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 79.131.231.211 (talk) at 19:29, 5 May 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Disputed neutrality

These [1][2] 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]

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

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

You mad? --Львівське (говорити) 03:39, 28 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]

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]

Link removal and neutrality

I reverted the removal of a link [3]. 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]

That particular User is recently addicted to removing things, including new articles. Never mind man. 霎起林野间 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is that some kind of thinly veiled insult? Certain things meet notability, certain things don't. Certain things get due weight in this article, certain things don't. We don't need thousands of POV forks. RGloucester — ☎ 15:29, 2 May 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]
Wait until sources start calling it a war. We aren't allowed to judge whether or not conflicts are wars. 99.71.123.123 (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[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]
It makes perfect sense. Wanting better grammar isn't a justification for requesting verification when the facts are laid out in an orderly sequence. (RT journalists were also attacked, they beat the cameraman, RT did not air it"--Львівське (говорити) 03:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Ukraine has a poor information service and it was acknowledged that it lost "informational war" with Russia. Russia on the other hand has a quite powerful services with such agencies like RT and Lifenews as well as RIA News which provide a massive volume of English interpretation of their news. Lvivske, I would suggest you for articles from Pravda to check with Ukrinform or Interfax Ukraine to find similar articles in English version for these difficult editors. If you need any help to deal with such "stingy" editors, please, let me know I would try to find solution to interpretation versions. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also suggest EuromaidanPR, who just re-syndicate those sources into clear English. Interfax Ukraine usually doesn't translate much of its articles into English, the Russian or Ukrainian versions have all the breaking news. --Львівське (говорити) 03:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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, it is clear that the vast majority of the reliable sources use the phrase "Ukraine Crisis" to refer to the events following the annexation, which are the subject of this article, while a small minority use the phrase "Unrest in Ukraine" instead. I consider this fact to be verifiable and have provided lots of sources (to none in opposition). 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 reliable sources, then what is the standard we measure by? 173.79.251.253 (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria at WP:TITLE, which I mentioned above. We take them all into account, not just one item. RGloucester — ☎ 03:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's no good. There is no good reason to make people think that the unrest is all across Ukraine. It isn't. It is concentrated in one area, more or less. Anyway, this potential title could also refer to the Euromaidan unrest that occurred earlier this year. It is equally vague. RGloucester — ☎ 13:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes given by the Guardian of police officers from the east suggest that the unrest is not so much pro-Russian as anti the present Kiev regime:
The police were reluctant to talk about the bloody events of the previous night, when they failed to protect civilians from attack. But one officer who was there said: "This situation is all Kiev's fault. They say we in the east are slaves, half-humans. They revere people like Stepan Bandera [the second world war Ukrainian nationalist leader] who shot our brothers. We are normal citizens like everyone else."
The captain said he was one of 400 Donetsk region police officers sent to the capital to deal with anti-Yanukovych demonstrations, which began last November. The experience had left him bitterly disillusioned. He had nothing but contempt for the new government, part-formed from the protest movement, he said.
The police even had sympathy for pro-Russian gunmen in Slavyansk, who are holding 40 people prisoner, including seven European military observers. One officer said: "Kiev started all this by arresting our activists. They [in Slavyansk] are merely defending their rights."
Current article title is definitely POV. Ukrainian and Western media call the protestors "pro-Russian"; Russian media call them "pro-federation". "Anti-Kiev" would be a neutral compromise, and would probably be how the demonstrators would describe themselves. Calling some Ukrainian citizens "pro-Russian" is divisive under the current circumstances. – Herzen (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Anti-Kiev' is vague. '2014 anti-Kiev unrest in Ukraine' could refer to the Euromaidan. Reliable sources consistently describe them as 'pro-Russian'. Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic 'officials' have both requested the aid of Russia, and raised Russian flags. Your linked article says 'pro-Russian' right in the first line. RGloucester — ☎ 00:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It was just an idea. – Herzen (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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]

way too much clutter in this thing. --Львівське (говорити) 15:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he knows, everything you mentioned is said and cited in both the DPR and Sloviansk standoff articles --Львівське (говорити) 02:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do know. I wasn't accusing you of anything. But stuff like that doesn't belong in the infobox, hence 'nonsense'. Infoboxes are for basic facts, and the information contained within them has a higher burden of verification, since it is given more weight within the article. Regardless of that, we don't need a million tons of stuff in the infobox. The infobox is not a substitute for the body of article, and should only provide background basic details, as I said. It shouldn't be filled with various groups that may have a connection, or loaded statements without context (the body provides context for content in the body). RGloucester — ☎ 02:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RGloucester, I do agree with that. That probably ought to be cleaned up. It just surprised me to see how the article is turning into invasion of the Ukrainian Armed Forces into Russia. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been keeping close tabs on the article, and I don't see any areas that feel like that to me. Would you care to point them out, so that they can be addressed? RGloucester — ☎ 03:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sevastopol pro-Russian rally

