Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 40 days ![]() |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Ukrainian place names are transliterated using the National system. Please see the guidelines on the romanization of Ukrainian on Wikipedia for more information. |
![]() | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A news item involving 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 April 2014. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Draft:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine was copied or moved into 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
-->
}}
Misrepresentation of sources
[edit]@Jgmac1106: In this edit you wrote that the protests "involved large scale efforts by Russian media to shape propaganda about protests" using this as a source about the 2 May 2014 deaths in Odesa. The only somewhat relevant sentences I could find was: "The Russian channels characterised the Odesa events as 'the 21st century’s Khatyn'... Overall, Russian television painted a picture of an aggressive post-Maidan Kyiv 'junta' trying violently to put down 'supporters of federalism' and Russian-speakers more generally... Russian television also highlighted the inaction and possible collusion of the police with the perpetrators of violence, but characterised the activists with red armbands attacking pro-Maidan march participants from behind police lines as pro-Maidan agents-provocateurs, not anti-Maidan activists... The Russian coverage neglected instances of pro-Maidan activists aiding those trapped in the burning building to escape and instead emphasised pro-Maidaners attacking those who tried to escape the inferno". I do not see anything that explicitly supports the statement you added, especially considering it is about Odesa only.
In addition you wrote "the portayal of protests often used crisis actors" using this as a source which again is about the Odesa deaths but I do not see anything about "crisis actors". It mentions the atrocity narratives on TV e.g. photo of the supposedly strangled woman from that day. The only mention of acting is by the talk show guests. Even in your edit summary you only mention "crisis Actors in the Odesa Union Hall coverage". I am not sure where you got "crisis actors" from. You also mention disinformation techniques but this is vague and the source used here only focuses on media after these events (i.e. during the war in eastern Ukraine). In that edit you also changed that the unrest was in the "early stages" to "throughout" the war (i.e. from 2014 to present) rather than early 2014, I think you have misunderstood what this article is about.
Also for some reason you are introducing this information in the lead and not in the body. The lead is supposed to summarize the information in the body and not include unnecessary details. There is also a separate article for media portrayal and disinformation. Mellk (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the revision. I will add some more examples, I think describing how Russian media lied about the protests is important in the lede given that Russia was defining protests they created. These efforts were especially notable after the Odesa Union Hall file Jgmac1106 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- You revised a few more claims, and reverted. Further why did you delete that these were Russian backed protests in the fist sentence. That is important context in the DFN.
- Do you take issues with the source I used? Jgmac1106 (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. Media coverage was more important for shaping public opinion in Russia. The opening already mentions that Russia supported the unrest and mentions the involvement of the security services, so "Russian-backed" is just unnecessary repetition.
- The issue here is not the sources but that it looks like original research and not following what they say. For example, where did you see "crisis actors"? And how does the source support the statement about there being crisis actors used for the entire unrest (when it is just about the 2 May 2014 clashes)? Also per MOS:LEAD you should not add new information to the lead. There is already a section called Media portrayal. Though since some of the sources you used were about the Odesa clashes specifically, it might make more sense to mention media coverage in that article instead. Mellk (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- I tried to fix the redundancy issue. I think it is important to have Russian backed in the first sentence. So I added specificity in the second use.
- I did not include the role of Russian media coverage of the protests. I will give time for other editors to reply.
- I do think it is critical to the definition of the Russian back protests given that Russia would stoke Russian backed anti-maidan protests to have wall to wall coverage of fascist uprisings on Russian state media to justify intervention in Ukraine. Jgmac1106 (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Again, where in the source does it the support the statement that "the portayal of protests often used crisis actors", for example? Mellk (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- I guess my issue with trying to represent Russian Media in the lead is because it already is
- "The unrest, which was supported by Russia, in the early stages of the Russo-Ukrainian War, has been referred to as "Russian Spring" in Russian Media domestically and abroad(Russian: Русская весна, romanized: Russkaya vesna, Ukrainian: Російська весна, romanized: Rosiiska vesna)."
- Only Russia calls it Russia Spring. Nobody else, and to use Pomerantsev as a way to back up this sentence is a misrepresentation of source.
