Jump to content

Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.79.251.253 (talk) at 02:51, 24 April 2014 (→Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Only Russian language sources are quoted

  • The majority of the readers isn't able to understand linked articles.
  • The article is a stub with a list of towns. Is the list complete?
  • What is the basis of the order of the list?Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here you got an english language news source: Police removes the “Pravy Sector” from office in Kharkov --Dinarsad (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Spring ?

Google doesn't support the name, are there any English language sources?Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Protesters in Lugansk

The picture "Protesters in Lugansk" shows both Russian and Ukrainian flags.Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This name "Russian spring" do not mean it is anti-Ukrainian protest. It means, that important question are - cooperation with Russia, language Cathry (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still we don't know what is the nature of the specific Lugansk protest. The context suggests it's a part of Russian Spring but RS protesters don't use Ukrainian flags. So the picture should be removed.Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"RS protesters don't use Ukrainian flags" Where did you find this interesting information?Cathry (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russian people use Russian or red flags, Ukrainians and Tatars use Ukrainian flags. Where did you find this interesting information that Russian nationalists use Ukrainian flags? Xx236 (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-Russian extremists attacked manifestants and occupied local governmentXx236 (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blood in LuhanskXx236 (talk) 07:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Title

I've heard no use of this term in English language reliable sources. That would mean that the title should be changed to a more generic "2014 Pro-Russian protests in Ukraine", or some such thing like that. RGloucester — ☎ 03:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; the tittle is misleading since these protests are 2014 Pro-Russian protests in Ukraine and not a meteorologist event.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested to change the title to more generic as "2014 Southern and Eastern Ukraine Crisis" as it would include the Crimean Crisis as one time line as it's caused by same thing, the 2014 Ukraine Revolution and by same people (Russian ethnic in Ukraina). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xbypass (talk • contribs) 04:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a crises any more since since yesterday the 3 Regional State Administration pro-Russian protesters held for only a few days are all in Government hands. 2014 Crimean crisis is still a crises but not a part of these protests. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 04:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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.

Russian Spring → 2014 Pro-Russian protests in Ukraine – The term "Russian Spring" originates from Russian propaganda,[1] and has not been picked up by independent English media sources. The term "Russian Spring" has previously been used to describe a democratic revolution against Russian President Vladimir Putin.[2] The title should be changed to something more generic. Orser67 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed merge with 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations

A merge of this article with 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations does not make sense... The 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations were part of Euromaidan and thus had totally different demands to be met and was done by totally different people for most part in different parts of the country then were the the 2014 Pro-Russian protests in Ukraine are being held now. (Close to all 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations were in Western Ukraine, these 2014 Pro-Russian protests in Ukraine are in Eastern Ukraine (traditionally there are not many pro-Russians in West Ukraine).) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result is still the same: Regional State Administration occupations, in previous event by Euromaidan, now by pro-Russian side. This event is still continue as previous government is removed and the new government abolish the law that resulted eastren and southren Ukraina protest. This is still a same story. Xbypass (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using the same methods does not mean it is the same thing... Besides pro-Russian occupied barley 3 Regional State Administration for only a few days. And as of yesterday there are no Regional State Administration occupations in Ukraine... So why merge something that has stopped with something that is ongoing? (There are still pro-Russian protests in Ukraine.) I do consider the current occupations of Government buildings in Crimea a completely different thing then Regional State Administration occupations in Ukraine by non-military protesters. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 04:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree with Yulia. NickSt (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

The timeline part of this article should be converted to prose. At present, it is entirely encumbering. RGloucester — ☎ 05:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry; but I am not a native speaker of English and have no idea what "encumbering language" is.... By "converting to prose" you mean making it more simplistic? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I meant that it is clunky. By "converting to prose", I mean removing the present subheadings by date, and turning it a more appropriate "history" section. RGloucester — ☎ 20:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

one questioned asked

Is it a correct phrase "one questioned asked"?Xx236 (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a typo. I've corrected it. Apologies. --Tocino 23:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality of this article is disputed. But what is exactly the problem?

The neutrality of this article is disputed. But what is exactly the problem? WP:UNDUE? WP:BALASPS? WP:IMPARTIAL? Or something else? We can not solve the problem when not told what the problem is.... (PS I myself did not add the "neutrality of article is disputed"-template to this article.) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a sensitive question, is still ongoing, there are multiple sources that contradicts themselves on the issue over the internet, and I find important for other users and people from outside Wikipedia to know it. In my opinion it would qualify under WP:WEIGHT or WP:BALANCE. But don't take me wrong, Yulia, I know you are working on this article and you may not agree with me at all. All I want is to help and asure that this stays the most neutral possible. --vonusovef (wha?) 22:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RT (TV network) use as source in this Wikipedia article

I think it is very unwise to use RT (TV network) as a sources in this wiki-article since it seem to be having a bias when it comes to reporting about these 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. For instance were international press sees "stealing of Ukrainian-language books and then set them alight in small bonfires in the street" RT reports "the burning of Ukrainian nationalist books and symbols in the shop". And in this article RT uses the words "The Ukrainian coup-imposed government", while BBC News calls the same people "authorities in Kiev" in an article about the same subject. And here RT seems to try to make us believe that a few thousand eastern Ukrainians represents all eastern Ukrainians. In this article RT tries to make us believe observer Tatjana Ždanoka is independent while she is a member of a pro-Russian party herself... (+ the article is too full of anti-Western statements and seems more designed to persuade then to inform). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should post this over at WP:RSN - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, RT isn't a reliable source. --Львівське (говорити) 07:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you agree, because you don't like what is shows. Is the CNN or the BBC which showed the Russian military drill in Kaliningrad under the headline "Russian tanks in the Ukraine" reliable? All media is owned by someone and there is no objective media today. You can't just decide a source is not reliable just because you don't like it. 2.125.165.6 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is BBC News opinion is truthful? I support statement about "The Ukrainian coup-imposed government" and different other sources do the same. And some sources tried to make us to believe that a few thousands western Ukrainians have right to change government with weapons and without elections Cathry (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a right place to present your opinions.Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: Euromaidan#Public_opinion_about_Euromaidan shows that the support for the movement that ultimately "changed the government" was a lot higher then Cathry thinks. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And "while between 42% and 50% opposed it(Euromaidan)" "According to a January poll, 45% of Ukrainians supported the protests, and 48% of Ukrainians disapproved of Euromaidan" from the same article Cathry (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Since Ukraine has more then 40 millions inhabitants 45% of Ukrainians is more then then "a few thousands western Ukrainians" (you above claim "a few thousands western Ukrainians changed government"). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previously you said "RT seems to try to make us believe that a few thousand eastern Ukrainians represents all eastern Ukrainians." If near 22-23 millions inhabitants did not want this change at all accordingly to polls (and most of them eastern and southern), what problem with RT statement about eastern citizens supporting anti-government protests now? Cathry (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RT does not give us numbers (it does not quote polls) of how many actually people have a "rising discontent" in Eastern Ukraine. Claiming there is a "rising discontent of eastern Ukrainians" but then not telling how many people are discontented is classic WP:WEASEL. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cathry has a history of these kinds of edits / comments. --Львівське (говорити) 16:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's reformulate the question, do you have any doubts the vast majority of people in Donetsk and Crimea are against the Euromaidan? Are the Russian Protests in East Ukraine made up by the RT? 2.125.165.6 (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about Euromaidan.... Euromaidan is over. We need statistics on how many people in Donetsk support the demands of these 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. Claiming that they must support the current demonstrations because the did not like Euromaidan is simplistic... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never head such a weird argument in my life. Is thee a media channel today which is not biased? Was RT ever caught making up stuff or lying?

I think this statistic will be absent in some cities demonstration are forbidden already, or they leaders are arrested. Cathry (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RT, in my opinion, is a much better source than the CNN which showed a Russian military drill in Kaliningrad with the headlinee "Russian tank in the Ukraine". It's also much better than the BBC which ignored the phone called between the foreign ministers of the EU and Estonia where they said Yanukovich was not the one who sent the snipers to the Euromaidan.