Why did you revert my edit? You are okay with saying 30000 attended a pro-Ukrainian Kharkiv rally but you are not okay with saying 30000 attended a pro-Russian Sevastopol rally. This is not RT, stop distorting facts. Even by looking at the pictures on that article it is absurd to describe that as "2000+". When an article says "thousands" you don't write "2000+", you find another article that gives the exact amount. Usually when two thousand attend a rally it says two thousand, not "thousands". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sevastopolnews.info is not a reliable source. If it's between "thousands" or a non-RS saying 30,000, then my personal judgement is to fall back on 2,000+ until we find something legitimate. Judging by pictures is useless, to me it looks like a couple thousand, not tens of thousands. --Львівське (говорити) 14:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lvivske, I found another source that seems more reliable, it says there were 20,000. Maybe we can add this one and say 20,000-30,000? http://news.sevas.ua/politics/miting_sobral_na_centralnoj_ploshhadi_sevastopolya_20_tysyach_chelovek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lvivske, it is kind of prejudice to tag certain sources as "not reliable". All sources are quite reliable as long as they are not blogs or any other social networks. Sevastopolnews seems to be a real website and some news are quite informative. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the .info TLD seems to be a red flag to me. Who are they citing? Did they have journalists there or is it a blog? --Львівське (говорити) 03:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The basic guideline for "reliable" vs "non-reliable" is that 1) it's got some kind of editorial oversight - which means that sources where anyone can post anything they like without the material being vetted by some verified expert in the topic are excluded (Wikipedia itself is excluded under this criteria since it's all just a bunch of us volunteer users here - that's why we don't use Wikipedia as a source for itself) and 2) that it's got a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That one is a bit circular in that the way you establish reputation is by looking for other sources which say it has reputation which themselves have the reputation. But that's reputation for you. If you approach it with common sense it's a perfectly reasonable guideline/policy. Most reputations really are built on actual performance and reliability rather than self-referential circular back scratching (though there are some topic areas - like Race and Intelligence - where this can be a problem). Unless I'm missing something "Sevastopolnews" very clearly fails the second criteria and it's not even clear it satisfies the first one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VoR

With hysterical pieces like this (as just one example), the VoR just simply isn't a reliable source. Even with the politics aside it probably wouldn't be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VOR and LifeNews are the two worst IMO, beside RT. Here's a comparison of Kyiv Post to Life News. Of course, as we know LN also faked the Right Sector evidence in Sloviansk. --Львівське (говорити) 18:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The funny part is how VOR there calls him a 'so called Russian militant' but in the TIME piece he admits he's Russian, a militant, and ex-military. --Львівське (говорити) 18:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "he" you're talking about? Because the bearded Chechen GRU fighter on the NYT photo isn't the same as the man giving the interview, that's the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.63.248 (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good source for the 'attacks on journalists' section. I don't have time to add it in right now, so I thought I'd put it here for others to use. RGloucester — ☎ 19:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lvivske, sources are not worst. One should be aware about their political position. Beside the above mentioned there is also an Anglophone International Business Times that is also politically inclined towards Russia. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casulties

Casualties section in infobox does not correspond neither to the references given not to the real life statistics. The references also are not checked and are placed randomly. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Gogo212121 President of Ukraine this what's his problem with pro Russian separatists --Gogo212121 (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kernes shot

Update — Kharkiv Mayor Hennadiy Kernes, shot in the back April 28, undergoes surgery but his life remains in danger. [4] [5] Sca (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag of the Donetsk People's Republic

For those interested, there is a deletion discussion for an article relating to these events taking place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of RfC at Right Sector

RfC at Right Sector:

“Should the article say in the lead that the group (or that some of its subgroups’ members) are neofascist or neo-Nazi, without citing a minimum of 3 top-quality sources?” --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Ukraine arrested a Russian GRU operative." Really?

In this edit, I added a rs tag to the claim "Ukraine arrested a Russian GRU operative." My comment to that edit was: "English language sources required on arrest of 'GRU operative'." Львівське responded by removing the tag, with the comment, "nothing wrong with source". Львівське thus ignored my point that English sources are required for such a dubious claim.

The GRU is a highly professional military foreign-intelligence service. Therefore, any capture of one of its agents is an extremely newsworthy event. That no Wikipedia editor has been able to find an English language or Russian source reporting the capture of this "operative" should make one extremely suspicious of the one report cited by the article. I believe that in this case, because of the sensational nature of the claim, the rule that two reliable sources should be provided applies. And no, Ukrainian Pravda is not a reliable source in this case, since it regularly makes unsubstantiated claims against Russia.

If this story had any validity to it, the Western press would be all over it. When the Donetsk anti-fascist resistance caught three Ukrainian special ops officers who were trying to kidnap a resistance leader, this was reported in the Western press, and the resistance released a video showing a public interrogation of the spies from Kiev on YouTube. No similar confirmation has been provided for the case of this alleged capture by the Kiev regime of a "GRU operative". Therefore, if two reliable sources, at least one of which must be non-Ukrainian, cannot be provided for this dubious claim, the claim must be deleted from the article. – Herzen (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia we don't have problems with non-English sources: WP:NOENG. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, non-English sources are deprecated in the English Wikipedia. See WP:NOENG, which you yourself invoked.
because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.
With the dubious claim that the Kiev regime was able to capture a GRU agent, WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies:
Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
  • surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources
The claim is so surprising that if it were true, multiple English language sources would doubtless have produced reports confirming it. – Herzen (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it says "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". Besides, arrests of GRU operatives are not a surprising thing, as it was mentioned in another part of the article with a reference to The Daily Beast. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the The Daily Beast article says is that a Ukrainian government official claims to have a dossier on more than forty GRU agents that Ukraine has arrested. The author of the article does not say that he has seen any evidence to support this claim. Thus, WP:EXCEPTIONAL still applies. All claims made in this Wikipedia article about the Ukrainian government arresting GRU agents are extraordinary; therefore, multiple reliable sources must be given. Ukrainian news outlets are not reliable sources on this matter. The only non-Ukrainian source given supporting a claim about the arrest of a GRU officer is Voice of America, which does not claim to be anything other than a USG propaganda outfit. Until last summer, it wasn't even legal for Voice of America to be accessible to people in the US.
There are three possibilities. (1) Editors who want to keep the claims of GRU officers being arrested find multiple reliable sources to back those claims up. (2) The article is edited so that all such claims are clearly identified as just that—claims, not facts. (3) All such claims are deleted entirely from the article.
When Donetsk activists captured three Ukrainian special ops officers, they held a press conference in which these officers where questioned, and a videotape of the interrogation is available on YouTube. Thus we know that those Ukrainian spies really were captured. In contrast, the Ukrainian government has provided no evidence whatsoever that it has actually arrested any GRU agents. It is reasonable to conclude that that is why Western media has not reported any such arrests, as far as I know. The actual arrest of such agents would be a huge propaganda coup against Russia, so you can be sure that it would be front page news in the West if it really happened. – Herzen (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So basically you're suggesting that everything that isn't English be deleted, and everything that isn't a "fact" in your eyes also be deleted. Umm....why such a push to censor information?--Львівське (говорити) 23:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are your English reading skills challenged? I said there are three possibilities, only one of which is deletion. If you care so much about these allegations, why don't you try to find multiple reliable sources? Are you saying that observing WP:EXCEPTIONAL is censorship? To repeat it once more, if the Ukrainian government actually had evidence that it has caught Russian spies, that would be a tremendous propaganda for it and the USG, and this would be all over the news. – Herzen (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You had 3 options: find english sources, identify all claims as claims and delete all claims. (so really 2 options). Did you read what you wrote? Also, your assertion that it would get more English media attention is your own personal feeling, not a legitimate argument.--Львівське (говорити) 02:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That you call them "anti fascist resistance" is super cute --Львівське (говорити) 13:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian mentions them as "false identifications of Russian special forces are relayed as fact."[6]. I agree that the language of the source is irrelevant, but a claim made by Ukrainian Pravda which is directly contradicted by at least one Western source should be seen as dubious.B01010100 (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an opinion piece, so I wouldn't call it a "Western source" that can be considered to discredit reports made by Ukrainian Pravda. Also, Milne talks about "Russian special forces". It's pretty clear that he was referring to last week's NY Times story about photos proving that some of the pro-Russian/pro-federalization "self-defense" forces were actually Russian self-defense forces. John Kerry also made this claim, but the Times retracted its story the day after it published it. The Times' Public Editor even commented on that story, writing that "Aftermath of Ukraine Photo Story Shows Need for More Caution".
