordinated before actually creating the article. The only issue might be that thing where "other" editors are less likely to edit the draft if it's in user space. Dustin (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it to the draft namespace (Draft:Battle of Donetsk Airport), as that is more suited. I'm a big proponent of using the draft space. It makes life much easier, on the whole, allows for peer review before creating an article. RGloucester — ☎ 18:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester, do you mind if you could start this draft and enventually transform it into an article. I can help along the way.--ArbutustheTree 19:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time right now for anything more than cursory fixes, but I'll help when I do have time. RGloucester — ☎ 21:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft I started is about 75% done. Just needs a little more editing.--ArbutustheTree 03:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Draft:Battle of Donetsk Airport

I will also help, but as far as I can see, the draft is fine for the most part. Only thing I would point out is that the upper (higher) estimate of rebel deaths was in fact 50+, not 100. The original rebel claim was that around 100 people overall were killed, half of them being civilians, not just rebels. EkoGraf (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Allright. I'm going to transform the draft into an article soon.--ArbutustheTree 22:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. Looks like I copied the draft and created it into an article. However, i didn't see a "move" button. --ArbutustheTree 22:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There should be a button underneath a tab that looks like a star, assuming you are using vector. An admin will have to delete the page to make way for the move. Dustin (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Another chopper downed

On May 29, a Ukrainian government helicopter was shot down, apparently by pro-Russia separatists, near Sloviansk, killing 14. [65] [66] Sca (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC) The battle box state 12 killed but some sources put the number at 13 others at 14. What numbers should be used for the article??200.48.214.19 (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Free videos covering 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

British journalist Graham Phillips has shared some of his videos using CC license (to illustrate topics on 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine).

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMbGeHQNqqg
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxEElr9OSmk
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5NNmXyI6mY
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTo70JE_mwM
5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-4btHgfuFM
6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpoQYbQPrjI
7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4XQ4ZGO6Ps
8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stePpL-myT8
9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcbbxiw-qGc
10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY8Y7DtcvPk
11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMD1osnoaKo
12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuvOHZ2CVJc
13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwciNKdpuJA
14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkC85Dhu9YA
15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S43Tq3zrLKI
16. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1jEpNHzuss
17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONwwlQexmGg

I've started commons:Category:Photos by Graham Phillips and commons:Category:Videos by Graham Phillips in Commons. First three videos are uploaded already. Ready to use.--Fastboy (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

do we have the one where he stumbles over the trip wire and sets off the flare which causes him to run off crying? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 04:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No, this video is not free (yet). I've posted some updates in wikicommons: Commons:Village pump--Fastboy (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Vostok Battalion's putsch against Donetsk People's Republic?

According to this source[67] it could be so. --Nug (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaders of the DPR including Denis Pushilin have made statements to the effect that the Vostok guys are acting with their approval, against undisciplined people who have been looting shops. [68] [69] Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

200 children were taken hostage by the Ponomariov-led Russian terrorists

There are reports that the self appointed mayor of Sloviansk Vyacheslav Ponomariov decided to "evacuate" 200 children from Sloviansk to Artek, Crimea. Artek authorities reported that they know nothing about that idea, while the Ukrainian state authorities also have no such proposition made from Vyacheslav Ponomariov. The leadership of the anti-terrorist operation announced that is ready to create a corridor for refugees. (ATO leadership is ready to create a corridor for refugees from the Sloviansk. Ukrayinska Pravda) The fact and its possible consequences were discussed at live broadcasting on the political show "Shuster LIVE" (May 29, 2014) between several politicians and journalists. (Journalist Matvey Ganapolsky on Shuster LIVE provided information about the export in unknown direction 200 children from Sloviansk. Shuster LIVE). Also the director of the Development of Ukraine Fund of Rinat Akhmetov reported that the fund provided help to take away children from the region on petition of parents and already managed to export some 600 children from Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. (Director of Rinat Akhmetov's Foundation "Development of Ukraine" Anatoliy Zabolotnyi stated that since May 23, the Fund exported 600 children from Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. If parents call the Foundation "Development of Ukraine", the child and the mother can take out of the zone ATO. Shuster LIVE). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There are some talks of possible repetition of Beslan school hostage crisis. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah this news is circulating now, seems they were snuck out of the city and somehow smuggled into Crimea --Львівське (говорити) 17:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

War crime?

Children's hospital shelled by the Ukrainian Army? Is that true?[70] The British journalist Graham Phillips also shared this video. A Russian source about it:[71] Fakirbakir (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No, collateral damage. The intended target were the armed insurgents using the children in the hospital as a human shield. --Nug (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the style guide at WP:EUPHEMISMS says "civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage". RGloucester — ☎ 16:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There were no reliable reports of "civilian casualties", only damage to the buildings, so "collateral damage" it is. --Nug (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And in any case it is not a euphemism, when did a style guide trump what reliable sources say about the term[72]. --Nug (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Media can spin words whichever way they like, but we are WP:NOTNEWS. We don't regurgitate what they say. It is a euphemism. If civilian deaths occurred, tell it like it is. "Collateral damage" avoids talking about death or about civilians, and that's why it is a euphemism. Also, I wish you'd read the dictionary you cited: "In modern use, generally a euphemism for the coincidental killing of civilians". RGloucester — ☎ 17:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fakirbakir - Try to find more reliable, unbiased sources before adding stuff like that. Also, don't speculate on any of this, only add the direct information (e.g. numbers of x, those certain to be involved, etc.). Dustin (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

How did you know? Are you an insurgent or just watched TV that told you it was a "human shield"? Remember this word: P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A. TV will tell you only what you are supposed to know and now TV wants you to believe there was no coup, no Odessa massacre and that there are terrorists in the south-east who use kids as human shield. Take off pink sunglasses and read this ([sarcasm] Oh, look, it's not even russian! Only non-russian sources are reliable, right?[/sarcasm]): http://www.globalresearch.ca/5384421/5384421 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:5D77:51A9:5B9A:AFC0 (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The concept of an "Odessa massacre" is in of itself a Russian propaganda fantasy, so nice try. BTW, Global Research is a hoax / conspiracy site known for Holocaust denial, so you're not helping your case by citing that --Львівське (говорити) 17:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC) An admirer of UPA and svoboda is talking about...Holocaust and antisemitism....in order to discredit a source....I guess we should classify svoboda,pravyi sector and other neonazi groups in western Ukraine as completely unreliable...just following your argument...Or maybe you have double standards??

Naming THIS a "fantasy" is the same thing as denial of holocaust, so you're not helping your case by saying that. Or maybe you see there happy smiling people playing in the park? 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:5D77:51A9:5B9A:AFC0 (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't make such rude accusations; it won't get you anywhere to be uncivil, even if you feel strongly about this. Dustin (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It was a two sided conflict started by terrorists who you are martyrizing. We also don't know what started the fire and its possible they started it themselves accidentally seeing as they were playing with fire. The concept of a "massacre" is indeed trumped up fantasy, and quite frankly, I'm getting a tad sick of it.--Львівське (говорити) 18:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not martyrizing anyone and there's enough video (including neo-nazi/soccer ultras POV) showing what happened. A lot of people died there and you can not argue that. You may believe it's a fantasy but it wouldn't stop being a tragedy. The fact is there is no reliable unbiased sources. Western media tell what NATO wants you to believe, Russian media tell what Kremlin wants us to believe, and the truth is inbetween, covered by lies, corruption and blood, and the only way to know it is to be there in person and see it from both sides of the conflict 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:5D77:51A9:5B9A:AFC0 (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Your linking of images of burned dead bodies to back your argument seems to be an instance of the "principle of emotional agitation" straight from Russia's information warfare playbook as analysed here. As terrible as the images of the deaths are, the fact is there is no conclusive evidence on who started the fire. --Nug (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

But there is evidence that they were beaten when some tried to leave the building. Its one thing for anarchists to throw a Molotov cocktail at a McDonalds, or some other building for property damage. Its even another thing for say Irish civilians to throw a cocktail at British troops. But when civilians burn other civilians, and then proceed to beat them up (all official sources say no weapons were found in the House of Trade Unions), that is another matter entirely. The result then was the police arrested the beat up and burnt anti-Maidans, and none of the pogromists were arrested for their violence. The Right Sector has gone above using fascist symbols and historical figures, which again is one thing in the area of free speech, to using lynch mob tactics, which is the exercise of fascism itself. The intellectual gymnastics and backflips done to justify or excuse this, or call it anything but what it is is abhorrent.70.192.130.229 (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary use of "the"

I don't understand why some people just affix "the" before "Ukraine," it is unnecessary, and I'm not even sure it is correct. The word "the" doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the nation's name, so I don't see why it is being included. I may be wrong, but I thought the name of Ukraine was only "Ukraine". I believe a similar situation occurs with "Crimea;" I thought that when saying it's full name, you would say "the Crimean Peninsula," but when saying its short name, you would leave out the "the" and just say "Crimea". What's the issue here? This doesn't seem consistent with the Ukraine or Crimea articles. Dustin (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Standard English usage until after Ukrainian independence used the definite article with both Crimea and Ukraine, and that usage has lingered among older people. It is no different than "the Argentine" when referring to what one now calls "Argentina". However, both are depreciated at this point. It was rooted in the fact that "Ukraine" means "borderland", and hence the country was called "the borderland", similar to "the Netherlands". RGloucester — ☎ 22:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

'the' isn't used anywhere in the article so not sure why it's brought up here. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 23:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

As of my earlier comment, it was definitely in the lead section of the article. It still says "the Crimea" in the lead section. Dustin (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I found two "thes" and promptly removed them. I don't think "the Crimea" is poor form, but I'm torn: Kuzio uses it, Magocsi does not --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 00:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay then. In any case, thank you for the response. Dustin (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

In personal usage, I say "the Ukraine", "the Crimea" and "the Argentine", as I'm rather conservative in diction. For the sake of Wikipedia, though, it makes sense to keep abreast of common usage, which has certainly dropped the definite article at this point. RGloucester — ☎ 00:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I will agree with your reasoning, but do think it is best to use the non-the version at this point. Dustin (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Move discussions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Change the name to "Ukrainian Civil War"

Support Reaper7 (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose, it's terrorist activities conducted by the Russian spetsnaz Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, Borodai's coup d'etat with his Vostok Battalion makes this a proxy war with Russia. --Nug (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
• Abstain In my opinion, it has all the characteristics of a civil war now, but most of the media isn't calling it a civil war, yet. If you can justify your move with references, I'll support. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral - You haven't actually given a reason for the proposed name change, and in discussions such as this, reasons cannot just be assumed. I might consider taking a position if you actually provide reasoning. So again, neutral for now. Dustin (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral It is not exactly a civil war, and western media are not allowed to call it so anyway because of anti-russian propaganda. I've only found this: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/ukrainian-civil-war-started.html (Now let's see how soon will The Washington Post editor be fired, just like NY Times editor was fired recently). Civil war means confrontation of civilians versus civilians. A small civil war was in Odessa on 2 May. And now there is something similar to American revolutionary war for independence(no, there is no way for federalization anymore, nobody wants to live in a country ruled by cruel fascist scumbags bombing civilians, hospitals, kindergardens and Red Cross vehicles). The article should be renamed somehow though, because that's not "pro-russian" and not an "unrest" 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:5D77:51A9:5B9A:AFC0 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well of course Russian propaganda would like to portray the conflict as confrontation of civilians versus civilians along with the view that the country is ruled by "cruel fascist scumbags", but it is in fact a conflict driven by Moscow controlled proxies using terrorised civilians as hostages and human shields. --Nug (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A civil war is not a war between civilians Nug. Per definition, a civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or republic or between two countries created from a formerly united state, which can also include regular armed forces. EkoGraf (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well the appearance of the Vostok Battalion manned by Chechens who conducted a coup against other rebels at the direction of Moscovite Aleksandr Borodai, and fact that 30 dead Vostok fighters were repatriated back to Russia after the Donetsk airport battle and the downing of a Ukraine helicopter by a Russian MANPAD system clearly makes a war between Ukraine and Moscow backed foreign terrorists. --Nug (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Counter-proposal title - A full-blown civil war it is not, at least not yet. However, a simple unrest it is not anymore, it has evolved into an event of a military nature. Many have called it a war in recent weeks. I think the appropriate name (compromise for now) would be something like 2014 Ukraine conflict (conflict being a term that has also been used a lot) or something like that. For further compromise, the lead paragraph (first sentence) should hold something like The Ukraine conflict, also known as the Ukraine unrest, is a... etc, etc. (with appropriate sources of course). EkoGraf (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"Ukraine conflict" is much too vague. That could once again pertain to many different things. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Moderate support, though it's too vague. A lot of English-speaking networks have described it as "Ukraine Conflict". I'd rather suggest "2014 Ukrainian military conflict".Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose any change at this juncture – It isn't possible to call it a civil war at this time, as sources don't do so. Some vague mentions of "war" do occur, but that is more or less bluster. I would not be opposed to "2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine", however I'm sure people will object to that on the grounds that they dismiss "pro-Russian", despite my refutations. I personally think that "unrest" is still our best bet. As I've said many times, it is just vague enough to include all the events that occur, without overblowing the situation. RGloucester — ☎ 21:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In regards to your earlier assertion that "Ukraine conflict" is much too vague., that is your personal POV. While media sources are naming it as such [73][74][75][76][77][78][79]. In any case, unrest cann't stay because its just not simply that anymore. EkoGraf (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It isn't my "POV" whatever that is.. We don't follow journalistic shorthand, as I've said so many times. There is a reason this article isn't titled "Ukraine crisis" or "Ukraine conflict". That's because this is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. We have to think about events from a historical perspective, and from a historical perspective "Ukraine crisis" or "Ukraine conflict" could refer to many, many events. "2014 Ukraine conflict" could refer to Euromaidan, perhaps, or various other things. Neither are WP:CONCISE or WP:PRECISE. As I said, I'm fine with "2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine". RGloucester — ☎ 01:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't follow journalistic shorthand, as I've said so many times. Actually, per Wikipedia policy, we do. Read Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names. Per that policy, we use the name that is the most common/frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. So, you may not like the name, but its the name that is mostly used in the mainstream media. And it can not be mixed up with the Euromaidan events, which were never called a conflict, but a revolution for the most part. P.S. An editor has proposed the title 2014 Ukrainian separatist conflict below, with which I would also agree to. EkoGraf (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't. We follow reliable scholarly sources, and consult the titles used by fellow tertiary sources as well. We take into account media usage, but if it is a clear case of journalistic shorthand which is either not concise, precise or neutral, we adopt what are called "neutral descriptive titles", per WP:NDESC. Also see WP:POVNAME:

Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:

Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later

Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious

RGloucester — ☎ 15:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You are aware that you just declared all of the reliable news sources (originating from countries that have nothing to do with the conflict) that are using the term as lacking neutrality? Also, it is obvious all of those media are connecting the particular issue with the name Ukraine conflict, so that is also contradictory to the quote you put out. P.S. I'm also fine with your title "2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine". EkoGraf (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A civil war is between two or more parties within the same state, seeing fighters are coming from Russia I do not see how it can be labeled as such. In any case WP:RS are not calling this a civil war (At least not yet), I would be in favor of 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine though as at this point it is clearly more than just unrest. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter that fighters are coming from Russia. Foreign fighters in a civil war have always been present. Syrian civil war being a prime example, but still, 2014 Ukraine conflict is I think the most appropriate title (based on sources) since its not just unrest anymore. EkoGraf (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

"2014 Ukraine conflict" is not clear enough; it could refer to other stages of the events which have been playing out in Ukraine in the past few months. If the article is to be renamed, the new name requires more clarity. Dustin (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Move to "2014 Ukrainian separatist conflict" or "2014 separatist conflict in Ukraine"

Sources:

• "Ukrainian conflict":
• "Ukrainian separatists (or Ukraine separatists)":

Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

As with other discussions, I cannot and will not take a position unless some reasons are given. Dustin (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Support ether of the two. It has evolved from a simple unrest into a conflict of a military nature. EkoGraf (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - less informative than the current title. 'pro-Russian unrest' is more helpful than "Ukrainian separatism", especially since it quashes the entire devolution/federalization angle to boot as well as the root of the issue - Russianness (language, culture, politics, economics, etc.) --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 04:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • At some point, some sort of name change may become necessary; however, I currently feel inclined to agree with Lvivske on this point here (I'll say more later). Dustin (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree, unrest simply this is not anymore, and keeping the word in the title is out-dated and misrepresentation at this point of the events that are unfolding. EkoGraf (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Support Unrest indicates a low level event with strikes, protests. This is now a military conflict and has grown beyond the unrest level—MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose both - I would only support 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine at this stage. Both of these are vaguer than is necessary, and "separatism" doesn't capture all of what is happening. RGloucester — ☎ 15:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree on your suggestion ('pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine')--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 16:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I actually also don't mind the title 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine, its fine, just so long its not unrest anymore. EkoGraf (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That title sounds alright to me; it better captures the past situations as well as more recent developments. Dustin (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

We actually need to remove the pro-Russian part from the title, since these some of these people support federalism.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Federalists are almost entirely pro-Russian, these arent mutually exclusive terms —LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 16:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• How many times will I have to explain that "pro-Russian" does not mean "separatist"? It merely means they favour ties with Russia over ties with other parties, particularly the EU. Reliable sources continually use "pro-Russian". I have linked the dictionary definition before, but apparently that was not enough. I will do so again. The prefix "pro" means, according to the OED

Favourable, positive, supportive; favourably disposed.

RGloucester — ☎ 19:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per RGloucester. Willing to Support 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine.Patriot Donbassa (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Word "conflict" is clearly preferable to "unrest". Word "separatist" at least gives a rough idea what sort of outcome these people are aiming for.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

"Rough ideas" are not what we look for in a title. We are going for WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. "Separatist" is none of those, and there are plenty of people involved who claim not to want to secede. RGloucester — ☎ 22:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The difference between "separatist" and "pro-Russian" is that "pro-Russian" gives readers no idea at all of the outcome the movement is aiming at. For instance, a movement which aimed for a unitary Ukraine with a government friendly to Russia would still be "pro-Russian". Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That's because there are many varied outcomes demanded by very many different people. The only thing binding these people together is their favourable view of Russia as opposed to other parties such as the EU. They are not all separatist. RGloucester — ☎ 00:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, clearly it is "pro-Russian", there is no evidence of "pro-Hungarian" or "pro-Moldovan" separatism from these respective sizeable ethnic communities living in Ukraine, hence there is no need to generalise the title. --Nug (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, we could separate the issues in Crimea, Donetsk/Luhansk (or Novorossiya, whatetever you prefer) and Ruthenia (Zakarpattia Oblast). Hungary has made requests about the rights of the Hungarians in Ukraine (I presume in Ruthenia). Let's not foget that the Ruthenia was the only region in Western Ukraine where Yulia Tymoshenko lost against Yanukovich in 2010. And take into account the regards of the Hungarian PM concerning the Ukrainian military conflict in what concerns to the Hungarian community in Ukraine. It's not just a Russian issue. Though, now, the insurgency is only pro-Russian (I wouldn't consider it pro-Union with Russia, but pro-ethnic Russian rights and pro-language rights in Ukraine)Mondolkiri1 (talk). 03:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
• Moderate View, what is happening in Ukraine is becoming a proxy conflict. For now, maybe the title can be "pro russian conflict (or unrest) in ukraine". In the early stages of this conflict, weren't the demands of the protests a federal state in ukraine (and many still support that), but now a lot these protests want reunification with russia.--ArbutustheTree 02:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Support It describes better the situation. "Unrest" is an euphemism. Is it necessary a couple of hundreds of people dead to describe as a conflict, let alone a "civil war"?Mondolkiri1 (talk). 03:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice that the objections are not to "conflict", but to either the lack of disambiguation or the imprecise "separatist". The alternate proposal is "2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine". RGloucester — ☎ 03:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, should the "Euromaidan" ever been called "pro-European Union Unrest"? And there wasn't a military conflict then. The separatists (and I don't talk only about the militants) in Ukraine have divergent objectives, some of them seek merger with Russia, others a closer approach with Russia, rather than with the EU (which I, as a Portuguese, sympathize, as I'd be Greek), and others are simply against a government that includes fascist members of the Svoboda Party, though many in the Russian side also share an opposite fascist ideology. I support again this change of title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondolkiri1 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)<!— Template:Unsigned -->

It may have well been "pro-EU unrest" if there had not been a commonly used name for the movement. RGloucester — ☎ 04:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think that the actual conflict itself should be separated from the unrest page. It appears as though the military conflict is limited to the Donbass region of Ukraine and I have seen several sites refer to these actions as conflict in the Donbas, operations in the Donbas and so forth. So perhaps it could be renamed to 2014 Donbas conflict in line with another internal country conflict like the Northern Mali conflict or if we want to consider it a full on war (which is limited to a certain region of the country) we could use an example title like War in the Vendée which occurred during the French Revolution and was limited to one section of the country. The fact of the matter is 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine is a long title, it is not easy to type into the search box, and really is not pleasant to look at. We don't need to mention who the war is between in the title or the reason for the unrest/conflict only that there is one occuring, and reader which checks the lead will figure out what the conflict is about... Cheers. —Kuzwa (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

We already have a "Donetsk People's Republic" page which deals with all the actions in Donetsk. This article is an overview (summary article) of the whole unrest, not just the military operations in Donetsk. The Donetsk actions are already covered in detail at Donetsk People's Republic, and various other sub-articles. This is why I didn't want the Donetsk article to be titled "Donetsk People's Republic", as it has a broader purpose. Regardless, if one wants to read a detailed story about the military actions, one should go to the Donetsk People's Republic article. That information isn't in this article. This article is merely a summary page. If there should be any split, it would be a split off from the Donetsk People's Republic article into a new article on the conflict, as I had proposed earlier with Draft:Donetsk crisis. RGloucester — ☎ 03:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Do we have consensus on going from "unrest" to "conflict"?

As far as I can see, no-one has opposed idea of using the word "conflict" instead of "unrest". If there is consensus that this one-word change would be an improvement, why not do it now? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Support by EkoGraf, MyMoloboaccount, Kalidasa 777, Mondolkiri1

Oppose by LeVivsky (Lvivske), PatriotDonbassa (RGloucester) and Nug Moderate view by ArbutustheTree. Until now, 4 in favour, 3 against, 1 neutral. I quote Galileo ("E pur si muove")... Whatever I say, it doesn't change the facts!... And in my opinion, this is, if less than the Bosnian war, so far, it's not less than the Croatian war at all! (a country where there has been an ethnic cleansing against the Serbs, by the way... maybe it's more difficult to clean 5 million Russian speaking Russians or Ukrainians from the Donbass, as the Svoboda would dream... sorry for this POV, I'm left POV, I support Tsipras) Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I count 4 opposed, not 3... But 3 of the 4 (Lvivske, PatriotDonbassa, RGloucester) have said they would agree to a one-word change, from "unrest" to "conflict". The other 1 (Nug) hasn't commented specifically on that part of the proposal, as far as I can see. So surely we have pretty good consensus in favor that one-word change, anyway? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The funny thing is that, by what I know, noone from either side is giving an opinion here (Lvivske is from Ontario, Canada, and curiously a supporter of the far-right Svoboda Party, not a Canadian party). Should we consult the Russian and Ukrainian wikipedias to see what they think about the issue? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske sympathizes with a party that, taking into account its platform, hates 30% of the population of his so-called country (though his country is Canada, not Ukraine). With people like that in the government what would you expect short of a civil war? Hey, Lvivske, Canadian pretending to be Ukrainian... tell me that!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Oddly enough the European far-right admires Putin for his dismemberment of Ukraine and his anti-gay stance[80]. Do you admire Putin too? --Nug (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, oddly enough, and I am a Portuguese who supported the self-determination of East Timor, I actually voted for S&D in the European Elections, and I support Alexis Tsipras in Greece (I hoped there was one here). One of the parties belonging to GUE/NGL in Portugal voted against sactions against Russia. I'm from the South... I think that plays a role (more anti-German economic supremacy, less against Russia). Mondolkiri1 (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't assume that personal issues are at play here (except possibly with the actual move). That kind of argument is mostly just made to discredit the other side. It's also bad on your part. Why don't I just start assuming that you are actually hiding personal issues for which you oppose? Dustin (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

For the record I also support the use of conflict here, unrest does not seem enough and more sources are using the term conflict to describe what is going on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I support the move to "2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine" as it is more encompassing of the whole of the current situation. I believe this would include both the events way back when it was just "protests" up to now. Dustin (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Anthony Appleyard: Since the protection settings on this article are set to "sysop only" moves, I'll ping Anthony Appleyard, who often helps with these move requests. Please take a look at the discussion here, and move this page to 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 15:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
• Pro-Russian Conflict is a good name.--ArbutustheTree 15:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbutus the tree (talk • contribs)

@Mondolkiri1 Tsipras and in general Left in Europe strongly condemns tha current Ukrainian authorities for its violent actions and murders against civillians in Donbas. Also, far-right parties in Europe tend to share this view.After the recent elections in EU...there is a respectable faction in EU parliament that opposes the bloodbath in E.Ukraine. As for this article...because of some stubborn canadian...wiki presents tha fact as if there is no military conflict between Ukrainians of different origins and political views...someone would believe there are only protests and demonstrations...A completely misleading name of the article.Btw i did not know Tsipras has supporters in Portugal ouside of Left Bloc :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.223.2 (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The irony of the far-left's support is that the far-right sees a kindred spirit in Putin whose actions in annexing Crimea on the pretext of protecting an ethnic exclave is eerily similar to what Hitler did in Sudetenland back in 1938. --Nug (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You guys need to stop bringing personal issues into this. Putin is an authoritarian, but arguing for or against issues invloving him or others should not become the point of this discussion. I may be going way off on the side to what you all are saying, but I am sure that you are bringing too many of your opinions into this. Dustin (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just one (late) remark : "pro-Russian" does not match with "conflict". "Pro-Russian" refers to one side, while "conflict" implies two sides or refers to a region. One does not speak of an "Armenian conflict in Azerbaijan" for example. It would have been more logical to choose "pro-Russian rebellion", "pro-Russian insurgency" or "East Ukraine conflict". Ec.Domnowall (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No, because the scope of this article is larger than the military conflict in Donetsk Oblast. It also includes the demonstrations and RSA occupations in Kharkiv, Odessa, and so on. Odessa isn't in "eastern Ukraine", and the insurgency is limited to two particular regions, those being Luhansk and Donetsk. Please see the Donetsk People's Republic article for more on the military conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 16:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right (but maybe some better wording is possible). Ec.Domnowall (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

What is this movement advocating, opposing, saying?

At present the page doesn't go into much detail about what the movement has been advocating, or about what it says it is opposing, or what terminology and imagery it has used... Some issues are already mentioned in the infobox, but it needs to be fleshed out in the body text of the article. Perhaps a new section with a title like "Slogans, symbols, demands, policies"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That's because it isn't clear, and I'd hesitate to call it a "movement", are there is very little unity. Many people are demanding many different things, and isn't clear what anybody particularly wants. Regardless, the information you seek is in the body. If you read it, you will find it. RGloucester — ☎ 15:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be clear what people "want", if many people are "demanding" different things, shouldn't the article specify what some of the demands are, and who is putting them forward? I'd suggest also some more attention to slogans, which are not necessarily quite the same as demands. E.g. Opposition to what they perceive to be "fascism" is frequently visible on the separatist/federalist banners, to anyone acquainted with the Cyrillic alphabet. I've read through the body and found one sentence only referring to this anti-fascist position, and that was under the heading "media portrayal". Is one sentence enough? And is "media portrayal" the right heading? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Whether or not the people they oppose are "fascist" is disputed. The only neutral presentation is that they are "anti-government", and that is detailed in the body. RGloucester — ☎ 23:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Their slogans and symbols may not be neutral, but does that mean we can't or shouldn't say more about these slogans and symbols? NPOV means we can't present the slogans of one side in a conflict as if they were slogans of Wikipedia itself. But does it mean we should avoid talking about political slogans and symbols altogether?? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

We can't interpret the slogans and symbols without secondary sources and context. That's WP:OR. Unless you can find non-POV sources making sense of the meaning and objectives, they don't belong here. We're not journalists. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WP policies such as WP:OR apply in the same way to what we say about their slogans and symbols as to other topics about them, e.g. methods used, names of leaders, whether protestors have been paid etc. But does that require or justify saying a little as we currently do about slogans, symbols, demands, and policies? Aren't we effectively ignoring an elephant in the room? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It is all in the article. What isn't in the article that you seem to want to be in it? What "elephant"? I do not see the problem. RGloucester — ☎ 03:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm stumped. Perhaps we ought to rename this section as, "What are you advocating, opposing, saying, Kalidasa 777?" It seems that you're suggesting that the invisible "elephant" is a lack of WP:ADVOCACY on behalf of the protesters. I'm fairly certain that the lack of such discourse is self evident: or are you suggesting that a section dedicated to such advocacy should be included in the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look at the essay Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent, which discusses application of NPOV principles to severely controversial political topics. As that essay puts it "it is possible to explain Nikita Khrushchev's view of the USA, without either agreeing or disagreeing with it... Editors must present both sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's point of view." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what it is that you are claiming we have "left out". RGloucester — ☎ 05:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. I will try as soon as I can to present examples of the sort of info I'm talking about.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

We all understand what writing for the opponent means. Where is the POV content that needs to be balanced out by presenting 'the other side'? You appear to be working on the assumption that content is being presented on behalf of the 'other' side. All I'm able to see is a balanced account of the events with every care taken to use neutral language and not tip the scales in anyone's favour according to personal POV. Would you care to point out precisely where the purported lack of balance takes place in this article. There's no point in bringing any form of examples to the table when you haven't been able to point to direct examples of shortcomings in the article as it stands. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester asked what we've left out? Iryna asked what we've said that needs to be balanced? OK. What do we say right now about the motives of the separatist/federalist protesters and militants? What is their casus belli?

Well, we do have a section about allegations that protesters were paid, which is certainly one possible motive. Allegations about paid protests are a staple of political debate in many countries... true or not, they come from a movement's critics rather than its supporters... has anyone ever held up a placard saying: "I'm only here for the money" ?? If we give information only about this criticism of the motives of separatist/federalist protesters, are we presenting an NPOV? Not when there are other motives, mentioned in mainstream news reports, which we don't now mention.

Some of the other reasons people have been protesting and taking up arms are mentioned in a report from Donetsk by Luke Harding in the Observer which explores viewpoints of separatists and federalists there:

• Post-Febuary Kiev government seen as illegal, illegitimate.
• People felt driven to oppose Kiev government because of destruction of war memorials in west of Ukraine.
• Conflict with Kiev seen "as a re-run of the second world war, of Moscow against the Nazis".
• Barack Obama compared to Napoleon Bonaparte.