You can't just choose to ignore channels just because they don't match your POV. 2.125.165.6 (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not informed properly: Estonia denies leaked call implicates Ukraine protesters in killings. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Foreign Minister Paet was giving an overview of what he had heard the previous day in Kiev and expressed concern over the situation on the ground" When pravda.com.ua posts some rumor from FB - it is true and reliable, and when Paet speaks about what he had heard - it is rubbish( agree with this from comments "“And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga [Bogomolets] told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides,”
Can you see how important that last part is, and Reuters should be ashamed of itself. Why push a biased narrative?" So Reuters is not reliable. Cathry (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting information about "Free press" in Ukraine : Director of National channel was beaten and forced to resign by MP from Svoboda https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YjxOk_Lnw_s Cathry (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice example :-) But be careful, I'm afraid Yulia Romero has a filter against information which creates holes in her narrative. 2.125.165.6 (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's an ad-personam comment Wikipedia:No personal attacks.Xx236 (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-RT is legit source much more than any western source whos russophobic in nature--Crossswords (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map

What constitutes a protest? There should be a cut off for what makes it into the map and is part of any mass demonstrations. Kherson had no big protests, but it's included, for example. If 200 people showed up that shouldn't be put on the same level as 5,000 in Odessa, or something similar - it creates an illusion of equally spread out protests. --Львівське (говорити) 07:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made the map in a hurry. Feel free to make changes that makes the map better. Maybe by adding additional collars for "demonstrations sizing lower then 100 people", "demonstrations sizing between 500-1000 people", "demonstrations sizing between 500-1000 people" etc.? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where there is a person protesting against or for something, there is a protest. Dapiks (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeahhh... But to make it look like they all were the same size is misleading. I like how the fixed this problem in a picture at Occupy movement#Background. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be color coded like how I did on the Euromaidan article. I'll do it in a bit. From what I see, Kherson got one 400 person protest before, and today got 300 Communist Party members out (while there were 3,000 pro-Ukrainian protesters there too). It's misleading to make it look like Kherson is pro-Russia when support is 90% against Russia.--Львівське (говорити) 18:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ive started a table to document the protest sizes and made a new map that reflects the size. I removed the 'occupied RSA' part since this is a protest map and not an occupation map, and none are currently occupied anyway. --Львівське (говорити) 21:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your map is wrong, because "Where there is a person protesting against or for something, there is a protest. " (с) Cathry (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this contravenes WP:WEIGHT. The small protests are documented in the article, but shouldn't be given equal weight to the actual protests.--Львівське (говорити) 21:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about pro-Russian protest, not about "huge protests" And it is wrong to delete link for this source with --Cathry (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)other quantity of peoplehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_pro-Russian_protests_in_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=600778768 Cathry (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing "huge" about 500 or more, that's a low cut off. But there needs to be a cutoff, as mentioned above by myself and Yulia (who made the original map). A map or graphic is meant to be informational, not display every single person who protested - all of these details can be covered in the article itself. --Львівське (говорити) 23:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that Yulia has same opinion with you in this question Cathry (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it's only a few comments above that she suggests a heat map like the OSW page and agrees that a uniform color is misleading. --Львівське (говорити) 16:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would a 1-499 color be a solution to your grievance? I still think there needs to be a cutoff, 1 person is not a protest, for example, and im sure you can find a dozen pro-russian people in any province. This article should be about mobilization and notable protests, not just small crowds.--Львівське (говорити) 16:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally really enjoy the new map. But as you said, there probably are pro-Russians even in Lviv (although I think they are keeping it very quiet right now). Isn't the grey color the color code for 1-499? I guess you could turn the grey into a light version of pink and there you have it - problem solved. Dapiks (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess in a way grey covers 1-499, there's no way to account for every disgruntled russian in the country - there needs to be a numerical cut off.--Львівське (говорити) 22:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another solution would be to represent the major protests like on the Russian wiki on the topic. Dapiks (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Would a 1-499 color be a solution to your grievance? " Your map is wrong now about quantity (when it deals with 500+ too). And what reason of "occupied" Crimea? Do you see how many people celebrated union with Russia? There no protests now, because they got what they want. Cathry (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not wrong, just may need to be updated, and that's fine. Crimea is under military occupation by Russia, the previous map also had a color for occupation so I tried to go with the flow.--Львівське (говорити) 22:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed neutrality

These [3][4] changes are propaganda. They are not based on reliable sources. — Chelovechek (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply] 

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

Bias in Ukrainian media

Example about rally in Lugansk. http://novosti.dn.ua/details/220854/ (Near 1000 separatists rallied) but as you can see photo in this article http://www.0642.ua/news/500277 http://s.citysites.ua/s/5/section/newsInText/upload/images/news/intext/532/d8ee2414a8/eeff9cf23bd472564a29c0e2f1532dee.jpg It is more than 1000 ?? Cathry (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does look about 2x as many. What do other sources say? How many were they in Kharkov on March 22nd? In most pictures I've seen, they are a few hundred and Kyiv post reports a few hundred too. Dapiks (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
pictures can be misleading and estimating the size of a rally by a picture is original research. --Львівське (говорити) 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am not saying we should just estimate based on the pictures but look to see if other sources give other numbers, at which point we could cite a range such as 1000 - to - whatever. Very nice map by the way Lvivske. Dapiks (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
is Korrespondent also biased? they too report 1000. So that's a major newspaper + local news. I think that should suffice. --Львівське (говорити) 16:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"also biased?" yes, because this is obviously wrong information Cathry (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it's not wrong, you're wrong. deal with it. --Львівське (говорити) 22:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't attack another editors but use reliable sources.Xx236 (talk) 07:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROSELINE

This article needs a hefty dose of editing. The present "timeline" section is mostly inappropriate, and should be converted into prose form, per the essay WP:PROSELINE. I raised these concerns earlier, but they seem to have got worse. This is not a "timeline" article. If it were, perhaps such a timeline would be appropriate. But that's not what we need here. We need a properly described bit of prose details the events, not every little detail elucidated by date. RGloucester — ☎ 18:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but I hope we shall create Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine then... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to such a sub-article, however, before we can do that, we have to create an appropriate prose summary of the events here. RGloucester — ☎ 19:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:crystal for now, but these predications might come true...

... so it might be handy to watch out for:

Not sure if #2 would involve pro-Russian protesters. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The separatists are going to slow down for now and elect a 'president' by the end of April (I guess to make up for the 'governors' all getting arrested). ref --Львівське (говорити) 20:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not sure where to put this yet but it appears Donetsk workers are being forced to sign petitions on separatism link --Львівське (говорити) 21:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bakhtiyarov

This link claims that Baktiyarov is a resident of Kiev, it seems to be compatible with his article Oleg Bakhtiyarov. On the other hand in many recent articles regarding his arrest he is described as a Russian resident. Can somebody check Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the sources may be confused because he's from russia originally...is he a citizen?--Львівське (говорити) 05:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the "Russian tanks in the Ukraine" report? Or is it a blatant POV pushing through fabricated narratives?

In the above discussion, IP 2.125.165.6 mentioned twice that CNN put a Russian military drill in Kaliningrad under the headline "Russian tank(s) in the Ukraine" (sic). I did a careful search and there is not a single mention about this report, even Russian media did not "reveal" this alleged big CNN lie. So please, 2.125.165.6, which eye of you saw this CNN lie, and where? 128.189.191.222 (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donetsk

With the declaration by various parties in Donetsk of 'independence', this article is going to need some shaping up. I suggest a potential move to Eastern Ukrainian crisis, or something like that. RGloucester — ☎ 17:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest just Ukrainian crisis this is effecting all of Ukraine in some kind of a way not just the eastern part. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that's far too broad, this article's scope is on the pro-russian protest and separatist movement. Ukrainian crisis could mean Euromaidan and everything else in between —Львівське (говорити) 04:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2014 Ukrainian separatist crisis? / 2014 eastern Ukraine protests? 2014 eastern Ukrainian crisis? Either way, this article is going to need to broaden its scope. RGloucester — ☎ 14:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Proposal

Would it be a good idea to sort content by city, and then possibly split those sections into their own articles if the content was big enough? It seems silly to have this plus RSA occupations article PLUS the donetsk republic article. I think one meaty section on the separatist and pro-russian movement in donetsk as a whole would be better than dividing the content on two articles. --Львівське (говорити) 16:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to centralise the information, unless things in Donetsk escalate to the point where they really warrant a separate article. The new Donetsk People's Republic article is premature. I really think that the name of this article, however, needs to be changed to expand its scope. RGloucester — ☎ 16:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
to rename this article? that seems less specific than 'pro-russian' and kind of cuts off Odessa —Львівське (говорити) 16:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about Odessa. The current name doesn't seem to represent the scope of the article at present, however. Especially if the Donetsk events are included here. The other possibility is to convert this to 2014 Ukrainian crisis, and then have it be an overarching article dealing with all the pro-Russian movements throughout Ukraine at the moment. It would have a small section of Crimea, and link to the 2014 Crimean crisis article, but it would mainly deal with the problems elsewhere. RGloucester — ☎ 16:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
between the protests and the separatists, its all still within the 'pro-russian' scope though, no? the separatist occupations could just go to the 2014 Ukrainian RSA Occupations article possibly —Львівське (говорити) 16:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is all 'pro-Russian', at least, I think it is…I'm just trying to be somewhat more concise. I do like the suggestion of having the occupations be in the 2014 Ukrainian RSA occupations article. RGloucester — ☎ 18:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this should be named 2014 Ukrainian crisis a-lot of reliable sources including BBC have been using it as these events are taking place in Ukraine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'ukrainian crisis' refers to: euromaidan, the revolution, all protests, all pro-russian protests, the crimea invasion, and now the russian separatist movement. It's pretty vague and catch-all IMO —Львівське (говорити) 18:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the point. We currently lack a 'catch-all' article. RGloucester — ☎ 19:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So why cant we make one? All of these events are happening in Ukraine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a top of the pyramid-type, maybe a disambig page would be a good idea. Have the #redirect go to a page with links to all the major events. Right? Or were you thinking something else?—Львівське (говорити) 19:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend a Wikipedia:Summary style article. A 'catch-all' article to cover the overarching crisis, and to direct people to the appropriate sub-articles. It is bizzare that we lack this, at the moment. There is a mire of articles, and it is very difficult to wade through the mire. RGloucester — ☎ 21:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pro-Russian POV edits/revs