Special forces and GRU officers are two different things. I have no doubt that the GRU has agents in the Ukraine; if it didn't the GRU wouldn't be doing its job. (As an aside, I did think that Russia did send in special forces into eastern Ukraine, as it did into the Crimea, but I don't believe that any more.) I think more relevant than that Guardian piece is some remarks that Kerry was reported to have made:
“Intel is producing taped conversations of intelligence operatives taking their orders from Moscow and everybody can tell the difference in the accents, in the idioms, in the language. We know exactly who’s giving those orders, we know where they are coming from,” Kerry said at a private meeting of the Trilateral Commission in Washington. A recording of Kerry’s remarks was obtained by The Daily Beast.
Note that Kerry claims that Russian intelligence is coordinating the operations of the insurgency in eastern Ukraine, and that USG has audio recordings that prove that. Now if the Ukraine had captured Ukrainian spies, why wouldn't he mention that as well?
I think it's pretty clear that the stories about Ukraine capturing Russian spies is propaganda directed at Ukrainians, not a Western audience. Lavrov has already said, in response to Ukrainian claims that they have captured Russian spies: Please produce them! If reports about captured Russian spies began to appear in the Western press, his demands for evidence to that effect would become more vehement. Thus, no reports about Russian spies being captured in the Ukraine are appearing in the Western press. (Again, I am not denying that there are lots of Russian spies in the Ukraine. I just very much doubt than any have been caught. I also doubt that any Russian spies have revealed themselves to the Ukrainian insurgents, for that matter. That would be too dangerous.) – Herzen (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear you're going off on a original research tangent here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything he's ever argued on this talk page has been original research in some way. --Львівське (говорити) 02:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the russian response to the allegations of GRU operatives. Perhaps rather than argue over whether it should or shouldn't be included, let's just put the claims of both sides next to eachother.B01010100 (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's usually how things are handled per WP:NPOV. Do you have the full quote from the NYT? I'm not a subscriber. --Львівське (говорити) 02:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Kremlin insists that Russian forces are in no way involved, and that Mr. Strelkov does not even exist, at least not as a Russian operative sent to Ukraine with orders to stir up trouble. “It’s all nonsense,” President Vladimir V. Putin said Thursday during a four-hour question-and-answer session on Russian television. “There are no Russian units, special services or instructors in the east of Ukraine.” Pro-Russian activists who have seized government buildings in at least 10 towns across eastern Ukraine also deny getting help from professional Russian soldiers or intelligence agents.". It's odd that you can't reach it, i'm not a subscriber either but i can just open the link and read it.B01010100 (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose changing the wording about him in the "ukrainian" paragraph to something like "Strelkov, who they claim is a GRU operative, ...". The wording right now asserts in WP's voice that he is in fact a GRU operative, and only his reported activities are attributed as claims, whereas it appears that the very fact that he is a GRU operative in the first place is under contention.B01010100 (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made the change, attributing the claim that he is a GRU colonel more visibly to Ukrainian intelligence, under the presumption that this wouldn't be contentious.B01010100 (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Maybe they have a monthly read-limit which activates the pay wall? Because I get a notice asking to subscribe —Львівське (говорити) 02:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You get ten free articles a month, then you hit the paywall. RGloucester — ☎ 02:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added "alleged" to the other GRU operative claims by the same token as above, only source for claims is Ukrainian intelligence and denied by Russia. When there is independent verification, or russia admits as they did about the Crimea ones, we can assert it in WP's voice. Until then it seems to be contentious whether these people really are GRU operatives.B01010100 (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number of pro-russian and pro-ukrainian protesters

I think, that number of protesters are extremely highly biased towards the Ukrainian side.

To be honest, i don't know, how to solve this. Absolutely all ukrainian mass media are higly biased towards one or another side. So the authors just put to this article the numbers from the most pro-ukrainian articles. The numbers from the pro-russian media could differ up to 10 times, and of course the same way biased toward the pro-russian side.

Is there any way to solve this situation?

Барон Суббота (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so you just dont like it because it uses independent Ukrainian or western sources? These are protests in Ukraine, hard not to use Ukrainian sources.--Львівське (говорити) 03:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like them, because they are not reliable source.
For example, you have writen, that 22 March in Kharkov pro-ukrainian meeting was 30k ppl. Here is another article, that's also pro-ukrainian site, and it states, that there was just 15k ppl.
http://www.057.ua/news/481239
I'm sure there were even less ppl (relying on the photo for example), but it is of no importance, what am i assured in. Problem is, that those two sources shows huge difference between number of protesters, and if i would seek for pro-russian sources, they will show even more difference. Let us be honest - no one actually counted those men, just put the number, they want.
Барон Суббота (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So basically this amounts to not liking sources for no real reason and applying your own unsupported reasoning. --Львівське (говорити) 04:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to say me, that such a difference in numbers in different sources is "no real reason"?
Ok, then i'll wait for the opinion of other contributors. Perhaps, they will see the reason, that you are trying not to notice.
Барон Суббота (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have a problem with "absolutely every" independent media outlet in the entire country where the events are taking place. If you wanted to point out a single source being unreliable, sure, but to throw everything out that these entire articles are based on is a whole different story.--Львівське (говорити) 05:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, i have not said "let's change everything in the way i want to". My question was: "how should we solve this problem?"
I'm personally from Odessa, so i know that your numbers are wrong just by my experience. But of course i'm not the reliable source. But what could be reliable source, when the same march could be counted as "1k" and "20k" by opposite media?
We should find some sort of method, or at least should agree about the media, which are more or less can be trusted.
Барон Суббота (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Absolutely all ukrainian mass media are higly biased", so if we disregard 'absolutely all ukrainian media' as biased, then that throws out majority of sources for all of these Ukraine articles. Personally, I see no problem with the sources, it's not like they're from fringe outlets.--Львівське (говорити) 05:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. So, if you think, that there is no problem here - can i change all the numbers to the numbers from the sources i like?
Because if you don't like this idea - then we should choose, which sources are reliable, and which are not. There is no another way.
Барон Суббота (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you bring reliable sources to the table that provide different estimates, and allow us to look at them, then perhaps we can fix whatever errors it is that you see. RGloucester — ☎ 14:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start from Odessa then, because i live here and a bit familiar with sources.
The two most big Odessa internet-news sites are dumskaya.net and timer.od.ua
The first one is pro-ukrainian, and the second is pro-russian.
The pro-ukrainian march on March 30, it is stated in the table as the most large pro-ukrainian action:
http://dumskaya.net/news/odessity-vyshli-na-antivoennyj-marsh-videotransl-034221/ estimation - 5k
http://timer.od.ua/news/v_odesse_startoval_antiputinskiy_marsh_onlayn_translyatsiya_996.html estimation - 5k
Surprising consensus. (By the way, this march described in this article as 10-15k. That's why i think it is biased.) But then: pro-russian march at March 16. It is no the biggest event, the biggest was March 23, but pity, it have no estimations on both news-sites. So, March 16:
http://dumskaya.net/news/odesskaya-drugina-gotova-otrazit-provoka-000000-033699/ estimation - 3k
http://timer.od.ua/news/marsh_za_referendum_sobral_bolee_10_tisyach_odessitov_779.html estimation - 10k
That's what i mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Барон Суббота (talk • contribs) 16:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like, update the table. However, the most appropriate way to do this is to provide a range from lowest to highest reported number, as was mentioned below. Remember that others will verify what you put in. RGloucester — ☎ 23:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Following your position, changing anything wouldn't have any sense. The links, that are already in the article, are absolutely "legal". Anyone could add them again, and that would not be against the rules.
So, if you insist, that every number in media is "legal" - then perhaps i better put here the numbers, that are the most favorable to me, because my opponents already done so. But this would not make a good article, because every protest from the both sides would be described like "1000-50.000 protesters".
Барон Суббота (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We go based on reliable source. If reliable sources conflict, we crosscheck. If there is still a conflict, then we provide a range. That's how it works. We can't disregard a reliable source. RGloucester — ☎ 00:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the usual way this is handled to provide the range rather than pick one estimate? So for example something like "between 15000[ref] and 20000[ref] protesters...".B01010100 (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues

I am watching this event closely I must say there is much exaggeration and sources are often biased, this is includes this article as well. It's hard to find neutral sources as many have taken a side in this confrontation. Overall I find articles on the subject on Wiki at the current moment completely non-neutral and POV.Minor rant:in Poland most mass media just republish information from Euromaidan twitter and sources as truth(even blatant false ones as supposed take over of APC by Kiev forces from protesters). Recent Guardian article in UK seemed slightly more objective as it noted that the protests enjoy wide support in the East including Law Enforcement services[7]. Perhaps it can be used as source. I am also concerned about heavy use of politically engaged Ukrainian sources across articles on this event-it seems to me that if they can be used, so can be Russia Today(which frankly has some objective reporting from the field like Graham Philips). Overall this is just food for a thought, the articles are heavily edited, and I don't think that at the moment it is worthwhile engaging in edits which would be turned back by one side or the other. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources consistently report that polling in region has made it clear that the protesters are not supported by the majority of people, outside of Crimea. Regardless, I try to use OSCE sourcing for events, as it tends to be the most accurate. The BBC is also quite useful. However, it is more or less impossible to avoid using Ukrainian sources with regard to events in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 22:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliable sources consistently report that polling in region has made it clear that the protesters are not supported by the majority of people, outside of Crimea". Even sources used here have information like this sometimes, it was just concealed. "However, it is more or less impossible to avoid using Ukrainian sources with regard to events in Ukraine"-so neither we should avoid using Russian sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't avoid using Russian sources. We merely cross-check them with Ukrainian and English-language sources. That's how one enacts verification. RGloucester — ☎ 23:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you are ok with using the Guardian article ?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Using it for what? Everything that is in that article has already been stated here, including the quote about 'helpless' and 'law enforcement'. RGloucester — ☎ 23:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2 violence

Turchynov says "many" pro-Russia separatists killed or injured in Sloviansk, and "all" pro-Russia checkpoints around the city captured by Ukrainian forces. [8] Sca (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's mostly for the Siege of Sloviansk article. I'll add a brief mention here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also Kyiv Post. [9]. Sca (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Junta"?

In a few places, this article refers to "pro-junta" protesters. Initially I didn't know what this term meant. After a bit of research, it seems some Russian news sources are using this term to refer to the current Kiev government formed after the overthrow of Yanukovych. This term is confusing to uninformed readers (such as myself), and seems rather propagandistic. Perhaps a more neutral term could be used instead? 138.16.18.24 (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a term used by Russian propaganda and needs to be deleted on sight. It's not even used remotely correctly, it's essentially a slur now. —Львівське (говорити) 16:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IPs have been inserting these hidden gems into the article. It's time to weed them out. RGloucester — ☎ 16:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, given the frequency of its use in Russian sources, it might be worth including with attribution. For example, "Russian news source have referred to the new government as a junta, a term which has not been accepted by the Western press". I think the same approach could be used with "anti-fascist" vs "pro-Russian".138.16.18.24 (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A 'terminology' section under the 'Background' header might be warranted, just so people know what the Russian sources are calling the stuff. RGloucester — ☎ 16:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this require a tertiary source? Otherwise it's us originally reviewing Russian media terminology. —Львівське (говорити) 16:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't want to 'review' anything, merely to say something like 'Russian media often uses x', 'western media uses x'. RGloucester — ☎ 17:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
but we're the ones spotting the trend —Львівське (говорити) 17:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles about the use of 'junta' and 'supporters of federalisation' in the New York Times. I can easily gather them. RGloucester — ☎ 18:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be very helpful in establishing notability, of course --Львівське (говорити) 18:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


also RT calls what we refer to as "pro-Russian separatists" as "pro-autonomy activists" [10] --Львівське (говорити) 18:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one for 'supporters of federalization':
Here is one for 'Bandera Junta':

Here is one describing the use of 'Junta' and 'fascist':

These seem to imply that there is coverage in sources of the use of these terms by Russian media. RGloucester — ☎ 18:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa blast

I've got multiple sources with 'near Odessa city'. Odessa Oblast is a wide area, so mentioning 'near the city' is better for the reader. It is also apparent that victims were taken to hospital in Odessa city.
That seems good enough to me…RGloucester — ☎ 17:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to do this, I was already reviewing when I made the edit. I was going by this report: "at a pro-Ukrainian checkpoint near the border with Moldova's breakaway territory Transnistria" —Львівське (говорити) 17:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. RGloucester — ☎ 17:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • @Lvivske: - I've checked a map, and the building that was burnt is not at all the RSA, which is in a totally different neighbourhood. If you'd like me to provide the map, I can. Regardless, no English sources are saying 'RSA' at the moment. They all say 'Trade Unions building'. RGloucester — ☎ 21:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me this map —Львівське (говорити) 21:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a map. The first waypoint is the burnt trade unions building. The second one is the RSA. I've also seen pictures to compare the two, and the RSA is a brutalist style building, not a classical style one. RGloucester — ☎ 21:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be right, I do recognize the doors…today's been a mess --Львівське (говорити) 21:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the disadvantage of real time news, I suppose. None of this bodes well for Ukraine, though, but I suppose I should keep the forum out of the encyclopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 21:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media Bias

I am amazed at how one sided the media has become of this outbreak, sources like RT [11] use the kind of language in support of the rebels saying that the protesters from Kiev are armed while western sources are saying it is the rebels who were armed. Seeing that Russia does have their point of view I feel that maybe we should include a section in this article similar to the disputed Senkaku Islands dispute article. Each side has a position as reported by reliable sources on both sides and I feel they should be expressed here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is getting ridiculous. See my new section on 'media portrayal', which I think could be expanded to deal with this situation. RGloucester — ☎ 19:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russia Today is also the only outlet reporting that 'Kiev radicals' set the trade union building on fire. Everyone else says that the cause is 'unknown'. RGloucester — ☎ 19:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is also true that a sole Ukrainian outlet is the only source for some of the claims that GRU operatives have been arrested. This has been slightly altered to read "alleged GRU operatives", but we're still essentially reporting on the claims. Much of what is in these articles is somewhat on the edge of the question of whether it should be included, as is much of what isn't in the article, and we must be careful not to apply double standards. The question isn't so much "should we exclude the claim given that it's only reported by RT" but "do we generally also exclude claims from sole Ukrainian outlets". The answer to the last question is no, thus so should be the answer to the first. That doesn't mean that it should be included, just that that reason shouldn't apply for exclusion.B01010100 (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Can we figure out who keeps adding in that crap? I've kept removing it and it keeps reappearing. RGloucester — ☎ 19:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it was this IP. I've asked for semi-protection a few times but it's sort of fallen on deaf ears (or only short term protection). Not sure would it do much to help in any case, as all that happens then is that a bunch of throw away WP:SPA accounts pop up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already asked for protection today. RGloucester — ☎ 20:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think giving equal weight to Russian propaganda is a slippery slope and a bad idea. We need to go by mainstream, independent sources. There's obviously a conflict of interest when Russia foments these conflicts and then reports on it with what have been widely criticized as outright lies. --Львівське (говорити) 20:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an equal conflict of interest when we go by Ukrainian propaganda (to use your loaded language), a conflict does after all have two sides to it. We can include or exclude by whatever standard is seen as appropriate, but we should apply the same standard over the board. Besides, Russian reporting has been criticized as biased by Western media, but i don't think there have been many criticisms of outright lies - that's another category altogether.B01010100 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware of us using any state owned media agencies that would constitute "Ukrainian propaganda" --Львівське (говорити) 22:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ownership doesn't matter, content does. If you want an example, just recently there was a claim by a sole ukrainian outlet that the clashes at Odessa involved 15 russian citizens, which immediately went into the article and was only removed when it was contradicted by the authorities saying that there was no data on citizenship yet. Be a bit objective here, that sort of unsubstantiated stuff is equally "Ukrainian propaganda" as RT's stuff is "Russian propaganda". Claiming that it's only "the other side" that has propaganda issues is just naive.B01010100 (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because police said no comment doesn't mean TSN made it up. Propaganda is making things up, like how RT said that the clashes started with Ukrainian attacking peaceful pro-Russians and Right Sector going into a frenzy - which was a total lie.--Львівське (говорити) 23:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Police didn't say "no comment", that's something you're making up, they said "there is no data yet on citizenship". If there is no data on citizenship then claiming specific citizenship is making things up.B01010100 (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saying they have no data to report yet is the same as saying no comment, because they have no comment on the citizenship at that time. Why do I have to explain this? --Львівське (говорити) 00:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that the information doesn't exist yet because the bodies haven't even been identified yet is not the same as "no comment". Besides, they explicitly called the statements that russian citizens were killed speculation, or are you going to say that is the same as "no comment" too?B01010100 (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Once I'm finished sorting the Odessa clashes business, I'll start work on that. RGloucester — ☎ 20:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Title should be NPOV: "2014 unrest in eastern and southern Ukraine"

"2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" is POV, since it chooses the misleading "pro-Russian" as the descriptive adjective for protesters who we all agree, even in the first sentence of this article, have various goals. Most want federalism and greater autonomy. They may 'like' Russia, just as pro-Kiev folks may like the 'EU', but those feelings are irrelevant to the issue at hand, a federalist or unitary state. The best solution in 'contentious description' situations is to avoid making a POV choice.Haberstr (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Start a requested move if you like. I won't support it, as it is clunkier and vague. Reliable sources do use 'pro-Russian'. RGloucester — ☎ 22:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this proposal. All of the unrest is pro-Russian, not pro-autonomy or whatever. Also, adding south and east to the title is just making an already long title even longer--Львівське (говорити) 22:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clashes in Odessa

Ukranian Interior Ministry disprove the information about the russians in Trade Union Building, and also says that they were unarmed.