A further factor, identified for instance in a report from Horlivka by Noah Sneider in Aljazeera America is that deaths from Kiev's military actions have been increasing the anger and resolve in the east. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Anything of importance that you've mentioned is included, such as the bit about the "illegal" government of Ukraine, and of military actions increasing anger. RGloucester — ☎ 02:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

At present, the notion that the Kiev government is illegitimate gets a sentence in a paragraph about an opinion poll; and the point about Kiev govt action increasing tension is mentioned (in a highly specific context) in the section "Government building seizures". One of the few places in the article where separatists' slogans are actually quoted is in the section "Referendum", which cites some things separatists said about Rinat Akhmetov, the businessman who has identified himself as a federalist. But where do we quote their slogans about their primary enemy — the post-February government in Kiev? Are slogans expressing differences between separatists and federalists considered more noteworthy than slogans expressing differences between militant separatists and militant Ukrainian nationalists? Why shouldn't there be a section with a title like "Motives", or "Grievances and demands", where readers curious about the reasons for the movement can find sourced information at a glance? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

We are not a WP:SOAPBOX. The grievances are mentioned. They are opposed to Euromaidan, and the overthrow of Yanuk. They favour varying degrees of ties with Russia, as opposed to ties with the EU. They support Russian language rights. This is in the article. RGloucester — ☎ 03:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Kalidasa 777, I've already pointed you in the direction of WP:ADVOCACY as being your interest in the content. Please familiarise yourself with this + WP:POV + WP:OR. You don't seem to have a grasp of what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia is not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What specifically have I said which you think goes counter to the well-known WP policies you have mentioned, Iryna? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Several other things need to be moved too

Timeline needs to be moved too. I don't know if you forgot, but... Dustin (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I already moved it to properly match. Dustin (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The categories for the unrest needs to be moved. However, it is kind of difficult to move categories... I made a nomination here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Category:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. If I made an obvious mistake in the nomination, please correct it. Thank you. Dustin (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I would just be WP:BOLD and move them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There are way too many pages affected in my opinion... I count a total of 78 pages in the affected categories. Dustin (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Have a bot then that can help? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that much about having bots on this sort of task... in any case, when the main category was moved from "Category:2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine" to "Category:2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine", I believe that it was initially nominated for speedy move which was turned down. I think that it is necessary for me to go through the process to most easily move the categories. I don't know though... since I've already made a nomination, I think we may as well wait for a brief period. If I am right in saying so, then if you supported the move, you can comment on the page I linked. I haven't moved any categories or participated in any category-moving discussions prior to this, so I don't know though. Dustin (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• It was only a few days ago that non-bots became able to move categories. Moving them in this way is dumb, though, because it won't move all the pages currently categorised to the new name. It is best to go through the usual CFD process. RGloucester — ☎ 02:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, I had figured something like that was the case. I noticed that one of the previous attempts to speedily rename the category ended in failure so I decided to go through the normal processes. Support when able, if you can. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Putin's quote removed

Which is in fact mis-quote. BBC wrote that "Putin supports the initiative", but does not say he supports talks. What is more, the BBC article says that Putin insists on Participation of rebels in n talks. Wikipedia context speaks about talks without rebels. Hence the quote as was given conveys a provably false impression that Punit supports talks without rebels. -No.Altenmann >t 04:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The "OSCE initiative" consisted of the talks. The article says:

The talks in Kiev are part of an initiative put forward by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and veteran German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger was brought in to moderate. Those present included interim President Olexander Turchynov, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and several former Ukrainian leaders. The OSCE said Russian President Vladimir Putin supported its initiative.

You are referring to a different statement that does not having anything to do with Putin, but in fact was uttered by Lavrov:

But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov questioned whether presidential elections on May 25 should take place because Ukraine was on "the brink of civil war." In an interview with Bloomberg Television, Mr Lavrov said in the east and south of Ukraine "there is a war, a real war." He also called for the inclusion of rebels in the crisis talks, saying they would only succeed if there was "equal participation of all regions".

So, no, it was not a "misquote". Putin supported the talks, according to the OSCE. That has no bearing on his position about whether they'd succeed or not, which wasn't even his position, but Lavrov's. RGloucester — ☎ 04:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No. Putin supported the "initiative". "Talks" is your original research. Sorry about Lavrov. But do you really think Lavrov uttered non-Putin POV? Anyway, I fixed the text, with proper quitation and attribution. -No.Altenmann >t 04:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I hope the dust is settled. That's the problem with rendering of hearsay delivered by a hearsay ("BBC said that OSCE said that Putin said..." :-): one may never be too careful, especially in quickly changing political situation. -No.Altenmann >t 04:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox map's label

I am not completely sure about this, but should the text "2014 Pro-Russian Unrest in Ukraine" in the infobox map be changed to read "2014 Pro-Russian Conflict in Ukraine"? I'm not completely sure about this, so I thought I would bring it up here. Dustin (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I can do it when I have the time, but I don't think it is urgent. RGloucester — ☎ 04:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

Have I assessed the importance correctly? (Per the respective project's guidelines.) I have set it 'top' for Ukraine project, 'high' for Russia and 'mid' for Politics. Dmatteng (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Luhansk

Ukrainina jets bombed the Luhansk RSA and border clashes are happening. Also, rebels tried to storm a base in Lugansk.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

At least five people died. Minimum two of them are civilians including minister of health Nataly Arkhipova. Militants report that cluster bombs were used. 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:184F:AB9C:7766:8E09 (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That's some very sneaky super Ukrainian jets there, that can fly through the middle of a park, under and in between trees, and then magically disappear into thin air [81] (0:14). Media other than Kremlin propaganda outlets are already reporting that RT and VoiceofRussia are full of shit. Sort of obvious on this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

At this video we can see effect of cluster munition 94.45.129.180 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If you didn't know planes fly a little bit higher than trees...and drop bombs from above 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:184F:AB9C:7766:8E09 (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

it would appear that the explosion on the RSA came from inside and blasted outward, IMO [82] --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You didn't posted any link to an explosion, just a photo of damaged building from the air bombing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A video of aftermath https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM2uG9evNlo Ballistic trails, tree branches and debris are faced to the building. Trails are directed into the ground. Video of the bombing itself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QngNPNtSCk Explosions came from the park and were moving towards the building. So this is not a self-bombing by air-defence weapon, as someone is speculating 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:184F:AB9C:7766:8E09 (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The explosion wasn't from an airstrike / bombing, it came from inside. The video you're showing shows small impact craters from a canon, clearly out of wack from what happened at the upper floor. Why are we even discussing this? Wiki isnt a forum. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 23:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned ballistic trails and moving explosions intentionally. Debris cannot fly towards an explosion. Watch carefully. Here's the aircraft that probably did it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUUsIzLqTG4 And yes, this should be at least in another talk page...2A02:2698:6424:94AD:184F:AB9C:7766:8E09 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no canon on any video.There is a plane firing missiles though.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• The "airstrike" was the result of an insurgent mis-firing his Russian supplied MANPAD when attempting to shoot down a Ukrainian aircraft, these images shows the missile was fired from a park opposite, hit a tree, skipped across the road and slammed into the building. --Nug (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a word about Ukrainian forces' actions

The article looks like militants are just "offencing" and ukrainian government has nothing to do with that. Some information punitive operation must be added. Should it be done in a new section or in "Response"? 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:184F:AB9C:7766:8E09 (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

mostly covered in the donetsk republic article, this article is about the 'pro russian unrest' not necessarily the response (yet). Would be a lot of duplication so maybe we'll have to assess how to avoid a split of the content --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 18:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A small remark should be present anyway. I think 1-2 sentences in "response" with references to Luhansk and Donetsk republics will do the job for a while. 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:184F:AB9C:7766:8E09 (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Both Ukrainian Forces and Pro-Russian militants have been violating some types of laws.--ArbutustheTree 19:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Arbutus the tree: Hey, I hate to bring it up here, but are you aware that you have a talk page? You have not responded to what I have said, and you have not responded to what others have said either or even ever edited your talk page at all. For one, you still don't have a link to your page in your signature, so SineBot keeps on following you around. Dustin (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• @Dustin:, Sorry about that. I'm somewhat new to wikipedia, i'll try to do that the next time.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That isn't a problem, especially if you are new here. I just don't think you were ever seeing my advice (and what others were saying either). Your talk page is at User talk:Arbutus the tree. If you have any questions about this, you can leave a message on my talk page (it's linked in my signature). Dustin (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Airstrike

2nd of June airstrike video(non-Graphic one), shows moment the fighter attacked from the air, [83].Most likely unguided rockets S-8KOM were used.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Second video(Warning Graphic later), shows the fighter releasing missiles against the city(first 10 seconds)[84] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Third video showing air fighter releasing rockets on the city[85] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

These youtubes are useless, we're not here to conduct original research / analysis or forensics vicariously. It does appear that there was an airstrike with small radius rockets, and also an explosion from inside the RSA that caused the debris to kill some civilians. We should wait for reliable sources to cover this, though. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this source reliable enough for you? This pro-junta Ukrainian report clearly says that the Ukrainian air force fired upon the Lugansk government building. This should settle the matter for good. There is no longer any point to your continuing to repeat disinformation. – Herzen (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I stopped reading at junta.—LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 02:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of legitimate criticism or dislike of the government, "junta" is wholly inaccurate. It refers to a military-led government, when the military isn't running the government in this case. Can we stop with the nonsense? RGloucester — ☎ 02:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You're totally wrong. Concise OED:

junta ▪ n. a military or political group that rules a country after taking power by force.

The word "junta" is the word that most precisely describes the Kyiv regime; that is why Russian sources regularly use it to describe that regime. Your finding the use of the word objectionable here just further reveals your marked anti-Russian bias. To repeat, Russian media have shown themselves to be much more reliable than Anglophone sources when it comes to the Ukraine crisis, and yet you go on with the conceit that Ukrainian and Russian sources are equally unreliable. – Herzen (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I will not dignify your libel with a response. Remember to assume good faith, eh? RGloucester — ☎ 03:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You do not make it easy for me to assume good faith, if you are not willing to admit that you were wrong about the meaning of the word "junta". Also, the only way I can make sense of your accusation that I engaged in "libel" is that you have changed your mind, and now believe that Russian sources such as RT or RIA Novosti are inherently reliable, whereas pro-putsch regime Ukrainian sources are inherently unreliable. – Herzen (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

So let's have an example of a "civilian junta"? And let's be honest here, words like "tyrant" "propaganda" "dictator" "regime" also don't necessarily have negative meaning, at least not in their original context. But nobody who uses these words these days wishes to convey anything positive. So when you and Kremlin propaganda uses the word "junta" they mean something else then the definition you provided. And it is something which is bullshit. It's called equivocation, a rhetorical (that also used to be a not-necessarily-bad word) trick.

Also, are you gonna at least stop using that term after June 7th? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Russian media is a clown show. The fact that you're rambling about a "junta" shows at minimum a lack of understanding of language and definitions; talking about Russian media being 'reliable' is just sad. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 03:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yanukovych was overthrown by force, and positions in the new cabinet were allocated on the basis of how instrumental the the group a politician is a member of was in overthrowing the existing legitimate government. Textbook case of a junta. (Andriy Parubiy was made Secretary of the Security and National Defense Committee, even though his Svoboda Party has always done abysmally in elections. Thus the current cabinet was formed on the basis of the use of violence, not any kind of electoral or democratic process. – Herzen (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yanukovych was not overthrown by force, he fled in the night prior to any force taking place.
• Positions in the cabinet were not done that way, you're making things up.
• GlobalResearch.ca is a hoax site known for Holocaust denial, I'm not even going to click that.
• Parubiy isn't even a member of Svoboda...
• Did you miss the elected parliament appointing positions and democratic presidential elections that just took place? ("not any iind of electoral or democratic process")
• Thus, everything you just said was a steaming pile of misinformed youknowwhat. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 03:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I actually do know an example of a "civilian government" that was termed a junta, the Whig Junto, though that was in the 17th (!!!!) century. That's irrelevant with regard to the contemporary connotations of the word. and the way that it is being used as an epithet. RGloucester — ☎ 03:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thailand is an example of a real junta, with the military ruling the country. That's an actual coup with an actual junta, which conveniently happened after Russian propaganda tried using the term incorrectly to define Ukraine. Unfortunately, with a live real parallel, people who parrot Russian state/media keep using it, oblivious to the actual meaning. You'd think with the real junta in the press they'd feel silly continuing on. -LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ)

No matter how much one hates the government, or how much one views it as "illegitimate", one cannot properly term the present Ukrainian government a junta, plain and simple. RGloucester — ☎ 04:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"we're not here to conduct original research / analysis or forensics vicariously" then why have you stated above "it would appear that the explosion on the RSA came from inside and blasted outward", which btw is contradicts every video of the air bombing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Just replying to the discussion, not starting something new. It also does not contradict anything, the only video available shows ground level action from a cannon. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no canon on any video.There is a plane firing missiles though.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No missiles were fired, you're misinformed. Missiles don't leave small potholes, high caliber cannonfire does.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 23:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Cluster air-ground missiles contain a lot of small explosives. They disassemble before impact 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:184F:AB9C:7766:8E09 (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking this out of genuine curiosity. What are some "cluster air-ground missiles"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever he's describing clearly didn't happen, as the only video of any strike shows a clean strafing line, not a random cluster spread. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 23:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems you don't know a thing about types of weapons and how they shoot. "Cluster" doesn't mean a random spread. And cannons stopped being used in the beginning of XX century. You just refuse to accept clear facts. Poor TV washed mind... 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:7CDD:B830:5FE3:77CD (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If you think cannons are something used by pirates then...oh god, here: Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-301 --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 05:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That's just difference between English and Russian terms. "Cannon" is only used for WWII flak guns in Russian now 94.231.125.183 (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so what's an example of a "cluster air-ground missile"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Kh-38 94.231.125.183 (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Missiles were clearly fired in the videos from the plane. And small air to surface missiles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-8_rocket can leave holes in the ground.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thailand has a junta as Ukraine has had, Lvivske! A minority supported by an establishment, which is supported from factions of the Armed Forces. The so-called democracy protesters had an election in Thailand and they lost! Now, they're supported by an illegitimate junta. Well, in Thailand, at least in terms of language they're more homogeneous. But not in terms of society. Most people clearly expressed, in elections, that they wanted another option. I'm trying to be polite now and not calling anyone... you guess what you wish to guess. I'm sorry for Thailand, because it's a country that I praise a lot, since I've got friends there. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There are literally zero parallels to Thailand and Ukraine. Keep fishing.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 06:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is a video of the missiles exploding. And these are the people that Kyiv kills with its "anti-terrorist operation" (WARNING: very graphic). How Wikipedia editors can continue editing articles to hide from English readers the nature of the regime is beyond me. – Herzen (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a form for you to vent about youtube videos.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 03:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• The "airstrike" was the result of an insurgent mis-firing his Russian supplied MANPAD when attempting to shoot down a Ukrainian aircraft, these images shows the missile was fired from a park opposite, hit a tree, skipped across the road and slammed into the building. --Nug (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Everybody can take some frames from a video, write some text, post it on their fancy twitter and serve the result as a "reveal". A bunch of full uncut videos were provided already showing there was a sequence of small explosions. And you, Nug, stop treating your dreams as it was reality. If Russia had supported militants, Yarosh, Turchinov and company would already have been where they deserve to be — six feet under. Jill Abramson paid with her position to tell you that, but you don't listen. It's talking to a brick wall. 94.231.125.183 (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Atleast Jill Abramson wasn't murdered like 165 journalists shot dead in Russia. Why is it that Europe's far right, from Vlaams Belang to Jobbik, have fallen in love with Putin[86]? --Nug (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Most of these journalists died of crossfire or were murdered by orders of "businessmen" (actually criminals). The rest was exterminated by government, yes, but that doesn't mean USA and EU don't have any censorship. By the way, I haven't found any western news telling that ukrainian forces are doing anything. Just about militants, separatists or "terrorists" attack this or that. Because NATO want you to think that "poor defenceless" ukrainian army is suffering terror from militants but bravely endure and "not responding back". Why did you even mention that? Russia is not a part of this conflict. In advance of you responding with russian citizens fighting there: a lot of russians have families in Ukraine, they can live and work there, some have citizenships of both Ukraine and Russia, and they do not need visa or foreign passport to enter Ukraine so they stay there legally. But they are not an army and do not represent government. 94.231.125.183 (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"The rest was exterminated by government, yes, but that doesn't mean USA and EU don't have any censorship." <-- Does this even need commenting about? Yes Russian government kills reporters but.... Western media is biased so it's just as bad! Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That's you who tell it's just as bad. I've just told I know about journalist homicide, but that can't justify western censorship. By the way, this is the way of western propananda: make one's words to look like it has some particular meaning, which is actually doesn't exist. 94.231.125.183 (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Pravda has a good article on it with lots of video and analysis. I'm not even going to respond to the above IP who likened "extermination" of journalists to US censorship, or the other pathetic whitewashing of Russia's actions. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 14:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM - if you people want to discuss youtube videos (that are not RS), then there are various internet forums suitable for that, wikipedia talk pages are not such forum.--Staberinde (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