Just want to point this out. User:HCPUNXKID removed the GRU involvement (claimed by Ukrainian foreign ministry) but added American Blackwater involvement (unfounded speculation by Russia's foreign ministry, ridiculed by mainstream media). Further, user removed the fact that Russian tourists are involved, despite it being in the article itself and heavily sourced. Can someone else help here? --Львівське (говорити) 22:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you made in the infobox were unsourced, as well as clearly unbalanced trying to POV-push. I supposed that when you talk about "Blackwater involvement ridiculed by mainstream media" you are talking about WESTERN mainstream media, and that to source your allegations of "Russian tourists" and GRU involvement (mmm, interesting...so, if Russian foreign ministry claims Blackwater involvement is ridiculous, but if Ukrainian foreign ministry claims GRU involvement is very credible, curious double standard...), you are going to use "mainstream media" and not Ukrainian media, am I wrong?.--HCPUNXKID 22:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
add a fact tag then, don't just go blanking content. Nothing was unsourced, the sources are in the body. Now it seems you're edit warring other users to push this POV of yours, like adding the 'donetsk peoples republic' as a party to the protests.--Львівське (говорити) 22:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, from the moment the Donetsk People's Republic was declared, its one of the belligerents, thats crystal-clear, we like it or not. Second, you talk about blanking content when you simply erased the Blackwater sourced mention? Lets not be hypocrites, please...--HCPUNXKID 22:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a state that doesnt exist cant be a belligerent, but the group that's occupying the buildings can be. Pushing an article that's up for deletion and seemingly set for merging/renaming seems very POVy. Yes, I removed the blackwater mention, because it's unsupport and wikipedia isnt a crystal ball or tabloid for speculation. --Львівське (говорити) 22:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removing sourced content in WP has name: Vandalism. The state has been proclaimed, so its part of the conflict. From the moment the state was declared, the Donetsk Republic organization is part of the broader Donestk People's Republic, as it includes more groups (for example, the Eastern Front). And Im not pushing anything, seems that "who is at fault suspects everybody"...--HCPUNXKID 23:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't vandalism this is an edit dispute. Maybe we can come to a solution? I do not agree adding things without sources but agree here that Donetsk People's Republic should be changed to Donetsk Republic (organization) in the infobox. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed regarding Donetsk Republic (organization), Knowledgekid87. I'd also like to see a more substantial reference for 'Eastern Front'. An article where a journalist interviews a number of people and one claims to be from 'Eastern Front' which has about 6,000 members (according to the interviewee) doesn't constitute WP:V. It seems that overenthusiasm could affecting your neutral content, HCPUNXKID. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So now mainstream media like CNN is also not enough for you? Wow, some editors here just dont know what to do to push their POV. Its funny to see diehard supporters of the "acting government" (or should we call it new regime?) talking about "neutrality"...--HCPUNXKID 09:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I put the sources in, not hard to find, just ctrl+f to see the refs from the article itself. The GRU op was arrested in Donetsk, so that's confirmed. The Blackwater fantasy allegations are speculation and unsubstantiated. They are Alpha Group Ukrainian spetznas. Blackwater has denied its there ("White House spokesperson Jay Carney told reporters the claim “seems bogus to us” and Geoffrey Pyatt, U.S. Ambassador to Russia, called it “rubbish.”). This content should be nuked immediately, Wikipedia is not a place for conspiracy junk or disseminating Russian propaganda as truth, otherwise we'd be calling the entire right column the fascist Judeo-American junta.--Львівське (говорити) 00:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think they should be included, it would be a big leap to say Russia was involved, are any of the major news sources saying this? I looked at the sources provided and I think they should be removed in the infobox and in the article as "he said" "she said" comments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hid the additions for now, placing this in the article is huge and I feel a consensus should be reached first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
how is arresting makarov hearsay? The involvement of Russian citizens and cossacks is pretty much common knowledge, we have a whole section on the article about arrested russian citizens / radicals. --Львівське (говорити) 01:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Words like "alleged" and "detained" are the problem, unless there is a direct link between Russia and what is going on here it is still up for debate. A person being detained doea not equal a whole country being involved. if you want to add "Russian radicals" though feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good call on the use of 'Russian radicals'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Blackwater stuff, it's been debunked now, on top of Blackwater itself denying everything. Ukraine has actually arrested people and has name(s), Russia has hearsay, huge difference.

In short, the story follows the pattern we’ve seen so many times before with stories emanating from Russia — an uncheckable kernel of a story with an anonymous source, embellishment throughout the day, synapse jumps to the pro-Kremlin networks and tabloids, and pretty soon even credible outlets are covering it.

--Львівське (говорити) 03:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Lvivske. That info has closed the lid on that particular conspiracy theory. In the meantime, I'm still trying to establish what the significance of the 'Eastern Front' under 'Parties to the civil conflict' actually is. Who are they? The English translation only yields the article referenced, and searches for news for Восточный Фронт (the Russian convolution of the name) throw up a variety of results, but most likely to pertain to the group in this, this, and this article. (All of these articles are in Russian, but google translate should give everyone the gist: if not, I can translate the salient points in brief.) The only thing they're clear on is that they're not associated with the Kharkiv group(?!) and use the term 'Benderovtsye'/'Banderivtsi' (a pejorative) a lot... although they're also adamant that they're not talking about 'Benderovtsye'. I have no idea of whether they're Vostochnyi Front groupies or a serious militant force. Are they just some like-minded people using twitter as their protest HQ, or are they formally organised? Until we get a handle on what is meant by 'Eastern Front', I really don't understand why HCPUNXKID slapped them into the infobox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: - Funny to see the double standards of some editors above, Russian foreign ministry claiming Blackwater involvement? Propaganda & conspiracy, but at the same time....Ukrainian foreign ministry claiming GRU involvement? Very credible (even when Kiev acting government-appointed Donetsk governor Sergei Tartuta denies Russia being behind the events), and moreover, if the U.S. government denies Blackwater involvement that is word of god, we all know here that U.S. gov. never, never lie (and by the way, I didnt know that Blackwater belongs to the U.S. government, I thought that it was a private security services provider, and not a U.S. state agency, wich is what some here seem to suggest...), come on, try to be (or just look) a little more neutral, please...--HCPUNXKID 09:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • As per this edit, it's equally as hilarious that you are preaching about neutrality. Limestoneforest (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the same token, HCPUNXKID, we all know that the Russian government never lies. Seriously, stay on track. I'm not going to state that any governments are honest with a straight face, but Wikipedia does not indulge WP:FRINGE. As time passes, no doubt cover-ups from either side may or may not surface, but we don't indulge in conspiracy theories or original research. You seem to be under the illusion that you're the only person who is capable of sorting through the truth and lies. If this concept frustrates you, start a blog or join a forum.
You also haven't addressed the 'Eastern Front' issue. You're the one who thought them important enough to add to the infobox. So, who are they and why are they featured as one of the 'Parties to the civil conflict'? How significant is their presence, and what are the tenets of their organisation? If you don't know, why drag them out of a plethora of news stories just because one person being interviewed stated that he was a member? Please quantify and qualify their significance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you two aint adressed most of the points I exposed. When I confronted you with the double standard of believing the Ukrainian ministry claims but dismissing the Russian ministry claims, you clearly shown your faces by avoiding to answer that. No more time for nationalistic edit warriors like you two, but consider that you aint gonna reach nowhere with that behaviour.--HCPUNXKID 17:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ever consider that people are just getting tired of your baiting? --Львівське (говорити) 17:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please remove the Blackwater stuff? Beyond being debunked, they were never even claimed to be involved by Russia, just loading a truck or something. At least with the GRU claim, they arrested the guy for being involved. --Львівське (говорити) 15:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. See Kremlin accuses U.S. security firm with links to Blackwater of sending 'private army' to Ukraine disguised as local forces. Whether it's been denied or not, it certainly stands as an official accusation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, it's an official accusation, but that doesn't verify it and it's still in the realm of hearsay. Russia also officially accuses Nazis of being the government in Kiev and Jews & Russians being under attack, but that obviously wouldn't make the cut for an infobox since they're unsupported accusations.--Львівське (говорити) 02:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • we now have ANOTHER Russian saboteur arrested, who also has confessed to taking part in the conflict and organizing. Can we stop hiding this info now? The 'arrested Russians' section is far too big to pretend they're not involved, and doing so would look like a huge POV push --Львівське (говорити) 22:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article proposal