Please, correct the article.

http://www.unn.com.ua/ru/news/1337991-v-militsiyi-nazivayut-domislami-informatsiyu-pro-nibito-zagiblikh-v-odesi-rosiyan-i-pridnistrovtsiv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Барон Суббота (talk • contribs) 22:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Google translation of that isn't very good, can you provide a better translation of what it says? RGloucester — ☎ 22:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My English is not very good, but i will try:
Information about dead russians and citizens of "Pridnestrovye" was called "speculations" by police.
"We are making investigation now. Most of the bodies are still not identified. We have no any information about citezenship of victims."
Additionally, police says, that information about weapon in the House of Trade Unions is contrary to facts.


  • they say ""We are currently investigating the action. Many bodies still need to be identified, so there is no data on citizenship dead", so essentially 'no comment'. As far as guns, the Guardian did report it, so I wouldn't dismiss it. As for the Transnistria/Russia thing, maybe just attribute it to reports from TSN? It wasn't speculation by reported by journalists from the newspaper on the scene. As far as guns go, there were pro-Russians firing at Ukrainians from above buildings in the city itself, I saw the live feeds myself as it was happening. --Львівське (говорити) 22:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, the bit about Transnistria and body IDs has been removed, as I've crosschecked and can't find any verification elsewhere. However, the bit about the guns should not be removed, as it appears in reliable sources at present, and the videos clearly show guns being fired. RGloucester — ☎ 23:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guns were on the "Grecheskaya Square" clased. The camp near Trade Union Building did not partisipate in the clashes, it was destroyed only in revenge.
Барон Суббота (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page not exist.
Барон Суббота (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, already exist. It was not so before my comment. Барон Суббота (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the split article is Sobornaya Square clashes here

Campaignbox

Just a heads up, Template:Campaignbox 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine was created. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite inappropriate, as I've mentioned on the template's talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 03:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to you there. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something wrong

There is something seriously wrong with this article. I would fix it if I knew how. One of the subheadings is "Other Popes named Stephen" and it looks like some sort of style guide to editing Wikipedia? Swollibgah (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i dont see what you're talking about but i do see a hatenote template on another article going crazy for no reason. Maybe its a wiki-wide server glitch? --Львівське (говорити) 00:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could have been some sort of glitch. It seems to be gone now, but I can't see anything in the edit history that suggests it was removed by a user. I thought it was vandalism and wanted to bring it to the attention of the contributing editors to this article ASAP! Swollibgah (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
do you see the big "this page is a redirect" template? It renders fine in preview indicating that the wiki code is fine, but the page as it is is all screwy for me --Львівське (говорити) 00:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The page turned into a random style guide for me, and I can only see the normal stuff in the edit code thing. RGloucester — ☎ 00:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was an error made by another editor in the Template:Rellink merger, everything is okay now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US involvement

Russian news agencies reported, citing senior officials in Kiev security apparatus, that John Brennan, director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, was on April 12 and 13 incognito on a secret mission in Kiev and also met with Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and his vice Vitaly Yarema. ([12]) Oleg Tsarov, Ukrainian presidential candidate in the 2014 Ukrainian presidential election, discloseed that at the headquarters of the Ukrainian intelligence service Security Service of Ukraine in Kiev various U.S. intelligence agencies would have received an entire floor and that was off limits for Ukrainian officers. ([13]) The SBU and the CIA would already work closely together, claimed the deputy of the Verkhovna Rada Vladimir Golub ([14]) and by now the lawmakers were talking about the visit openly and opined that the Ukrainian Security Service had become a unit of the CIA.([15]) The secret consultations were confirmed by Jay Carney, the White House spokesman. Shortly after Brennan's secret visit Arsen Avakov, the Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs, ordered in the ″National Security Council″ the "anti-terror special operation" with military helicopters and tanks against rebellious eastUkrainians, the focus should thereby be the city Sloviansk. In Kiev the faction leader of the Party of Regions in the parliament, Oleksandr Yefremov, turned categorically down the "special operation", the "use of the army against citizens" was "unacceptable". - Please, correct and add. --79.223.22.233 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA visit was open and well known, not done incognito. Everything else is conspiracy junk. --Львівське (говорити) 22:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Mob rule'

Reuters describes "mob rule" in Donetsk, Mariupol, [19] reports Kiev sending (paramilitary?) force composed of "civil activists" to Odessa. [20] Sca (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the latter unit is essentially the national guard. trying to organize the self-defense units into something more professional and structured vs just being vigilantes with sticks --Львівське (говорити) 14:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Murdered Civilians

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2ac179c0-d46b-11e3-bf4e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz30rxBRM8U Even FT(a definitely prowestern media) describes the murder of civilians in Eastern Ukraine Perhaps a new subsection or even article should be made I provide the first source form FT about a nurse murdered etc. More civilians of course were murdered in Odessa,Slovyansk ...Perhaps someone could add this subsection

  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=607224980"