- Here is the full quote:
- "These counterprotests were called “the Russian Spring,” co-opting the language of the 1968 Czechoslovak uprising against the Kremlin, and so when Moscow then launched its covert war in Ukraine, it worked as a piece of negative storytelling: pro-democracy protests, the Kremlin seemed to be saying, lead not to prosperity but to instability, blood and death. Russian media regularly reinforce this link, with videos that mix what they claim to be American-engineered protests in Europe and the Middle East with scenes of carnage in Ukraine and Syria. The message is that protests and chaos are intrinsically linked."
- Again, where in the source does it the support the statement that "the portayal of protests often used crisis actors", for example? Mellk (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Pomerantsev himself said the protests and state media are linked.
- So we either need to fully describe the roll of Russian media in the lead or remove reference to "Russian Spring"
- I will wait and give other editors a chance to comment but I agree, with the original editoes intent with including "Russian Spring."
- We should include Russian media and the anti-maidan protests in the lead. The two can not be separated. Jgmac1106 (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose this can first be elaborated on in the media portrayal section. Mellk (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- You also used this source for "Russian-backed demonstrations" but the source only mentions "Russian-backed separatists" during the phase of the war in 2015 while it also says: "In April–May 2014, armed pro-Russian protesters, aided by Russian military members, seized local government buildings and police departments in many Eastern Ukraine cities". But this article is about unrest from February. Mellk (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Again, here, the Reuters source (from 3 March 2014) only says: "Kiev says pro-Russian demonstrations have been organized by Moscow as a pretext to invade". The KHPG source (from 10 March 2014) only mentions Gubarev as a "hero" on Russian TV while it calls the unrest a "pro-Russian rebellion" and the third source you included 25 pages in the ref. In future, can you include quotes so that the information can be verified? Otherwise there is no point including refs if they are not used to support the statement. In this case it looks like it might be WP:SYNTH. Mellk (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sure I tried to revise again. I do not like direct quotes in the lead. I do not think anyone at this time doubts Girkin and Gubarev were involved in protests in Donetsk and Luhansk
- "One of the organizers of the action is the "People's Militia of Donbas" movement. Its leader, Pavlo Gubarev, at the session of the city council the day before, demanded from the local authorities to stop transferring taxes to the state budget and not to follow instructions from Kyiv."\
- https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/politics/2014/03/140301_donetsk_rallies_hk
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pro-russian-protests-in-eastern-ukraines-donetsk-region-diminish/2014/04/03/f1bd1fe0-db2e-4e23-9ceb-cc2f645ae7c5_story.html
- "Pavel Gubarev, the Russian sympathizer who brought the crowd to fever pitch and declared himself the "people's governor," has been arrested and sent to Kiev, Ukraine's capital, for investigation."
- I don't think it is controversial to say the protests were Russian backed in the first sentence, but I would rather cite in the body then overload the lede with citations Jgmac1106 (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- It is not controversial but the policy is WP:V, which means the source must directly support the statement (and without WP:OR). In the above case it does not look like it. Quotes can also be included in the quote parameter in the citation template. Mellk (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Okay I will start working on revising the citations and including the relevant quotes Jgmac1106 (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- In this edit you again introduce new information in the lead (MOS:LEAD). The source says: "The event was instantly converted into a psychological weapon in the political and military conflict between Russia and Ukraine, backed up by an unprecedented propaganda campaign launched by public Russian TV." Yes the wording here is close to the source but the source refers to the 2 May 2014 events only while you use this to refer to the entire unrest ("media coverage of the Anti-Maidan demonstrations"). There are other sources you used here that also refer to the 2 May deaths specifically e.g. [1] (if anything this should be mentioned in the coverage section of the 2014 Odesa clashes article, not the lead of this article). In fact all of this looks like original research. Please read the policy carefully. Can you answer any concerns on the talk page before making such edits? Mellk (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- There's also a section in 2014 Odesa clashes about conspiracy theories which would be a better place, some of the sources give specific details about this. Mellk (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Okay I will start working on revising the citations and including the relevant quotes Jgmac1106 (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- It is not controversial but the policy is WP:V, which means the source must directly support the statement (and without WP:OR). In the above case it does not look like it. Quotes can also be included in the quote parameter in the citation template. Mellk (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Again, here, the Reuters source (from 3 March 2014) only says: "Kiev says pro-Russian demonstrations have been organized by Moscow as a pretext to invade". The KHPG source (from 10 March 2014) only mentions Gubarev as a "hero" on Russian TV while it calls the unrest a "pro-Russian rebellion" and the third source you included 25 pages in the ref. In future, can you include quotes so that the information can be verified? Otherwise there is no point including refs if they are not used to support the statement. In this case it looks like it might be WP:SYNTH. Mellk (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Fake map