As I mentioned above, I'd like to create a summary article to serve as a 'catch-all' round-up of the current crisis. As such, I've created a draft: Draft:2014 Ukrainian crisis. This article is meant to direct people to the appropriate pages, to give background and details on the whole crisis. I'd like to take this current article, 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine, and convert it to a timeline article, as it mostly functions that way anyway. I'd like it if people would help me in working on the draft article so that we can get it into shape, that'd be appreciated. It is currently in barebones shape, but I'll keep working on it. I really could use the help of the editors that have been contributing to this article. Thanks, RGloucester — ☎ 20:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're draft looks interesting, except I think the crisis began with the start of Euromaidan, not the at the end of it. Charles Essie (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We'll hash that out in time. Right now, I just want to get the basics up and running. RGloucester — ☎ 20:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if it's just crisis, then it's everything since the fall. If it's 2014...then the revolution counts, but you cant do that without the 2013 stuff. I think a better name may be needed to define the scope to be the eastern ukraine stuff...but at the same time, there already is an article on that, and this just looks like a far better version of the pro-Russia article. I think this should replace that, and the old stuff turn into a timeline as you suggested. —Львівське (говорити) 20:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was thinking. Convert all the timeline stuff here into a timeline article. Then, have the new article be a 'background' article. We can come up with a title later. 'Ukrainian crisis' doesn't have to be used. It is merely a working title. RGloucester — ☎ 20:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
excellent work!--Львівське (говорити) 01:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I second that! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Third here =) Also the map image is already being contested as being WP:POV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a problem with the animated map? I think I might suggest making the animation slower, but, other than that, I don't see how it could be PoV to show both sides, as long as the statistics are correct. RGloucester — ☎ 02:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blinking POV image

I am not going to start an edit war, but I definitely should warn other editors about Львівське's image in the article - File:UkraineProtests2014.gif. Firstly, it is absolutely unsourced. Secondly, it is obviously a POV image, just look at Crimea. As you can see on the picture - there were 10,000+ pro-Ukrainian protesters in Crimea and only 1,000+ pro-Russian protesters. It sounds biased. Also, I recommend not to use that blinking effect, it is really unconfortable to read the article. —83.237.124.6 (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's not unsourced - literally everything is sourced in the article. Second, I don't see how it's POV; your argument is that it sounds biased, but the coloring is just based on the sources, all found in the table of the article. AFAIK, there was a single very large Tatar protest but several smaller pro-Russian protests, which would explain the variance. Not liking the 'blinking' is a valid complaint, but I guess others could weigh on that as well. Maybe just have both maples vertically aligned? I thought it would alleviate vertical clutter.--Львівське (говорити) 02:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the 'occupied' part when I updated it because the article was about protests so I stuck the data strictly to protests, trying to be neutral and not veer in scope. --Львівське (говорити) 02:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A possible solution is to place the two pictures (separate, rather than blinking) in the section with the tables, on the right. There is plenty of room for them there, and then the sourcing will be present as well. We can find a prettier picture for the infobox. RGloucester — ☎ 03:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
sounds good to me --Львівське (говорити) 03:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need a number for the protests on the map? Numbers are not a good way to show something in active conflicts like this as they change so much and sources are not very accurate. Instead I propose that we just highlight all of the regions involved one color. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I have deep concerns on the veracity of the protest situation in Crimea according to Lvivske's picture (10,000 pro-Ukrainian VS 1,000 pro-Russian). I have never read or heard about such a big difference. --83.237.124.6 (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The tatar protest was 5-15k, the Russian protest in Simferopol was 2,000. It's all in the news if you want to read up.--Львівське (говорити) 03:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the issue with that, which was brought up before, was that heat maps give context and a single color would give undue weight (ie Kherson, had a few hundred, but its the same color as Donetsk, which has thousands)--Львівське (говорити) 03:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A single color though if explained in the image caption can stand for the regions involved. There is less of an argument to make there. Combine the pro/anti protests into one color that stands for "being involved" in anti/pro Ukraine protests. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really serve any purpose, though, and is vague. I suppose it might be possible to do 'red/blue stripes' to indicate places with concurrent protests of both kinds, but that doesn't really accomplish anything other than explain the geographic location of the protests. I agree that the numbers can be shaky, but not if we keep on top of them. RGloucester — ☎ 03:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The numbers are fine, and provide definition, as long as they are sourced and updated. It would be nice if you could update both the Ukrainian and Russian ones as separate pictures (with markers that say pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian). RGloucester — ☎ 03:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the color coding rests on a pretty wide range for the most part to allow for those variances. —Львівське (говорити) 03:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sourcing needs to be listed on the image's page. If reliable sources are cited, that's the best we can do, isn't it? RGloucester — ☎ 03:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of the numbers RG but I feel uneasy about the sourcing and keeping on top of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. What would we replace it with, though? Just plain geographical mapping? Perhaps indications as to whether the RSA was occupied? We could have levels like:
  • Protests
  • RSA occupation
  • Unilateral declaration of independence
  • Military occupation

Or something like that, which is more qualifiable than the numbers. I'm no good with Adobe Illustrator at the moment, but if someone would care to make a map to these specifications, that'd be appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 03:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


While the new image by RG is nice looking, Kharkiv and Luhansk do not have occupied RSA's, which the image implies. This should be addressed. --Львівське (говорити) 20:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to be clarified that the 'RSA occupied' means that there 'has been' an occupation, not that one is ongoing. Any good ideas on how to clarify this? RGloucester — ☎ 20:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two notes

  • I'd also like to ask people not to insert references that just contain a bare URL. This is bad form, and makes it hard to determine what each reference refers to. This has been a great problem with this article, and most of the current references are going to have to be filled out by hand. Please use these templates, and fill out the information that applies:
  • Template:Cite news

cite news |last= |first= |date= |title= |trans_title= |url= |language= |newspaper= |location= |publisher= |accessdate=

cite web |url= |title= |last1= |first1= |last2= |first2= |date= |website= |publisher= |accessdate= |language=

ProveIt a user script which can help fill out these templates in a much quicker fashion. Thanks, RGloucester — ☎ 15:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably keep inserting bare URLs, it's just how I roll. Sorry. —Львівське (говорити) 15:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fill them out, then. I only have problems when I get hit with links in Cyrillic. RGloucester — ☎ 15:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oh yeah, those are a pain. I do it in full if I have time, if I casually see something my news feed that looks important I'll try to quickly get it into the timeline before I forget about it. I have like 3 open tabs right now of important stuff I just haven't got around to. --Львівське (говорити) 15:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplates

What specific areas/issues are the 'multiple issues' boilerplate referring to? I can't address them if I don't know what they are, and if there are not any, the boilerplate should be removed. RGloucester — ☎ 19:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox needs to be resized

It's freakin' huge.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time to move the article?

When I look at this article I see both pro Russian and Pro Ukraine protests being mentioned, I feel that if we move the article then it would have more of a balanced coverage. Any ideas for new possible titles? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

just want to point out that the pro-ukraine stuff is counter to the pro-russian stuff, so its related (anti-war, anti-putin, pro-unity, anti-federalization, etc.) --Львівське (говорити) 15:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only pro-Ukraine protests mentioned are the 'counter-protests' which are merely a reaction to the pro-Russian protests. That's why they are mentioned. I don't think a title change is warranted, as there really are no good alternative titles that will not cause problems. RGloucester — ☎ 15:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel though that this article could be expanded with a new title, why have an article for just the pro-Russian protests? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it might be WP:UNDUE weight to give the pro-Ukraine protests their own article, considering that they are in response to the pro-Russian ones. What would you suggest as a neutral alternative title? RGloucester — ☎ 15:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a different note, could Lvivske please update the 'pro-Russian protests map' to be in line with the chart? It appears that the charts shows higher amounts of protests in some area, and the sources seem to check out. RGloucester — ☎ 15:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
which regions? --Львівське (говорити) 15:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Luhansk and Kharkiv seem out-of-date. If you save the map in SVG format, others can update it too, which will make life easier. RGloucester — ☎ 15:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the sources are out of wack for those, the kharkiv source is a range from 2-15k, the latter less reliable. If it's an SVG I'd say less people could edit it, since PNGs are universal and can be used by raster editors while SVGs are space age stuff. --Львівське (говорити) 16:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SVGs are preferable because they can be easily updated with Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator. It is always good to have an SVG version of this type of map. I'll look for Kharkiv/Luhansk sources. RGloucester — ☎ 16:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Kharkiv and Luhansk