OSCE report. "Based on the SMM’s limited observation these strikes were the result of non-guided rockets shot from an aircraft. The number of casualties is unknown.". I guess, it's a reliable source. Seryo93 (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Can someone at least change "Donetsk" to "Luhansk" in the article? This explosion did not happen in Donetsk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I just rewrote the paragraph. RGloucester — ☎ 19:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

OSCE mission now confirming air strike

OSCE mission is now confirming that Kiev forces bombed Luhansk in an airstrike [87]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

On Tuesday, the OSCE's monitoring mission to Ukraine said the building was hit by rockets. It added that - based on the mission's limited observation - "these strikes were the result of non-guided rockets shot from an aircraft".

--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 19:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I should also stress that this is based on "limited observation" (looking at the same videos as us?)

The SMM has not re-established contact with the 4 monitors from the Donetsk team and 4 monitors from the Luhansk team with whom it lost contact on 26 May and 29 May respectively.

The Luhansk team is missing/kidnapped, meaning the OSCE isn't even there to observe on anything.—LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 19:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That isn't the whole Luhansk team, but the OSCE hasn't been out of their offices in Luhansk and Donetsk much lately, for the past week or so, because of "security reasons". RGloucester — ☎ 19:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh? I thought it was "THE four members" as in, all four of them. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 19:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This happens over and over. Russian media tell one story; pro-junta Ukrainian media tell a completely different story. When the smoke clears, it turns out that the Russian media were right all along, whereas the Ukrainian media were spinning lies out of thin air. Maintaining articles on the Ukrainian crisis would be much easier if some editors did not repeat ad nauseum pro-junta lies. Please stop the endless pro-junta advocacy. It makes things difficult for editors who want to maintain Wikipedia as an objective source of information. – Herzen (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"repeat ad nauseum pro-junta lies", yawn. --Nug (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I stopped reading at hunta. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 02:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The correct word is junta, but it's read as "hunta" in Spanish Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Junta is just one of labels used by critics of the current gov't of Ukraine. Let me present other case: 1993 Russian constitutional crisis was resolved via what was pretty much coup d'etat (illegal dissolution of parliament; tanks shot at parliament building, all this was followed by President-organized referendum, for announcement of which he (President) had no constitutional authority). And critics of the new government (mainly Communists, but also certain other anti-Yeltsin parties) often used words such as "хунта", "клика", etc. as labels for a new government. But no serious publication (and we attempt at writing serious and neutral encyclopedia :) used these labels as a reference to constitutional order established in 1993 (which, if I'm correct, still persists, see Constitution of Russia). In short: using contentious labels is strongly discouraged. Seryo93 (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Why do some people think that the current government in Kiev is a junta-even though new leaders will be put in to place after the May 25 election.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The president doesn't have the power to change the cabinet, as far as I know. There has been no indication that "new leaders will be put in to place after the May 25 election". – Herzen (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

He does, just as Yanukovych dismissed the Azarov government. Doesn't matter though, all positions were appointed through democracy. So much democracy that a bald eagle cried. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 04:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the interim government was voted in by a majority of the Verkhovna Rada, which means some of Yanukovych's own Party of Regions members voted in support of the interim government. --Nug (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was just as constitutional as the way Mussolini took power in Italy in 1922 with the backing of armed demonstrators. The word "junta" (which I don't use myself) expresses the alarm some feel about overthrow of an elected president, and the alarm some feel about the way Ukraine's militia-backed government has reacted to emergence of competing militias in the south and east. Of course it is a contentious label — using it in WP's own voice in mainspace would be as inappropriate as calling the DPR guys "terrorists".Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The elected president was not "overthrown", he abandoned his post when he scurried off to Moscow with suitcases of cash and a truck load of looted art. The Verkhovna Rada lawfully appointed an interim president per the constitution pending Presidential elections, which have since been held. --Nug (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"Alarm" doesn't make it a "junta". Perhaps one could call it illegitimate, but never a "junta". RGloucester — ☎ 14:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

So anyone using terms like "junta lies" on this talk page should be asked to say "lies from the illegitimate government" instead? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine template

There is something wrong with this template, because is doesn't even allow to access the "show" link. I tried to fix it, but with no success. Anyone could try to fix it, please? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyone will fix this?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

CNN:CNN investigation in Luhansk has found clear evidence that whatever detonations hit the building and the adjoining park came from the air

[88] Key points:

• Point 1:Munition expert30-millimeter ordnance, he said, which is standard equipment on the Su-25, a ground attack fighter, and the Su-27
• Point 2:both combat aircraft operated by Ukraine.
• Point 3:It's thought to be the first time that civilians have been killed or injured in an attack by the Ukrainian air force
• Point 4:Europe editor of IHS Jane's Defence Weekly, told CNN he believed the Ukrainian air force "used their Su-25 'Frogfoot'

I think this settles the discussion about what caused the deaths of the civilians.Basic information can be added to this article and others about the conflict. I will add details about this attack on civilians by Ukrainian air force to an article I am writing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a part in the pro-Russian conflict article called "attacks on civilians", or maybe it already has that.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean this piece of POV tripe you're writing? Good luck with getting that through! WP:NOTNEWS, WP:POV, WP:RECENTISM +++ every other policy and guideline you'd be violating. If you're not a Ukrainophobic WP:SPA, you're certainly doing a good job of looking like one. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You've mentioned a bunch of WP policies and essays, without showing how they apply to what you talking about. Proving what? Only that you know the names of a bunch of policies and essays... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to be one. I was only making a suggestion. Plus, i had no idea about the draft and a different user wrote that, not mine. When I was talking about having a part of the article contain that attacks part, I was referring to both sides.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

she wasn't talking to you Arbutus, she was clearly talking to the guy who made the draft who also commented above you. As for the draft, wow, that'll obviously get deleted if ever pushed for an article. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 02:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• • Okay, I was just a little confused--Arbutus the tree (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for confusing you, Arbutus the tree. I was definitely not directing the comment at you! There are just seconds between your post and my post, so we avoided an ec, but I was unaware of your just having gotten in a fraction before me. I should have checked my comment after posting it. My bad. I can see how you could have interpreted this as me biting you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• It's okay--Arbutus the tree (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Casualty calculations

I'm wondering if anyone is actually monitoring the WP:CALC for casualties in the infobox. I've been watching the figures jump back and forth at inordinate rates citing various sources for the figures, but haven't been able to establish any consistency in the calculation process. Is there anyone monitoring these calculations in case of double-ups, etc. If so, what system have they implemented and are minimum or maximum casualties being used? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I know people are cautious about using Russian sources, but RT is reporting that 181 people have been killed of which 59 are Ukrainian troops, the source also contains other estimates. [89] Lunch for Two (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Also to mention that two more helicopters were downed on 03 June here is the source(confirmed by the government) [90] .Daki122 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, two helicopters where shot down according to a rebels spokesman on June 02 but a Kiev Official denied it the same day, now another official acknoledge the loss. The number of killed and wounded have risen dramatially, but there is a problem with the number of wounded there is no information of combatants wounded in the battle box. Another Issue an Antonov and a Mi 8 are considered damaged in the Siege of Sloviansk page and lost at this page, is there any concenssus????200.48.214.19 (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

RT is reporting that 181 people have been killed of which 59 are Ukrainian troops Actually, RT is not the primary source. The figure (181 dead of which 59 soldiers) was reported by a pro-government Ukrainian official. I'm personally monitoring the numbers of casualties on both sides as they are reported and/or updated and updating the infobox accordingly. The number of wounded was tracked by me and other editors for some time but it simply became something that wasn't able to be properly tracked anymore. EkoGraf (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that you're happy to continue monitoring the estimates, for the sake of not misrepresenting casualties, would it be better to transfer changes and sources made directly to the article to this page, EkoGraf? Perhaps a dedicated section here, on the talk page, would allow you the opportunity of comparing the sources in order to avoid double-ups and overestimates? All regular contributors to the article would know to post reports here rather than try to work out the calculations for themselves. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. If you check the references, all of the sources for government forces fatalities are already there. As for the rebel fatalities, the three large standoffs/sieges and the large airport battle are linked to, while the other rebel fatalities are referenced as deaths in other Donetsk or Lugansk incidents, with links to the respective articles on the two self-proclaimed people's republics since the incidents are archived there. You want me to link you the references from those incidents here? EkoGraf (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I think the references here is a good idea. For the moment, the other cited sources can be left in place in the casualties box, but I'll keep my eye out for changes not being made by you and revert to your figures until you've had a chance to update the figures yourself. Obviously, we can't stay on top of events on the hour, every hour, but this is a Wikipedia article and WP:NOTNEWS. It's ridiculous having casualties suddenly leap up to spurious figures. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

13 killed in other Donetsk incidents: 1 (22 May),[91] 6 (23 May),[92][93] 6 (30 May),[94]. 21-34 killed in other Lugansk incidents: 7-20 (22 May),[95] 1 (28 May),[96] 2 (31 May),[97] 5 (2 June),[98] 6 (4 June),[99]. EkoGraf (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, EkoGraf. That gives me a solid idea of where we're up to when other contributors start popping in figures. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Eko, the number of dead of the May 22 Ambush its at 18 dead right now. Check! 200.48.214.19 (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

These are the numbers for rebel dead, not military dead. A reference for military deaths during the entire period of the conflict (including those 18 from 22 May) is already in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Proxy war

Not suggesting a name change or anything like that, but wanted to document that the Luhansk militia leader does consider it a proxy war, not a civil war.

“Everyone understands that this is a war between Russia and America, and we must be for one side or for the other,” Mr. Khodakovsky said in a confident, flowing monologue.

[100] --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 03:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Syrian civil war is also called a proxy war by both sides but we still call it a civil war. Same goes for the Afghan civil war of the eighties. The terms proxy war and civil war are not mutually exclusive. But, its a moot point since per Wikipedia procedure we go with the common name, and for now we have settled on conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Luhansk Developments

I'm going to create a draft that will be about the developments in Luhansk, such as the seige of the Border Guard Base. Allthough it has signifacant media coverage, I am not going to publish it due to wikipedia's notnews policy. It will remain a draft for the time being.

Here's the draft: Draft:Ukrainian Border Base Seige

It needs editing, however, so feel free to edit this.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As with other articles created on relatively minor events, does this really need a stand alone article? Can the information not just be condensed into a few sentences and put onto this page? We can't have a separate article on every single thing that happens in Ukraine. As with the Volnovakha article, these things are briefly reported on and then the media moves on 2-3 days later. Unlike the Odessa incident which was indeed appropriate for a separate article, minor skirmishes do not appear to be sufficiently WP:NOTABLE. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Title makes no sense

How can a conflict be "pro-Russian"? The conflict is between pro and anti-Russians. FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Two other points, why are there no civilians in the infobox, and why is there an unnecessary gallery? FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The conflict was initiated by pro-Russian insurgents, therefore, the conflict is pro-Russian. The gallery isn't unnecessary. It includes pictures that would make the body too cluttered, but which provide useful information. I suggest you read the above move discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 18:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Any conflict has two or more sides. These do not have the same objectives. This conflict itself simply cannot be termed "pro-Russian". FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a compromise title. It isn't ideal, but it is what we have. We've debated this ad nauseum. RGloucester — ☎ 19:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The number of civilian deaths was in the infobox along with the source but it seems someone has removed it. EkoGraf (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Just because one side is pro-Russian doesnt mean this is binary and other is anti-Russian; rather, the other side is Ukrainian (an historic antithesis to Russianness) but more accurately, anti-pro-Russian (that is, against the platform of the pro-Russian side and all their main goals) --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That changes nothing in regard to my complaint. Still doesn't make this conflict "pro-Russian". FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you have a point there, FunkMonk. Ec.Domnowal made a similar point immediately after the change from "unrest" to "conflict" in the title. That change was made because everyone seemed to agree that "conflict" is a better term than "unrest" to describe recent developments. Whether "pro-Russian" is the most appropriate way to characterize the "conflict" is another question, which I think does need further thought. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with FunkMonk and Kalidasa. EkoGraf (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe just name it 2014 Conflict in Ukraine or 2014 Conflict in Luhansk and Donetsk regions of Ukraine? Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the first title is not clear enough as it could refer to multiple different things, and the second is too long (and I doubt anyone will look up such a title), and still could be improved in other ways. Dustin (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• No! We just finished a discussion above (4 days ago) to move it to this title. We can't play musical titles, here. Let's give it some time, as is appropriate. Anyway, this article is not just about Luhansk and Donetsk, and "conflict" is too vague, and not WP:PRECISE. RGloucester — ☎ 03:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes! The new title just seems like a cut and paste compromise to get "conflict" in there, with little regard for the overall meaning. Yes, the old title was worse, so the move was warranted, but that doesn't mean the new one is good enough to keep. FunkMonk (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• When we say 'conflict', it is normally between two or more sides and "pro-Russian" reflects only one of them. Since the events are mainly centered around this particular side's campaign, then a title like 2014 pro-Russian insurgency in Ukraine would be more accurate. However, the protests and riots in Odessa as well as some in other different locations are not part of this 'insurgency', therefore I agree that a compromise title should be considered because the current one is simply erroneous in many ways. I myself believe that a title like Pro-Russian rebellion in Ukraine would be more appropriate since the word 'rebellion' is backed by tonnes of sources now ([101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106]). Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Not this crap again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The current title is crap. There is no reason why we have to accept an inadequate title simply because it has replaced a worse one. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

'Crap' can change per WP:TALKEDABOUTIT, especially when there are some good points that haven't been previously brought up. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Last discussion ended four days ago. Give it a rest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care when and how it ended. There are issues that need to be addressed and it appears that the idea of replacing 'unrest' with 'conflict' came up solely as a compromise. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Tell you what, if you can come up with a really good candidate title then we can discuss it. Until then let's not waste any more of people's time than has already been wasted. Right now you're just at the "I don't like the present title!" stage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Tell you what, why don't you take a look at the pre-"Not this crap again" entry where I think I've made a clear enough argument. And I did propose a title, in case you haven't noticed. I also suggest you read more on WP:CIVIL because your unexplained confrontational tone is certainly not helping. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Neither of those titles are any good, as they preclude the inclusion of the events in Odessa, Kharkiv, and other regions. This article is not just about the insurgency. It is about the unrest/conflict as a whole, across Ukraine. If you want to talk about the insurgency only, please direct yourself to the appropriate articles at Lugansk People's Republic and Donetsk People's Republic. This article includes protests in Kharkiv which are not a "rebellion", and also protests in Odessa, which are not a "rebellion". Mr Marek is quite right in this regard. No new points have been brought up, and the previous move was just completed. I personally would've preferred to remain at "unrest", as more inclusive, but I compromised. Everyone else here should also learn the art of compromise, and not to overwrite previous discussion that took place less than a week ago. RGloucester — ☎ 14:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)