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine.png/220px-2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine.png)
The map used in the infobox says protests were in Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhia, Kherson and so on, while the article lists none of such. Why the map is there? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article does mention protests there, see 2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine#Pro-Russian_protests. Alaexis¿question? 19:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Let's see. The source for Mykolaiv [2] is gone. The reliability is out of the question.The source for Dnipro [3] is gone.The source for Zaporizzhya is reliable news source. But I'd like to strengthen my question: why the map used in the infobox shows protests, while the article is named "pro-Russian unrests"? Why there is no secondary overview source for the map? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Source is not gone, you can find archive of old source page easily. Just because link is dead does not mean source is unreliable. See mykolaiv (https://web.archive.org/web/20140608104344/http://www.mukola.net/news.php?id=58741&arhiv=1) and dnipro (https://web.archive.org/web/20140312232154/http://www.ukrinform.ua/rus/news/v_dnepropetrovske_sostoyalis_dva_mitinga_za_i_protiv_novoy_vlasti_1608502). Article is called unrest because there because as map shows in some areas protests evolved into actual violence including due to influence of outside actors. maybe try to read article before removing valid map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.74.38.109 (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's on you to prove the source is reliable. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ukrinform is an established outlet widely used by other RS and on Wikipedia. Also it's easy to find other sources for the pro-Russian protests, see this article by BBC Ukraine [4]
В Донецке, Харькове, Николаеве и Запорожье в среду прошли пророссийские митинги, участники которых требовали федерализации Украины и проведения местных референдумов о статусе регионов.
Alaexis¿question? 21:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Ukrinform is an established outlet widely used by other RS and on Wikipedia
Could be but the link above redirects to some casino. In the article titled pro-Russian unrest I'd prefer to see the map showing unrests. Showing the map with protests may create false impression to the reader. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)- The above IP is me editing while logged out, before I decided to return to the encyclopaedia. To continue this discussion, the map does show 'unrest'. Protests are a form of unrest. See the definition of the word itself: 'A state of trouble, confusion and turbulence, especially in a political context; a time of riots, demonstrations and protests'. The whole purpose of the map is to show that the unrest displayed different gradients in different regions, which it did. I do not understand why you continue to remove it, which if anything is a disservice to the reader, denying an easy visual representation of what actually happened. RGloucester — ☎ 22:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- In that case we should return to the start of the topic. Where are RSs, preferably non-news, saying there were unrests in Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhia, Kherson and so on? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The sources in the article are reliable, and Alaexis has replaced the substandard ones with RS. These are of course news sources, but news sources from reliable outlets are not unreliable. As for an academic source attesting to mere fact there were pro-Russian protests in the region at this time, here is one example I have on hand. If you require a more extensive bibliography, that will require some time. RGloucester — ☎ 09:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not against the map showing unrests, but there should not be the map showing protests to not to create a false impression.Where are RSs, preferably non-news, saying there were unrests in Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhia, Kherson and so on? There are none, as there were no unrests there. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am very confused. The definition of 'unrest' was provided above; as you can see, it includes 'protests' in its scope. The map you removed specifies that 'protests' occurred in these regions, which is exactly what the sources cited in the article say...what exactly is the problem? RGloucester — ☎ 11:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The definition of 'unrest' was provided above; as you can see, it includes 'protests' in its scope
This is WP:OR. See the whole thread for the problem. The map shows protests while the article subject is unrests, and there should not be such a map about protests in the infobox, the sources are weak news sources, the map is a compilation of these and is not based on secondary RS talking about unrests. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)- The definition provided was linked from Wiktionary; it is not 'OR'. Feel free to check your preferred dictionary; the result will be the same. I am still very confused. RGloucester — ☎ 12:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is an original research when you need to employ a dictionary to reach a conclusion. And it is simply wrong. Protest and unrests are different. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is with the caption, not the map. The map correctly shows the regions in which there were only protests. Please don't remove the map if the problem is only with the caption.