I agree but then the question is, which was the previous highest protest before the bad sources were used? I guess its mentioned on the timeline somewhere...ugh--Львівське (говорити) 16:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-supporters-in-eastern-ukraine-pose-challenges-to-pro-western-government/2014/03/14/be21eeec-ab77-11e3-b8ca-197ef3568958_story.html According to Washington post(a clearly antiRussian source) during 19/3/2014 the anti-Maydan(or pro-Russian) rally of Kharkiv had 5,000 locals.Could someone fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.209.232 (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the removal of a link [5]. All factions mentioned in the infobox can have a link. Why remove a link with the claim "red" and "COI". Stick to NPOV and follow process. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'corps special forces'

Someone might want to create an article for this new organisation being created by Avakov. Also referred to in one translation as 'special forces corps MIA'.

http://mvs.gov.ua/mvs/control/main/uk/publish/article/1025072 (In Ukrainian)

83.70.224.136 (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Title redux

Given the recent moves by armed groups in Donetsk Oblast, I'm thinking this title should be changed to 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. 'Unrest' would better describe the scope of the situation, since protests are not the sole method being used by the opposition groups in this instance. RGloucester — ☎ 18:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and support the rename. —Львівське (говорити) 19:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have such an index: Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. I'll comment on the title proposal later. RGloucester — ☎ 15:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean of all the articles that have been created. That'd be a mammoth task…RGloucester — ☎ 15:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Still imho the 'pro-Russian' term does not sound good to me Some people protest because they want their region or even whole(?) Ukraine to be part of Russia, either as a federal part or a USSR style union Some people protest in order to accomplish independence Others aim at federalization but not DISINTEGRATION Of course there are a lot of people who protest to show their concerns about the future of Russian language(and culture maybe which is strong in east,south and some central parts of Ukraine)

But i do not think that all these thousands who protest or even the more thousands who support the protests are necessarily in favor of split In the pre-Maydan era i think the only political porces which supported union with Russia where Russian Bloch and some other pure ethnic Russian political parties Of course there were many many political parties in favor of closer ties with Russia but not merger To sum up i think the term 'pro-Russian' is very narrow I would prefer something like -2014 post-Maydan unrest in Ukraine'

Do not forget that even the nationalists, or far-right, or simply pro-unity protests are...a sign of unrest Do not forget that the brutal attack on Tsarov or Dobkin are also sign of unrest...and needless to say these were NOT 'pro-Russian' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.240.16 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no brutal attack on Tsarov or Dobkin. Tsarov got egged and hit a few times (mostly egged) and Dobkin got tarred & featured. Lets keep hyperbole out of this. --Львівське (говорити) 04:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'hit a few times'...wowwww you are joking right? This was a vandal attack that shows no freedom of speech in Ukraine right now From what the above text says you only feel that you should comment about the brutal beating of a presidential candidate and not about the proper name of tha article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.209.232 (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"brutal" is a descriptor used only by Russian propaganda. As was the claim he was 'cricially injured'. He gave a speech directly after the incident. This is just like the fight in Mykolaiv, where he attacked a handicapped protester and them headbutted him, but the press showed his bruised lip and called it an "attack". I urge you to actually read the news, especially local news and not Russian state parody. --Львівське (говорити) 21:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Donetsk Data Double Dipping

Say that 3 times fast! Concerning this: 1) The Donetsk Institute stats are already in the article, so repeating them twice over with different POVy language isn't needed. 2) The Guardian article incorrectly defines the poll, it wasn't conducted last week, it was released last week - because it's the same data. 3) The article states "27% supported the outright unification of either Donetsk or all of Ukraine with Russia." and the user turns this into "27% indicating that they supported secession", in this case the user changed source entirely, as unification of all of Ukraine with Russia is not secession. 4) This latter stat is from (again!) the previously cited Donetsk poll, which is 18.2% for joining Russia and 8.7% to stay in Ukraine but for Ukraine to join Russia like the USSR was (26.9%) - changing the meaning of the original stats is of course original research.

So that said, it should stay out of the article since all of this is already covered in correct detail.--Львівське (говорити) 04:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

POV Title: RS consensus is "Ukraine Crisis"

This list should include every major wire service, major British newspaper, major American newspaper, and the leading Ukrainian English-language paper:

Wire Services:

  • Reuters: "Casualty numbers used as a weapon in Ukraine crisis" [1]
  • AP: "UN Security Council meets on Ukraine crisis " [2]

Major British Papers:

  • BBC News: "Ukraine crisis: Military vehicles 'seized' in Kramatorsk" [3]
  • Telegraph: "Ukraine crisis: April 15 as-it-happened" [4]
  • Guardian: "Ukraine crisis: military stands down in confrontations with protesters"[5]
  • Economist: "The Ukraine crisis: Boys from the blackstuff" [6]

Major American Papers:

  • Washington Post: "Obama and Putin discuss Ukraine crisis" [7]
  • New York Times: "Obama Steps Up Russia Sanctions in Ukraine Crisis" [8]
  • Chicago Tribute: "U.N. Security Council holds emergency meeting on Ukraine crisis" [9]
  • LA Times: "Kerry says 'nationalistic fervor' of Ukraine crisis like pre-WWII" [10]
  • Houston Chronicle: "Obama calls Merkel to 'check in' on Ukraine crisis" [11]
  • CNN: "Can 'odd couple' Kerry and Lavrov take the edge off Ukraine crisis talks?" [12]
  • Forbes: "Euro Slips On Easing Talk While Ukraine Crisis Explodes" [13]

Ukrainian English-Language paper:

  • Kyiv Post: "Bloomberg: U.K. stocks, led by Rio Tinto group, decline on Ukraine crisis" [14]

173.79.251.253 (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a newspaper. We don't follow their naming schemes to a t. 'Ukraine crisis' is hardly appropriate when only half the country is being affected directly. What's more, Ukraine crisis could refers to many of the events since past fall, and would be an incomprehensible scope. We favour WP:CONCISEness and neutrality. This title isn't the most ideal, but at the very least it gets across what is meant and is concise and neutral. RGloucester — ☎ 13:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're violating WP:POLSHOP. If you would read WP:NOTNEWS you'll find it is not applicable as none of those sources are editorials, routine news reports (e.g. the weather), a who's who, or a diary. You then quote WP:CONCISE and WP:NPOV when your preferred title is neither more concise nor more neutral.
According to WP:TITLE: "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title [...] " 173.79.251.253 (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, yes, but not always. WP:POLSHOP is an essay, it isn't a policy, hence I can't violate it. The point is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. As it says at WP:NOTNEWS, we base our coverage on what has historical significance, neutrality and conciseness, not what gets the most attention in a newspaper. There hasn't been enough time for this event to be covered in scholarly sources, which will determine what the name may be in the future. However, given the 'breaking' nature of these events, it is much too early to make that determination. RGloucester — ☎ 14:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. WP:NOTNEWS says no such thing.
2. Your justification for changing the title was as follows: "I've heard no use of this term in English language reliable sources. That would mean that the title should be changed [...]." RGloucester — ☎ 03:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. It should either be "Unrest in Ukraine" or "Ukraine Crisis" but adding the phrase "Pro-Russian" violates both WP:NPOV and WP:CONCISE. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't violate NPOV, as that is verifiably the point of the protests/unrest. You are referring to an ancient comment of mine when this article was only just started, and was under the title 'Russian Spring', which wasn't and isn't used in English language reliable sources. It was then moved to 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine, as this was a neutral title used to refer to the protests taking place at that time. Please don't skew my remarks. RGloucester — ☎ 16:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is Pro-Russian or Anti-Fascist depends on your POV. Adding either term would violate both WP:NPOV and WP:CONCISE.
The plain language of WP:TITLE says that we should use the terms in the RS. I'm agreeing with what you said on March 8, we should look to RS to resolve the dispute. On March 8 there may have been no definitive term in use. However, I've shown above that all the major newspapers are now using the title "Ukraine Crisis" though a small minority uses the title "Unrest in Ukraine". 173.79.251.253 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the case with news sources, but not with regard to scholarly tertiary and secondary sources, which haven't had time to be produced. We don't copy the headlines that newspapers use to pull in viewers. RGloucester — ☎ 16:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what we do. The newspapers above are all reliable sources. Policy is clear: refer to reliable sources. Whether secondary/tertiary sources are available is irrelevant; it is a straw man argument. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To call it "pro-Russian" is POV. Not all "unrest" in Donetsk is only pro-Russian, the main point is mostly that it is anti-Yatsenyuk administration or anti-Kiev. So, call it pro-more-rights. Some only want more autonomy. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

most of the media calls them pro-Russian and that's the most neutral way of putting it. Calling them "pro-more-rights" is ridiculous. --Львівське (говорити) 17:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about instead of "pro-more-rights" we call it "Anti-Maidan"? Would that be POV? This is only a rhetorical question and I digress. The only point that matters:
No, most of the media calls the event the "Ukraine Crisis" while referring to participants as "Pro-Russian". The Crisis itself cannot be "Pro-Russian" because a Crisis is not a person, such a statement is nonsensical. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the Crimea needs to be removed

In the section called "Unrest by region", there is a subsection called "Crimea". Hello, Crimea is not a region of the Ukraine anymore. Even Yulia Timoshenko, in her leaked telephone call in which she called for the nuking of Russians, admitted that Crimea is gone from the Ukraine for good.

Keeping this subsection in the article makes Wikipedia look like a pathetic farce. Wikipedia is not a propaganda outlet of the US government. As McClatchy reported:

U.S. officials don’t dispute what happened _ they saw the Russian celebration of the “return” of Crimea and heard the challenge to Western domination in Putin’s speech _ but the official government lexicon hasn’t caught up to the facts on the ground. The State Department’s latest verbal twist is to refer to Putin’s land grab as an “attempt” at annexation, to underline U.S. opposition to a move it considers illegitimate.
Such language causes eye rolling among foreign policy specialists, some of whom harbor more serious concerns that the empty wording also signals a lack of policies that factor in the uncomfortable realities of places such as Ukraine, Syria, Egypt and China.
“Isn’t this already a fait accompli? It’s already taken,” a reporter pointed out at a recent State Department briefing where spokeswoman Marie Harf defended the use of “attempted annexation” for the Crimea crisis.

Wikipedia should reflect facts on the ground, not US government propaganda. Keeping the subsection on Crimea in this article serves no useful purpose and is just going to confuse people. Wikipedia should follow the AP here. – Herzen (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea is part of Ukraine. Full stop. --Львівське (говорити) 23:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not really matter if Crimea is part of Ukraine or if it is a part of Russia, what Crimea has in common with the other entries here are the pro-Russian protests and unrest. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What protests and unrest are there in the Crimea? I have heard of no protests since the Crimean referendum about independence. So Crimea is a completely different kettle of fish than southeastern regions of the Ukraine.
As for Lvivske's outburst: "Crimea is part of Ukraine. Full stop." As I pointed out, even Yulia Timoshenko, who may become the next president of the Ukraine, realizes that Crimea is not part of the Ukraine. All serious observers understand that Russia has put its credibility on the line when it comes to the annexation of the Crimea. If Russia were to give up the Crimea, it might as well dissolve the Russian Federation completely. Wikipedia should reflect that reality. – Herzen (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are not following what I am saying, Crimea was a part of Ukraine had this Russian unrest and then became part of Russia, the fact is though that Crimea was a part of Ukraine what is being told here is what happened through the Russian unrest when it came to Crimea. So in short Crimea's section here is info that occuered in the past not the present. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exacty. It was de facto party of Ukraine when the unrest began and is still legally part of Ukraine, and this article concerns the movement of unrest in Ukraine. That the unrest stopped or Russia occupied the region doesn't negate the fact that the pro-Russian events occurred. The issue as I see here is that Herzen is extremely anti-Ukrainian in his rhetoric, and this is just another shot in the dark to 'remove' Crimea from Ukraine, even in historical context. --Львівське (говорити) 00:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lvivske please WP:AGF here, I have made the same mistake in thinking some regions looked out of place only to learn that they were taken from a past POV before. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume good faith if this talk page wasn't already littered with hate speech and accusations of 'nationalists' ruining the articles. --Львівське (говорити) 00:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that someone who doesn't know Russian or Ukrainian or some other Slavic language which uses the Cyrillic alphabet can't even read your user name, don't you? So you are hardly in a position to judge whether someone is acting in "good faith" or is expressing hate speech. I could spell my user name on the English Wikipedia in Cyrillic, too, but I don't, because I'm not a nationalist extremist.
To return to the question of whether the Crimean subsection belongs in this article, what happened in the Crimea does not mesh at all with the article's lead. There was no opportunity for unrest or demonstrations to occur in the Crimea, because the polite men in green showed up in the Crimea very quickly after the Kiev putsch. There was simply no need for demonstrations, because everyone understood that Russia was running the show, because of the strategic importance to it of the naval base. The current situation in southeastern Ukraine is completely different.
The title of the article is "pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine". There was no unrest in the Crimea, because Russia simply quickly snatched the Crimea up. Hence, the section on Crimea does not belong here. I find it really frustrating that I have to repeatedly state the obvious. – Herzen (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was no unrest in Crimea? I invite you to look at Timeline of the 2014 Crimean crisis. As for the lead: "Since the end of February 2014, demonstrations by pro-Russian and anti-government groups have taken place in major cities across the south-eastern regions of Ukraine" is a true statement about the events. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See, guy just called me a "nationalist extremist" now because he doesn't like my signature. Wow. --Львівське (говорити) 19:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I had to follow some links to determine this, because the relevant Wikipedia articles are pretty obscure in my view, but the putsch occurred on Friday February 21, and the polite men in green appeared in the Crimea on Thursday February 27. A couple of articles in the Guardian dated Friday February 28 made it clear that Russia had taken the Crimea for good. So I was wrong. The Russian response to the putsch was not immediate: it took six days. Significantly, the Olympic closing ceremony was on February 23. (Obviously, the planners of the putsch in the US State Department thought that they could make the putsch decisive, since Putin was occupied with the Olympics when they pulled it.) So it took Putin's administration four days to figure out how to respond to the putsch. The thinking clearly was that the putsch regime would join NATO, so that nuclear missiles would be placed on Russia's border. In addition, Russia would lose its military port in Sevastopol.
This is why the Russian Federation made its move in Crimea to gain military control of the region. It was all strictly a matter of geostrategy. Any demonstrations or "unrest" of Crimean civilians played absolutely no causal role in Russia's move. Russia would have been happy not to annex Crimea, just as long as it would continue to have access to its Sevastopol port, but the Crimean people desperately wanted to become part of Russia, and the RF had to yield to their wish.
Another issue is that the Crimea being made part of the Ukrainian Socialist Republic was very recent: that was done by Khrushchev. The other southeastern parts of the Ukraine were carved out of Russia much earlier, by Stalin. So that is another reason why the Crimean case is completely different from what is now happening in southeastern Ukraine.
Keeping the section on Crimea in this article is a disservice to Wikipedia's readers and is just going to confuse them. But I am not going to continue trying to get the relevant Wikipedia editors to see reason anymore. – Herzen (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The other southeastern parts of the Ukraine were carved out of Russia much earlier, by Stalin" Your history is wrong here, sorry. Thankfully Wikipedia has article on all of this for you to brush up on.--Львівське (говорити) 19:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crimea is Ukraine. Full Stop." - Funny Lvivske (or whatever). Ukraine is Russia. Full Stop. How about that argument? The main point is, what do you think the majority of people in Crimea want for themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.159.64 (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We'll find out what the majority want the next time a research study is done, but by last count majority did not want to be in Russia.--Львівське (говорити) 19:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't a disservice. It would be a disservice not to include it. At the time, there were many demonstrations by Tatars and pro-Russians in Crimea, prior to the military intervention. At the time, Crimea was part of Ukraine, whether one likes it or not. The events in Crimea were directly linked to the events in Donetsk, Kharkiv, Luhansk and elsewhere. They are all fundamentally agitations by people seeking 'federalisation, separation' or whatever. They started in Crimea, and then spread elsewhere. Crimea may not be de facto part of Ukraine now, but it was at the time the protests started. Hence, please stop agitating about nonsense. RGloucester — ☎ 13:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea is internationally recognized as occupied territory, so I think it's a part of Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

http://zn.ua/UKRAINE/mneniya-i-vzglyady-zhiteley-yugo-vostoka-ukrainy-aprel-2014-143598_.html

The main demands of the protestors are not the unity with Russia but federalization and they are not covered by the article. Following the figure from a poll I added to the article:

Which form of state should Ukraine be
Example Eastern Ukraine
United 19.1
United - But with decentralization of the power to the regions 45.2
Federalization 24.8
Don't know 8.8
Didn't answer 2.0


--Wrant (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are misunderstanding something. It is not the opinion of the protesters, but the population that live there. It doesn't reflect the opinion of the militants/protestors, etc. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I've overseen it in the text because an author merged the two sections "united" and "united - but with decentralization" into one. Though I suggest a table for a better overview. --Wrant (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it makes sense to merge the united figures together if we're comparing systems. Decentralization is already announced by Kyiv and happening regardless so 'status quo' isnt really an option --Львівське (говорити) 16:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can not see a reason, to use not independend polls in this article.

Referring to "A poll conducted by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS)" and "In an opinion poll conducted from 14–26 March by the International Republican Institute"

I want the prompt to delete this heel apply. Until to appear a neutral poll report by the OSCE

Reasons:

The cited survey results may have been maniupulatedt, as part of a conflict media manipulation! I can not see a reason, to use not independend polls in this article.

Reason why we should not trust in these Institues are:

  1. The "Kyiv Int. Institute" is surely controlled in all given reports by the actual goverment.
  2. The "International Republican Institut" was one of the financial sponsors from the "Open Ukraine Foundation" from Arseniy Yatsenyuk since 2009. It is to accept and also obvious that this intsitut does not have the requirements for an objective report creation. Thus serve the information in this article may to distortion of realities about the motivations of the protest movement.
  3. In addition, the proximity from this institute to some non-neutral politicians of the republicans, who are surely representing a conflict party, is given.
  4. Surveys of this institute have been abused in other conflicts to Maniupulation the opinion of the population!

The OSCE is the only organization to be submit capable of objective reports. In their last report of OSCE by April 17, although only a few adopted data have been supplied, but these deviations from the reporst cited allow the connection of a conscious manipulation to.

Therefore, these should not be used in wikipedia information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webslap (talk • contribs) 19:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is literally no reason to believe the KIIS figures are manipulated in any way, they are a major pollster and conduct regular surveys going back years. They are an independent source, and a reliable source, and you cant remove content simply because you believe there may be a conspiracy. --Львівське (говорити) 19:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Webslap (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More on neutrality

Wording like "SBU arrested a %SOMENUMBER% Russian extremists" or "SBU arrested a Russian intelligence agent" is biased. It presents dubious and unproven SBU claims appearing in the (often unofficial) media as hard facts. Oh, and besides, the "Black Hundreds" monarchist groups technically couldn't be called "neo-Nazis" (being always more focused on the religious denomination rather than blood).

Pro-Russian protest statistics

I appreciate your efforts in recording the statistics about the counter-protests, however I think that the numbers about the pro-Russian protests need a little work. I mean, only 2000 in Kharkiv? There were a lot more than that, and there are two Lugansks. Also, the 2000-15000 number about Donetsk should be adjusted, because it is quite clear that the peak protests were a lot higher than 2000. Please work on those statistics a bit more, I will do some of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources about the statistics feel free to discuss them. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to Kharkiv, I think there was a larger one cited and then an IP user tried inventing an even bigger one, and when we investigated that source we arrived at the current number. If you can find a larger cited even feel free to re-add it, assuming its from a reliable source. As far as Donetsk goes, there was a wide range for that date from reliable sources, so we had to show both sides, no? --Львівське (говорити) 14:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Luhansk mention and you're right that there are two. The issue is the 1,000 one is cited, but the 10,000 one is from an unreliable source (pro russian blog?). We need a better source or else we're still in limbo on what to trust. Finding a larger one for Luhansk shouldnt be hard...--Львівське (говорити) 14:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a reliable article that says there were ten thousand pro-Russian protesters in Luhansk http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/03/9/7018219/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
added --Львівське (говорити) 16:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well here is a video of a massive pro-Russian protest in Sevastopol, there are clearly tens of thousands, but I am having difficulty finding a reliable source that says the amount http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2FunKG-9Rk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A youtube video by the Russian Bloc doesn't constitute a source, we're not judges of how many people were there by a low angle shot. Maybe google 'sevastopol rally' (in russian) in google and check news to see what was reported as the turnout? --Львівське (говорити) 16:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have found an article about the Sevastopol rally, it says there were 30000 people http://sevastopolnews.info/2014/02/lenta/sobytiya/069214706/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, about Donetsk, this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine has a lot of dates talking about 10,000 pro-Russian protesters in Donetsk (March 1, March 9, March 15) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we can use one of those sources then, probably what I had in the chart before until things got messed up --Львівське (говорити) 16:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a 10k for Donetsk. The issue is if someone wants to add the 15k again as a "peak" we have to re-add the 2k as the lower bound figure also reported, which is what caused this dispute. --Львівське (говорити) 16:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I was looking for the Sevastopol amount I found that 10000 attended a pro-Ukrainian rally in Mykolaiv, http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/02/23/7016002/, maybe the "5000-" should be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Russian and Ukrainian Sources

Let this be a fair warning: I intend to start removing any assertion which is supported by only a Russian or Ukrainian language source as unverifiable. For example, I just removed the assertion that RT journalists were attacked by Pro-Russian activists because the only source was a Russian-language article in Pravda. I checked the article but I could not verify the assertion because it is in Russian and not English.

This is an ENGLISH LANGUAGE Page and we need ENGLISH LANGUAGE Sources so that we can actually verify that the ENGLISH LANGUAGE Assertions are actually supported. Any sources which cannot be verified by ENGLISH LANGUAGE Users need to be tossed. I will wait approximately 24 hours before making further changes to give any other users a chance to respond. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not how Wikipedia works. We allow non-English language sources, as you will see here. If you need help understanding them, either ask for someone with language experience at Wikipedia:Translators available, or use a cursory glance via Google translate. English sources are preferred, certainly, but we have nothing inherently against foreign language sources from reliable organisations. By the way, the article you mention was in Ukrainian, not Russian. RGloucester — ☎ 17:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where the guidelines have been followed I will not remove items. However, the guidelines are not being followed. If you want to quote directly (in original language) from an article and then supply a machine translation in-line then I can attempt to verify. However, these guidelines are not being followed. Take the example I removed, the assertion was that RT reporters were assaulted but that RT did not report on it. The source provided was a multi-page article in Pravda. There was no quote from the Pravda article and no direct translation. As a result, I am not able to verify that the Pravda article actually contains either the assertion that the RT reporter was assaulted and/or the separate assertion that RT did not report on it. I can either remove the items or flag each item as contentious until the quote is provided on the talk page. Do you have a better suggestion for resolving this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.251.253 (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Local news gives a lot more information than news in English, you'd have to delete half the article if you were to use only English language sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I can flag them as contentious until the quote and translation are provided. How about being constructive? How can I verify the statements when all I am given is a link to a mutli-page document in high level Russian? If I can verify I will, if not I will flag as contentious and ask for the quote on the talk page. Does that sound reasonable? 173.79.251.253 (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This would amount to disruptive editing (#3) --Львівське (говорити) 18:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a case of ownership of the article. You can't just go and blank sources because you want every single thing "verified" for you (what does that even mean?). Do a Google translation yourself if you want to fact check, but if you're too lazy to do so, you can't just go and flag each and every reference in the article as "contentious". When the sources were added in the first place they were verified, you're effectively saying you don't like our verifications and want additional verifications, with full quoted translations, your majesty. --Львівське (говорити) 18:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're right, I read the policy. I cannot blank sources. However, I can flag as dubious if there is not enough information for an English language user to verify. It would then be up to the contributing editor to provide the direct language with a translation in order to remove the dubious tag. That is what the policy says. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you check it and see things don't add up then sure, but the Pravda article for example mentions both points you brought up...I'm using Google Translate like the rest and this is what it says verbatim: ""We have reports that Russia Today journalists have also suffered from the attack , they beat the camera, but no story aired Russia Today did not work "- he said."--Львівське (говорити) 19:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That translation makes no sense. I understand that you have 'verified' it. That is very kind of you. However, it is not verifiable by an ordinary English language Wikipedia user like myself. I'm not particularly trying to be contentious on the issue, but I should be able to verify that the sources actually say what is asserted. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine → Ukraine Crisis – Overwhelming use in English Language media sources. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past few weeks the English language media has settled on two terms for these events: Ukraine Crisis is by far the most common title with only a minority using Unrest in Ukraine. The current title includes the phrase 'pro-Russian' which violates both NPOV and CONCISE. I move that we use the most common title, widely establish in the media, of Ukraine Crisis.

Reposted from above, this list should include every major wire service, major British newspaper, major American newspaper, and the leading Ukrainian English-language paper:

Wire Services:

  • Reuters: "Casualty numbers used as a weapon in Ukraine crisis" [15]
  • AP: "UN Security Council meets on Ukraine crisis " [16]

Major British Papers:

  • BBC News: "Ukraine crisis: Military vehicles 'seized' in Kramatorsk" [17]
  • Telegraph: "Ukraine crisis: April 15 as-it-happened" [18]
  • Guardian: "Ukraine crisis: military stands down in confrontations with protesters"[19]
  • Economist: "The Ukraine crisis: Boys from the blackstuff" [20]

Major American Papers:

  • Washington Post: "Obama and Putin discuss Ukraine crisis" [21]
  • New York Times: "Obama Steps Up Russia Sanctions in Ukraine Crisis" [22]
  • Chicago Tribute: "U.N. Security Council holds emergency meeting on Ukraine crisis" [23]
  • LA Times: "Kerry says 'nationalistic fervor' of Ukraine crisis like pre-WWII" [24]
  • Houston Chronicle: "Obama calls Merkel to 'check in' on Ukraine crisis" [25]
  • CNN: "Can 'odd couple' Kerry and Lavrov take the edge off Ukraine crisis talks?" [26]
  • Forbes: "Euro Slips On Easing Talk While Ukraine Crisis Explodes" [27]

Ukrainian English-Language paper:

  • Kyiv Post: "Bloomberg: U.K. stocks, led by Rio Tinto group, decline on Ukraine crisis" [28]

Discussion

  • Vehement oppose - We don't use journalistic shorthand for the sake of it. The proposed title is much too broad to be used here. 'Ukraine crisis' has been used by the media to reference all the events from Euromaidan, to the Antimaidan, to the protests in eastern and southern Ukraine, to the annexation of Crimea, to the Russian military intervention, to the specific armed unrest in Donetsk Oblast. If we use a title like this, the scope would be much broader than the actual scope of the article at present. This simply isn't the time for a title change, and even if it were, this title would not be appropriate, nor is it WP:CONCISE. The title should reflect the content, and 'Ukraine crisis' doesn't make clear what the content of the article would be, per WP:TITLE. It is an absolutely unacceptable title, regardless of what newspapers might say at the moment. This is also a product of WP:RECENTISM, that really doesn't seem appropriate while events are still developing. RGloucester — ☎ 17:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You quote a number of policies.
First, NOTNEWS does not apply as none of these articles fall under one of the defined categories of Journalism, News Reports, Who's Who, or Diary. You seem to be attempting an argument under the second category (News Reports) even though none of this articles are routine news (e.g. weather reports). NOTNEWS even states: "[...] breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information."
Second, I find it ridiculous that you argue "2014 Pro-Russian Unrest in Ukraine" is more CONCISE than "Ukraine Crisis". It is self-evident that you are wrong.
Third, TITLE is clear that "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." As provided above, the vast majority of English-language reliable sources refer to the events as "Ukraine Crisis" and not "2014 Ukraine Crisis" or "Pro-Russian Unrest in Ukraine". Regardless of your opinion or mine, we should use whatever the reliable sources say.
Fourth, if you want to slap a RECENTISM tag on the page feel free. It is probably appropriate. However, it doesn't have any bearing on this conversation.
I do think there is a valid question as to whether the Ukraine Crisis includes the Euromaiden protests and the annexation of Crimea or only the events subsequent to the annexation. You are attempting (I think) to distinguish between the recent protests as opposed to the events as a whole which, to me, makes a lot of sense. Ultimately, however, it is for us to look at how the English language sources use these terms and not to debate amongst ourselves the appropriateness. The fact is that the reliable, English language sources are all calling the pro-annexation events the "Ukraine Crisis" whether or not it includes the pre-annexation events.
Finally, I'd challenge you to provide your reliable English language sources which support your preferred name of "2014 Pro-Russian Unrest in Ukraine" especially given that you gave the article it's current title. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, while I did move the article to its present title, that was through discussion. You'll note that I originally proposed a variant of 'Ukraine crisis' but quickly understood why that was not appropriate.
Per WP:PRECISE, a subsection of WP:TITLE: 'Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article'. Your proposed title fails this utterly.
Per WP:CONCISE, a subsection of WP:TITLE: 'The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area'. Your proposed title fails this, because the title does not distinguish between the potential events that one could refer to as 'Ukraine crisis'. Is it Euromaidan? Is it the 2014 Crimean crisis? Is the insurgency in Donetsk Oblast? Just from looking at the title, one won't know what the article is. By definition, that is not 'sufficient information to identify the topic'.
Per WP:COMMONNAME, a subjection of WP:TITLE: 'Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources'. Your proposed title is ambiguous and inaccurate, as it doesn't specify what it is referring to, as mentioned above. Hence the ability to form a compromise that may not be the most commonly used name, at present, in reliable sources.
Per the essay, WP:RECENTISM: 'Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention'. The proposed title may be used by the media to refer the events described in this article now, however, that will most likely not be the case in the future, considering the vagueness of the title. For example, we've already seen the words 'Ukraine crisis' being used to describe the Euromaidan protests many months ago. We didn't title that article 'Ukraine crisis', and if we did, we'd have to move it now. RGloucester — ☎ 18:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I challenge you to provide reliable, English language sources which support your preferred title of "2014 Pro-Russian Unrest in Ukraine". 173.79.251.253 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An absence of the phrase from sources wouldn't even prove that this title is bad. See WP:NDESC. Especially for current events, sometimes we just go with a descriptive title. Maybe the current title isn't "non-judgmental," but the proposed title is unacceptably vague. --BDD (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read my argument. The present title is a compromise, no different than fixed-wing aircraft, to avoid the use of an 'inaccurate or ambiguous name' favoured by media sources, as it says in WP:TITLE. What's more, reliable scholarly sources, which are often privileged over media sources, haven't had enough time to write about the subject, hence the lack of a clear choice of title from them. Hence my mention WP:RECENTISM. RGloucester — ☎ 19:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The protesters may or may not be Pro-Russian. It is nonsensical to say the unrest is Pro-Russian because the unrest is not a person. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid question, whether the Ukraine Crisis does or does not include the events before the Russian annexation of Ukraine. However, the vast majority of the reliable sources use the phrase "Ukraine Crisis" to refer to the events after the annexation with a small minority using "Unrest in Ukraine". I consider this fact to be verifiable and have provided lots of sources. Isn't the standard to use what the reliable sources call it? If they are calling it "Ukraine Crisis" in the evening news and in the papers then isn't that the most appropriate title here? If not, what is the standard we measure by?173.79.251.253 (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement of GRU operatives in the unrest

Given that there are sources, whose independence is open to discussion, that alledgedly state that GRU operatives are involved in the unrest, while the Russian government denies their involvement, I ask anyone if an independent source (neither Ukrainian nor Russian) can be used to support their involvement. I also ask if the involvement of some GRU operatives justify the mention of GRU itself in the infobox, since it doesn't prove they are not acting by their own, as individuals. Mondolkiri1(Mondolkiri1) 23:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am opposed to their inclusion in the infobox, regardless of their potential participation in the events. By the by, I've also been opposed to filling the infobox with various groups/parties/people that don't need to be in it, and have removed them multiple times. It doesn't seem necessary to have a gigantic infobox with various parties of dubious importance/support/reliability included. RGloucester — ☎ 23:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, what should be done, if there are conflicting informations about it. The Party of Regions was already removed, since it has stated that it doesn't condone the situation. Is this a similar case?

Mondolkiri1(Mondolkiri1) 23:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, though I do think that the reports should be mentioned in the body of the article. However, it doesn't seem appropriate for them to be in the infobox. Let's wait for others to comment. RGloucester — ☎ 23:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep it out of the infobox, at least for now. But in article text and lede, as long as it has reliable sources on it, that's fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/17/us-ukraine-crisis-casualties-idUSBREA3G0BL20140417
  2. ^ http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_UNITED_NATIONS_UKRAINE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
  3. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27045534
  4. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10771766/Ukraine-crisis-April-15-as-it-happened.html
  5. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/16/ukraine-on-the-brink-live-blog-16-april
  6. ^ http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21601048-government-kiev-has-no-obvious-counters-russian-inspired-occupations-industrial
  7. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-and-putin-discuss-ukraine-crisis/2014/04/14/b96f85da-c404-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html
  8. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/us/politics/us-expanding-sanctions-against-russia-over-ukraine.html?_r=0
  9. ^ http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-04-13/news/chi-ukraine-crisis-20140413_1_ukraine-crisis-turchinov-yanukovich
  10. ^ http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/18/world/la-fg-wn-ukraine-russia-kerry-20140318
  11. ^ http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/article/Obama-calls-Merkel-to-check-in-on-Ukraine-crisis-5393230.php
  12. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/16/world/europe/ukraine-talks-kerry-lavrov/
  13. ^ http://www.forbes.com/sites/deanpopplewell/2014/04/14/euro-slips-on-easing-talk-while-ukraine-crisis-explodes/
  14. ^ http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/world/article/Russian-economy-slows-amid-Ukraine-crisis-5406014.php
  15. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/17/us-ukraine-crisis-casualties-idUSBREA3G0BL20140417
  16. ^ http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_UNITED_NATIONS_UKRAINE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
  17. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27045534
  18. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10771766/Ukraine-crisis-April-15-as-it-happened.html
  19. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/16/ukraine-on-the-brink-live-blog-16-april
  20. ^ http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21601048-government-kiev-has-no-obvious-counters-russian-inspired-occupations-industrial
  21. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-and-putin-discuss-ukraine-crisis/2014/04/14/b96f85da-c404-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html
  22. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/us/politics/us-expanding-sanctions-against-russia-over-ukraine.html?_r=0
  23. ^ http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-04-13/news/chi-ukraine-crisis-20140413_1_ukraine-crisis-turchinov-yanukovich
  24. ^ http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/18/world/la-fg-wn-ukraine-russia-kerry-20140318
  25. ^ http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/article/Obama-calls-Merkel-to-check-in-on-Ukraine-crisis-5393230.php
  26. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/16/world/europe/ukraine-talks-kerry-lavrov/
  27. ^ http://www.forbes.com/sites/deanpopplewell/2014/04/14/euro-slips-on-easing-talk-while-ukraine-crisis-explodes/
  28. ^ http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/world/article/Russian-economy-slows-amid-Ukraine-crisis-5406014.php
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine&oldid=605550944"