- I've replaced "unrest" with "disturbances" which is more general to address your concerns. Alternatively we can write "Map of Ukraine with regions occupied by Russia and having pro-Russian insurgency and protests". This would be rather long and unwieldy but would exactly correspond to the sources. Alaexis¿question? 21:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is an original research when you need to employ a dictionary to reach a conclusion. And it is simply wrong. Protest and unrests are different. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The definition provided was linked from Wiktionary; it is not 'OR'. Feel free to check your preferred dictionary; the result will be the same. I am still very confused. RGloucester — ☎ 12:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am very confused. The definition of 'unrest' was provided above; as you can see, it includes 'protests' in its scope. The map you removed specifies that 'protests' occurred in these regions, which is exactly what the sources cited in the article say...what exactly is the problem? RGloucester — ☎ 11:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not against the map showing unrests, but there should not be the map showing protests to not to create a false impression.Where are RSs, preferably non-news, saying there were unrests in Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhia, Kherson and so on? There are none, as there were no unrests there. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The sources in the article are reliable, and Alaexis has replaced the substandard ones with RS. These are of course news sources, but news sources from reliable outlets are not unreliable. As for an academic source attesting to mere fact there were pro-Russian protests in the region at this time, here is one example I have on hand. If you require a more extensive bibliography, that will require some time. RGloucester — ☎ 09:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- In that case we should return to the start of the topic. Where are RSs, preferably non-news, saying there were unrests in Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhia, Kherson and so on? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above IP is me editing while logged out, before I decided to return to the encyclopaedia. To continue this discussion, the map does show 'unrest'. Protests are a form of unrest. See the definition of the word itself: 'A state of trouble, confusion and turbulence, especially in a political context; a time of riots, demonstrations and protests'. The whole purpose of the map is to show that the unrest displayed different gradients in different regions, which it did. I do not understand why you continue to remove it, which if anything is a disservice to the reader, denying an easy visual representation of what actually happened. RGloucester — ☎ 22:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ukrinform is an established outlet widely used by other RS and on Wikipedia. Also it's easy to find other sources for the pro-Russian protests, see this article by BBC Ukraine [4]
- It's on you to prove the source is reliable. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Source is not gone, you can find archive of old source page easily. Just because link is dead does not mean source is unreliable. See mykolaiv (https://web.archive.org/web/20140608104344/http://www.mukola.net/news.php?id=58741&arhiv=1) and dnipro (https://web.archive.org/web/20140312232154/http://www.ukrinform.ua/rus/news/v_dnepropetrovske_sostoyalis_dva_mitinga_za_i_protiv_novoy_vlasti_1608502). Article is called unrest because there because as map shows in some areas protests evolved into actual violence including due to influence of outside actors. maybe try to read article before removing valid map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.74.38.109 (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why there is a map with "protests" in the lead of the article titled "unrest"? Are "disturbances" the same as protests? or unrests? Which secondary RS cover the map? Why there is such a map in the article infobox when there are no such RS? See how many questions the inclusion of such a map into the infobox raises. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Let's see. The source for Mykolaiv [2] is gone. The reliability is out of the question.The source for Dnipro [3] is gone.The source for Zaporizzhya is reliable news source. But I'd like to strengthen my question: why the map used in the infobox shows protests, while the article is named "pro-Russian unrests"? Why there is no secondary overview source for the map? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
The article is an original research soup
[edit]I scrolled through the article. I saw a collection of news sources of various reliability discussing some 2014 events. Poll results, protests, events somehow supposedly related to the article subject. Where is the secondary reliable source describing the article subject in depth? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia articles that use Oxford spelling
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- C-Class Ukraine articles
- High-importance Ukraine articles
- WikiProject Ukraine articles
- C-Class Russia articles
- Mid-importance Russia articles
- Mid-importance C-Class Russia articles
- WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
- WikiProject Russia articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles