Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

The title of this article is a joke

In the info box it says:

Causes Opposition to the Euromaidan, 2014 Ukrainian revolution, and the composition of the transitional government The Verkhovna Rada's vote on 23 February to repeal the language law that gave Russian the status of regional language Goals Transforming Ukraine into a federal state Referendums on status for Eastern Ukraine and Southern Ukraine Restoring Russian as an official language in Ukraine

These people oppose the new fascist Junta, want a federal Ukraine, a referendum, and the reinstatement of the Russian language, and this apparently makes them.... 'Pro-Russian'! Not anti-Maiden, not federalists, not anti-facists.... 'PRO-RUSSIAN!' Let's just parrot what NATO and the US say! Yay!

Wikipedia has become nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the anglo-saxon pirates. I will never read this sorry, biased excuse for an 'Encyclopedia' ever again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


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)

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)
  • We don't need this chart. This information is already listed in the prose. Please don't re-add the chart, which is redundant. RGloucester 22:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)

Am I the only one that views sceptically a government institute's poll while a civil war is imminent? Even if its scientists are still doing their job, the field workers asking the questions are neutral? Are the questioned people easy on answers to a government institution when a civil war conflict is imminent? And if they are, how am I supposed to receive the 41% support for separation of Crimeans (by government institution) when referendum was in 96% in favor, 83% turnout and "91% of those Crimeans polled thought that the vote was free and fair, and 88% said that the Ukrainian government should recognize the results" according to Pew Institute. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that should not be referred, or to be deleted, but not like it's indisputable, when all it's sources are by pro-Ukrainian institutes (Kiev and Western countries). Remember, it's a war, and the lies will be a prominent weapon of both sides.Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Polling is polling, not fact. We report what the reliable sources say (by the way, the KIIS poll isn't from a "government institute"). There are many discrepancies, and it isn't certain who is correct. Also, certain polls were taken at different periods. RGloucester 19:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok maybe then, it should be noted that polls have conflicting results (my excuse for referring Kiev International Institute of Sociology as governmental).Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The polls don't have conflicting results. They are just different polls taken at different times, with different results. The referendum itself is heavily disputed, and isn't a "poll" anyway. RGloucester 20:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Civil war

More and more commentators are now naming these events as civil war. At the moment this doesn't need a name change(perhaps it will in week or two), but this should be mentioned.I added one reliable source, more an be added if needed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I hope you understand that "commentators" and "opinion pieces" have no validity for determining whether the conflict is a civil war. RGloucester 23:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • You are wrong here.They certainly do. And Polish Minister of Defense described Ukraine being in state of civil war, explaining that it fits the description as armed groups from local people are using arms and military equipment to fight each other.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Read WP:RSOPINION. Opinion pieces are only for the sake of determining the position of the author, not for factual events. Giving WP:UNDUE weight to random commentators violates WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. One could include the Polish Minister of Defence's opinion, but that would go in the "Reactions" section, not in the lead. RGloucester 23:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing undue about mentioning position of the second biggest land neighbor of Ukraine and biggest NATO country neighboring Ukraine.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes (I was referring to newspaper opinions), and "international reactions" have their own section. They don't belong in the lead.
Anyway, "some commentators" is an archetypal example of WP:WEASEL. I won't revert, but hopefully someone else will do something about it. RGloucester 23:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think "civil war", while no doubt sensationalist term some newspapers use, is somewhat of an exaggeration. Majority of people in these eastern regions still support a unified Ukraine according to an April poll. This insurgency is being conducted by essentially pro-Russia extremists, let's not give them undue recognition by calling this a "civil war". --Nug (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The majority of people in eastern Ukraine supporting an unified Ukraine doesn't mean that there is not a situation, at least, very close to a civil war. It doesn't necessarily need to be a separatist civil war, though the rebellions are pushing for separation. There's a huge difference between the attitudes of the eastern and southern Ukrainians and the western Ukrainians towards a broad range of issues, including language policies, and if the country should keep closer ties with Russia or with the EU. The extremists take advantage of those different positions (on both sides) and that causes the unrest (or civil war).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The fact of the matter is simple. Until reliable western sources (that are not opinion pages) say "civil war", it isn't a civil war. When the New York Times say "Civil War erupts in Ukraine" on its front page, then it will be fairly obvious that the article should change. RGloucester 23:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── MyMoloboaccount, please desist from adding misrepresentations of article content in order to POV push 'civil war' and entering them using tendentious edit summaries. Personally, I have never encountered the term 'de facto civil war' anywhere. Ever. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Guardian: Ukraine crisis: 'It's war, civil war'

Ukraine crisis worsens amid intense fighting and warnings of civil war Irish IndepedentUkraine on the brink of civil war, says German minister New York Daily News [Top Ukraine official declares civil war in progress as 42 are killed in fiery street fight] And countless other sources. I am not proposing to change the title of the article.Now is not the time for changing the title.That will come later.Just mentioning that it is noted as spiraling into civil war. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not use it as an excuse for WP:CRYSTAL and getting overenthusiastic by misrepresenting what sources are saying. Please don't treat a Wikipedia current affairs article as if it were journalism, i.e. WP:NOTNEWS. It is appreciated that there is a lot of anxiety around in following the events, but it should not be reflected in the content of the article. Thank you for being understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the Guardian link "its civil war" is just a quote from a witness...--Львівське (говорити) 07:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The best parallel I've seen yet is Colombian conflict (1964–present) and I think we could/should follow that article's format. Like Ukraine it's government vs. rebel paramilitaries, and has a bordering country 'allegedly' involved. --Львівське (говорити) 07:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no 'allegedly' with respect to Russia's involvement, multiple reliable sources report Putin confirmed Russia's involvement. --Nug (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Main article?

Isn't about time that we create a main article that summarizes the entire crisis, from Euromaidan to the present. Charles Essie (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree with this proposal. It's necessary to create an article to cover every phase of this Ukraine political crisis, and such phases include the Kiev protest, Crimea crisis, and the insurgency in eastern Ukraine. Those events are inter-connected. Separating them in different articles would not be easy for readers to get the whole picture. --BlueYearning (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • We don't need more forks. This article clearly states where one must go if one wants information on Crimea, or Euromaidan. RGloucester 00:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not the point, there should always be main article. Charles Essie (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Main article for what? This article is the main summary article for the present unrest in Ukraine. It clearly states that background information can be found at Euromaidan and 2014 Ukrainian revolution. It directs people to the appropriate sub-articles, such as Donetsk People's Republic and 2014 Crimean crisis. RGloucester 17:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This page is only about the second phase of the crisis (the Euromaidan is the first phase), that's not enough, I agree that we have too many articles, it's become way too complicated, but that's why we need an article that provides a proper summary for the whole crisis, can't you see that it would make everything simpler, especially for those unfamiliar with the crisis. Charles Essie (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • An article covering the whole expanse would be original research, tying together events in ways that isn't reliably sourced, and merely fork more cotent. Furthermore, this is a summary article. The background section talks about Maidan, and tells one to go to Maidan if one wants more on that part of the crisis. This article links to all the sub-articles, and is already serving in the purpose you mention. RGloucester 01:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think BBC ( and Al Jazeera ( are reliable sources. Charles Essie (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Are you proposing a timeline that starts in 1991? Encyclopaedias don't cover events in the same way that journalism does. That's why we are WP:NOTNEWS. Regardless, as I've said, all that information is accessible from here. This is the main article. RGloucester 02:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not the main page because it's not about the entire crisis, which began in November 2013, I understand that Wikipedia is not news, but the fact is that reliable sources are describing the Euromaidan and the pro-Russian unrest as part of the same the same crisis, that is why I'm proposing the creation of a real main article. Charles Essie (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This is the main article. We don't need more content forks for the sake of having content forks. Some vague news coverage may be referring to events in the same way, but that isn't how we organise our coverage here. You haven't justified the 'need' for the article you want to create, other than to say that someone says 'x'. What does this add to Wikipedia? Nothing. This article directs everyone to appropriate pages. It has a background section for that very purpose. There is no need for a new article. No new content would exist in such an article. It is pure redundancy. RGloucester 20:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • You could say the same thing about the Arab Spring and Egyptian Crisis (2011–present) pages, those page contains no information that can't be found in more specific individual pages, but we have those main article because all those protests were part of the same event, as described by all the major sources, just like here, not mention it makes it more user friendly. Charles Essie (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • And that's exactly how this article functions now. It sends one to all the various specific pages. It fulfils exactly the position you are trying fill misguidedly. RGloucester 03:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • You're still missing the point, this can't be the main article because it's only about the second phase of the crisis, a real main article gives every phase equal coverage, the title itself proves my point, a true main article would be titled Ukrainian Crisis (2013–present). Charles Essie (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no utility by creating a new article we don't need. You are asking for an article for the SAKE of it, not for any utility that this article doesn't provide. That's called WP:Content forking. This article does give every phase coverage. It provides links to the main articles for each phase, including Euromaidan, and the revolution. We do not need another summary article in addition to this one, confusing readers, and forking more content, and also using a vague title that doesn't mean anything to anyone other than sensationalism. RGloucester 19:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Flags in Infobox

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

Articles that have flags in the infobox:

Good articles using flags in the infox:

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

  • Like I said, other stuff. We don't care about other stuff. We care about this article, and we care about it being in line with the established guidelines. I can assure you that the bit about flags has been debated many times at the MOS. It has always resulted in a denigration of flags in the infobox. Here, they are particularly causing problems. People are adding logos, not just flags, and also a variety of unsourced flags for proclaimed republics. It is getting ridiculous, and it is time to truncate it. The MOS is on my side. If you'd like to change the MOS, then I suggest you start a discussion at that page. However, at present, it is what it is. RGloucester 00:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Looking at the guideline though it does state that military conflict infobox templates are exceptions, I am not sure about Template:Infobox civil conflict as it is not military but shares a-lot of the same parameters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

As I said, I'm fine with the flags of countries, which is what that is referring to. I'm not fine with Right Sector logos, I'm not fine with unsourced Luhansk flags, I'm not fine with using Ukraine's coat of arms for the Interior Ministry. RGloucester 00:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but we can use flags beside commanders and leaders like the Columbian Crisis article, yes? —Львівське (говорити) 02:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The guideline says that if it adds additional information, yes. It depends on the individual case. If adding a flag would clarify that a particular commander was in charge of a particular regiment, or something, that might be considered acceptable. RGloucester 03:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to just clarify that those articles don't necessarily comply with the MOS. Good article and featured article status do not require MOS compliance. RGloucester 00:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Don't comply with the MOS? How so? If flags are being used in FA and GA class articles then wouldn't one think that the guideline makes little sense? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • MOS compliance isn't required for an article to reach either GA or FA status. Why that's case is beyond me, but it has always been true. RGloucester 00:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I found the problem, the problem is that currently the way this infobox is set up it is borderline military conflict. According to the MOS only military conflict inboxes are exempt from the MOSFLAG guideline. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
That's true. For example, 2011 Egyptian revolution dispensed with the "participants" section altogether. RGloucester 00:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for my confusion, anyways we should remove the countries here as well although I think it is fair to say that this is involving the military and militants on the opposite side by now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why we'd remove the countries, as they are surely participants. To be honest, I wouldn't be opposed to dispensing with the participants section in the way that the Egyptian revolution article did. It causes way too many problems. RGloucester 00:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Civil conflicts are conflicts within the same country is why (Civil conflict). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I wound not be opposed to making the info-box like the article example you showed though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't mean that other countries can't participate. Usually, other countries have interests and fund or aid certain sides. That's the way it has always been. Regardless, I think removal of the whole section makes the most sense. This clutter and constant nonsense with regard to who is and isn't in the infobox isn't worth dealing with, and doesn't add anything that the article doesn't explain. RGloucester 00:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

First desertions in Ukrainian government forces?

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

One should be more concerned about the coup in Donetsk. RGloucester 23:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a non-Ukrainian source for that? One would think it would be big news. – Herzen (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

yes, they are citing the zhytomyr regional council [2] --Львівське (говорити) 23:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it says that they were drafted during a "partial mobilisation, then "voluntarily left" the unit on 9 May. I don't really know what that means. It doesn't sound like they deserted, as they were not even anywhere near the conflict zone. RGloucester 23:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Soldiers don't have to be in combat zone to desert. It seems it is correct that first units have started to desert. I will add this information.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Zhytomyr Oblast is in northwestern Ukraine. So this is unlikely to have anything to do with pro-Russian unrest. It's more likely about dissatisfaction with the Kiev central government. So what article should this go in? It is certainly newsworthy. – Herzen (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that at this point this is important enough to include, per WP:UNDUE. We need to avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL ("first units have started to desert") and most definitely should avoid trying to create news. Of course if something else happens, then it might be worth putting it in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

As in, they were drafted, and about to be sent off to the front, but deserted before that could happen? RGloucester 00:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
From ITAR-TASS (through Yandex translation):
In early March, appointed by the Verkhovna Rada acting President of Ukraine Turchynov has signed a decree on partial mobilization, according to which the troops were called about 20 thousand reservists. Then in the military registration of citizens assured that they will be demobilized after 10 days, but they still forced to keep in military units today.
So it sounds like these were reservists. That makes sense, since if you draft someone, it takes a few months to train them. – Herzen (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
My understanding now is that they were drafted but like Herzen said, they are to be demobilized after 10 days unless they are deployed or a state of emergency is declared. None of that was declared, but they were kept on base and not allowed to leave. They were left hanging in limbo so they got fed up and left. As someone mentioned to me, you can't hold presidential elections in a state of emergency so it seems they wanted to have their cake and eat it to (elections and reservists standing by on overtime).—Львівське (говорити) 01:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank makes relative sense. However, were they reservists or draftees? That's quite a big difference. RGloucester 01:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Why would a Russian news agency know more about Ukrainian troops than the Zhytomyr regional administration? RGloucester 00:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Russians do analysis, that's why. It's not clear from the Ukrainian reporting that the soldiers were reservists. All the Zhytomyr regional administration does is spitefully vent its rage. To quote from its statement:
In the conditions of the complicated military and political situation, at this time when the fate of Ukraine is being determined, these soldiers voluntarily left the location of military units, thus showing his indifferent attitude to the current state of the situation. To demonstrate their shameful act I ask to publish the lists in local and regional printed editions, to notify the authorities at their place of residence", - quotes Volkova website of the city Council
And remember, what we are talking about here is using a country's military against its own civilian population, which is a war crime. The second group that deserted did so on May 2, the day of the Odessa massacre. So the reason they failed to return to their duties appears to be that they were appalled by the behavior of their leaders. You won't read that in the Ukrainian press. – Herzen (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but we can equally accuse Russian media of the same things you are accusing Ukrainian media. They have no interesting in portraying facts, merely making themselves look good. This isn't going in any article until an English-language source is provided. RGloucester 01:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
If they were recently drafted, that would mean that they were drafted since the draft was reinstated. (Yanukovych had abolished it.) So these desertions could be mentioned where the reinstatement of the draft is mentioned. The last paragraph of the article seems to mention that there were other desertions elsewhere, by the way. – Herzen (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I stopped reading at " we are talking about here is using a country's military against its own civilian population" - please keep the fantasy to a minimum if not out altogether.--Львівське (говорити) 01:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
You forgot the "which is a war crime" part. Of course it is!.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Shooting on civilians? and Circumstances are not exactly clear, but it seems that armed Kiev's forces shoot on crowd(perhaps unarmed one) There are several Russian sources claiming this, but i provided only the 'western' ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

New figures

General Prosecutor's office released these figures [3]: 78 in Donbass killed so far by militants, 125 cases of hostage taking --Львівське (говорити) 21:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The term "hostage" is a value-laden label, like "terrorist". See the WP Manual of Style section WP:Label The Kiev government may describe its opponents as "terrorists" who take "hostages", rather than as an armed force which takes prisoners, but is it appropriate for WP to use words like "hostage" in its own voice? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
civilians cant be POWs, they are hostages. There is an ongoing hostage crisis and is reported as such by reliable sources in mainstream western media. This isn't a WP:Label issue or loaded term. --Львівське (говорити) 21:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Civilian prisoners are not POWs, true. They can be detainees. You say WP:Label does not apply here. Why does it not apply? And what the "reliable sources" you refer to in mainstream media? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
"Hostage" is not a loaded term like "terrorist". It is a neutral word referring to holding civilians captive against their will. It is very much unlike "terrorist" which has no particular definition, and means different things to everyone. Please read the guideline you cited. It does not include the word hostage, and for good reason. Please also see our page on the matter: Hostage. Your suggestion of "detainees" is actually not something that the guideline would recommend, as it is merely a euphemism for what actually occurred, and does not covey the full meaning precisely. Please see WP:EUPHEMISM. RGloucester 22:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It does not just refer to holding civilians against their will, it specifically refers to holding them against their will with specific threats to their well-being in order to compel another party to act in a certain manner. Have any such threats or demands actually been issued? If not, they're not hostages but POW's (which certainly can be non-combatants). That seems more like what is going on, given that generally they get interrogated and released after a while. That the guideline doesn't include the word is not really an argument, one can't expect it to include hundreds of words (that's why it includes an ellipsis at the end).B01010100 (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Or to put it differently, a hostage taking is "if you don't retreat your troops in 48 hours we will kill these people we have here", taking prisoners is "we have detained people on accusation of spying". Obviously the reality here is the latter, not the former.B01010100 (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Well that's the interesting thing, the word "hostage" only appears twice in the article. Once in the infobox where it is unsourced, and once in the section on arrests where it is said "was arrested on suspicion of planning to take a presidential candidate hostage" so not referring to anything actually happening. So the only relevant use is unsourced.B01010100 (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not unsourced if you had been paying attention to the massive "Hostages" section we have on the Sloviansk article. --Львівське (говорити) 22:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
If it's stated in this article the statement should still also be sourced here.B01010100 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  • LA Times: "Vyacheslav Ponomaryov, the gunman who has proclaimed himself mayor of Slovyansk, confirmed that his armed group was holding 10 hostages"
  • VICE: " Ponomarev, who has a penchant for chucking troublesome journalists and activists in his basement prison said that, “now, in a time of war we don’t have time for hostages, we will kill them all.”
  • Washington Post: "Taruta said he is in regular contact with the separatists, mainly over the issue of freeing hostages."
  • Huffington Post: "ro-Russian militants held several Red Cross workers hostage "
As we can see, even the militant leaders call them hostages, on top of major sources --Львівське (говорити) 22:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Alright, but do use one of those to source the infobox statement here. Though there does seem to be a precedent of not including hostage taking as a method in the infoboxes of Ukrainian internal trouble, the Euromaidan infobox for example doesn't contain it (yet we have also major reliable sources stating the detainment of police officers as such).B01010100 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The police officers weren't taken hostage, though. They were captured during fighting for a few hours then released. Kind of different from abducting Red Cross workers at a Red Cross building, dont you think? --Львівське (говорити) 23:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
They weren't captured during fighting, they were already back in their bus vacating the square when the bus was attacked and stopped from leaving (it was the last bus to leave after the fight was over). It was a specific action to detain them, not a side-effect in the middle of a fight - with the express intent to use them as hostages for a hostage-swap with the people detained by police (only after intervention by other protesters was it decided to release them with an accompanying statement expecting a likewise release of protesters held by police, ie still essentially an expected hostage-swap). In any case, we have major news media also referring to them as hostages, and we are still supposed to go by what the sources say. In any case, putting the infoboxes next to eachother does show a certain bias, other than hacktivism and referenda, which are specific to only one, the other points mentioned apply to both in some degree yet Euromaidan's box is restricted to the "nice" ones and this one restricted to the "criminal" ones.B01010100 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
You're comparing wide-spread admitted hostage taking to, as I said, those captured during fighting. That they were on a bus is irrelevant as they were still in the streets of the capital nonetheless and there solely for the purpose of the conflict. Would you call those arrested 'hostages' too? That would obviously be a biased phrasing. Likewise, do any sources refer to the temporarily captured riot troops as 'hostages' or is this just your interpretation? That one side looks worse/better than the other shouldn't be an issue, we're not here to level the playing field so that each side looks better/worse to make everyone happy, just reflect reality. --Львівське (говорити) 00:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course reliable sources are calling them hostages, that's been my point here. Apparently there were also some who were captured while sleeping in one of the houses, hardly what you'd call "during fighting". For instance [4]. Yes we're here to reflect reality, and if you compare the infoboxes you can see a clear bias not because "we should level the playing field" but in what aspects have been chosen to be put in as methods and which not, given that there are plenty of reliable sources attributing essentially all those methods to both.B01010100 (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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

I have nothing to do with the Euromaidan article. If you'd like to fix something there, and put in "hostage taking" with a reliable source, be my guest. That has no relevance on this article. RGloucester 00:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The Euromaidan infobox is only half of the issue, this infobox is the other half. For example we have in the Euromaidan infobox "civil resistance" as a method but not here. But here we've also had plenty of instances of that, and quite important ones, for instance crowds surrounding military vehicles to stop them from advancing (pretty much exactly the same thing as what led to it being included in the Euromaidan infobox).B01010100 (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, add what you want to the info box, if it is sourced, and no one will complain. Instead of whining, fix the problem if there is one. RGloucester 01:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Under these circumstances, I don't think you can automatically assume that news media are reliable sources. You have both the trans-Atlantic media and the Russian media in full-throated war propaganda mode, and it is too early to have reliable scholarly sources on these events. So the only option is to edit as responsibly and neutrally as possible, and try to avoid invoking the media as authorities. Joe Bodacious (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
are you honestly saying that Ponomarev himself calling the hostages he took "hostages" implies some sort of "full throated propaganda"?? --Львівське (говорити) 23:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Well... you can take up the idea that standard news media are not reliable at the WP:RSN. Good luck with that. "Invoking media as authorities" is usually referred to as "using reliable sources" (provided of course that the media we're talking about are RS).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "Detainees" is utterly unacceptable under WP:EUPHEMISM. Either "prisoners" or "hostages" must be used. Reliable sources tend to use "hostage", in my experience. Any questions about not using reliable sources is a bunch of nonsense, and we've had this debate before. Ukrainian and Russian sources are not used without verification in western sources or attribution. Western sources that are known to be reliable are considered reliable still. RGloucester 23:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

It has nothing to do with the unrest. RGloucester 20:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
So? On the other side, Gerard Schröeder, the former German chancellor works for a German-Russian consortium (Nord Stream AG)[6]. So far, it's not a relevant information for this page.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
As I said, none of this is relevant here, and this is WP:NOTFORUM. RGloucester 00:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
We do not agree with you RGloucester. It is called Kleptocracy, we witness the oligarch change.
  • I don't see how any of this has anything to do with the present unrest in Ukraine? RGloucester 06:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It's called Kleptocracy, Gloucester! Kleptocracy! --Львівське (говорити) 06:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Well I do, and so does MyMoloboaccount. Trying to be sarcastic? Or it's ok to be corrupt? This is kind of surreal, a appointment of the vice president's son to a Ukrainian oil board looks nepotistic at best, nefarious at worst. No matter how qualified Huter Biden may be, it ties into the idea that U.S. foreign policy is self-interested, and that is a narrative Vladimir Putin has pushed during Ukraine's crisis with references to Iraq and Libya. It clashes with the U.S. narrative that this is all about international law and human rights. But our opinions don't matter, right? ;-) In Germany "this incident sparked outrage" ("In Deutschland löste der Vorgang Empörung aus.": The important and _signifikanter Zusammenhang_ is so obvious that the "world press" is in consensus:

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

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

Other minorities

Where should we mention the issue of other minorities? I mean the title refers only to "pro-Russians". Thirty-nine Hungarian organizations in Transcarpathia made a statement in March in reference to their "demands".[7] The Hungarian Prime Minister also stands for Hungarian autonomy.[8][9][10][11]Fakirbakir (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That isn't particularly relavent here, and is a different topic all-together. I'd recommend putting it on the Transcarpathian Oblast page, or something like that. RGloucester 16:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
what the heck is 'hungarian autonomy'? this looks more like a foreign policy demand separate from any real unrest in the region —Львівське (говорити) 21:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Mr Orban has been going on about giving ethnic Hungarians dual citizenship in Slovakia and Serbia for a while, and there have been various diplomatic skirmishes about it. He's a nationalist, of course, so he finds fun in pandering to those Hungarians who were left outside the state after the fall of the k.u.k. monarchy. Presumably he feels that the Ukraine crisis has given him an nice opportunity to put pressure on the Ukrainian government, as they are in a weak spot. So far, he hasn't been able to get the Slovaks to relent. RGloucester 21:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It is going to be a misunderstanding. There is nothing new under the sun. Hungarian politicians have been saying these things for 25 years. Hungarian government aims to protect Hungarians living in the neighbouring countries.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Requesting comments on Sanction section and User:RGloucester edit warring

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

  • having read the sources in the tiny Sanction section, I've noticed that the cited source only supported the claim that sanctions have been levvied against Russia and I amended the section per sources given, in line of WP:V: [12]
  • RGloucester reverts my edit: [13] with an assertion that as far as I can tell is not supported by sources "Incorrect. Ukrainians not supportive of Euromaidan have been sanctioned as well.
  • I restore my edit, pointing out that sources don't support his/her claim: [14]
  • RGloucester reverts again: [15], edit summary "List of individuals sanctioned during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. A lot of former Yanuk government guys, and other pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians"

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

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

On April 28 the United States, soon followed by the [[European Union]] and [[Canada]], began to [[Economic sanctions|sanction]] Russian individuals and companies that they said were related to the crisis.<ref>{{cite news | url= | title=U.S. Announces More Sanctions Against Russia | work=The New York Times | date=28 April 2014 | accessdate=28 April 2014}}</ref><ref></ref><ref name=tass></ref><ref>{{cite news | url= | title=US Imposes Sanctions on 7 Russians, 17 Russian Companies | work=Russian News & Information Agency | date=28 April 2014 | accessdate=28 April 2014}}</ref> The Russian government responded in kind with sanctions against some American and Canadian individuals.<ref name=tass/>

  • Oh, dear lord. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. I have no concern with adjusting sourcing, or whatever. However, it is quite clear that Yanukovych isn't a Russian, is he? He is not. And yet, we know he was sanctioned, along with many other Ukrainians. I am content to add sources, but in the meantime, it is hardly appropriate to say that only Russians have been sanctioned. RGloucester 03:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Here you go, dear fellow! Direct from the American administration itself! Do you see some Ukrainians here? Yes? Okay, so now you can rewrite what you like, but you can do so without being misleading! RGloucester 03:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
OH, and thirdly, I did not write or touch that section. Please do not call it "my version", as if somehow I am responsible for this article and its content. I merely objected to introduction of the word "Russian" when I knew that was a false to include it. RGloucester 03:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Verifiability not truth. The sources cited state that Russians have been sanctioned, to say otherwise is OR. Now, yes, you are right that pro-Russian Ukrainians (Ukrainian citizens?) have been sanctioned by US/EU/West too, but we need to provide sources for that. I was simply trying to bring the section in line with its own sources, per fact checking, and my attempt to expand it with more information run into EC due to your reverts. If you'd like to for us to collaborate on this and improve this section, perhaps you could start by restoring my edits, or better, inserting the proposed version above. You are of course welcome to improve it further, but please find appropriate sources. I may help, if I have a reason to believe that my further edits are not simply going to be reverted, even if they are supported by sources, because someone believes they are not "true". Deal? PS. Regarding your new ref, it seems reliable to warrant stating that the sanction include one former Ukrainian official (president)/still a Ukrainian citizen? and two officials of the Republic of Crimea whose citizenship and nationality is not clear from the source. Viktor Medvedchuk's nationality/citizenship is not given in the source, and all others are clearly Russian officials/citizens. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no interest in playing games here. I do not appreciate your officious tone. Cite as many policies and essays as you wish, this could have easily been resolved if you'd taken five seconds to familiarise yourself with the actual situation with regard to sanctions before making a misleading edit. I was not defending the existing version. I was merely stopping a misleading edit. It is better to have a temporarily unsourced but correct version, than to have a misleading. So no, I don't buy into your "verifiability, not truth" nonsense, and I shan't do. I could've provided sources in two seconds and rewrote in properly, which is what I was going to do. Now, however, I'm just going to go away for awhile so I don't have to be assaulted by bureaucratic nonsense. Next time one would like to express a concern, perhaps with take more care for what one is saying. RGloucester 03:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I will not comment on your attitude, per WP:NPOV, through I am sad to see you are not willing to accept my peace offering. You've been doing many good edits here, and whether you believe it or not, I do respect you for your edits here (sans the last few) and I thank you for them. Being so active on so contentious topics is stressful, and I understand it well. If you don't see why reverting edits that are merely fact-checking sources and bringing their claims in line with them is a problem, then perhaps you need a break. Drink some WP:TEA and come back when you are more in the mood to collaborate. I have expanded the section with sources that hopefully address some of your concerns, through it would be good if we could find better sources clarifying the nature of Ukrainian citizenship/nationality of those sanctioned; current sources make it clear that the sanction from US/EU include Russian officials, individuals and companies, and some former Ukrainian officials of unclear nationality and citizenship. I tried my best to clarify it based on references provided. Cheers, —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
You are not doing yourself any favours with that officious tone of yours. I find it hard to believe that an experienced editor would "only use the sources provided", and would be too dense to actually look for other sources to confirm what he is saying (anyone familiar with the crisis knows that Ukrainians were sanctioned, and a cursory Google search would've given you plenty of sources). In fact, I'm fairly certain that this was a typical attempt to push a point-of-view, so you can spare me the long-winded responses. I will hear none of it. Farewell. RGloucester 04:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I think there's another policy you'd do well to familiar yourself with: WP:AGF. I am sure you now it well, in fact, but I am assuming you are just tired of dealing with trolls and POV-pushers here, and it starts to slip your mind. This is dangerous, see my essay on this here. So please, take a long breath and think about your attitude. Per my prior comment I am not going to comment on your behavior other than to say that I believe you should WP:REFACTOR your comments about me, as they reflect more on you than me, and I don't believe they do it well. Cheers, —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, dear fellow, but you don't get to tell me how to behave. It is very, very difficult to assume good faith when accused of a so-called "edit war" without even breaking the 3RR, and furthermore, a so-called "edit war" to remove a serious error that you were inserting into the text. That error would've compromised the article's NPOV, as it implied that many Ukrainians, and even the former Ukrainian government, was not Ukrainian, but Russian. Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds? Absolutely so, and it sounds like nationalist tosh. Instead of taking the time to read my edit summary, and perhaps Google search the matter and find that, yes, Ukrainians have been sanctioned, you greeted me with a giant block bureaucratic nonsense on the talk page. No one is going to respond well to that. No one. I'm not going to tolerate high-and-mighty behaviour, so as I said, spare me the nonsense and get on with whatever it is that you get on with. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. RGloucester 05:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I will tell you how to behave in one respect: follow the project policies. If you don't like this, take it up with others and see if the community will give you an exemption. Per our core policy outlined at WP:UNSOURCED, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source... Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article." I was merely fact-checking the refs, which at that time did not confirm any claims that non-Russians were sanctioned. That you know better doesn't matter, you saying so is irrelevant, what is true is irrelevant as we are not in the business of determining truth, but covering what reliable sources are saying. The WP:BURDEN is not on an me but on you as an editor who wants to argue for something not covered by the sources then-present. Reverting my edits twice with an edit summary in essence saying "I know better" is an invitation to a disruptive edit war that I declined instead posting here. You should've instead presented better sources by expanding the section or posting them here. Instead, I did so, while you continue to rail here about being right - even through you were wrong on numerous counts: 1) on restoring versions violating WP:V, 2) on not following WP:BRD, 3) on not respecting WP:NPA/WP:AGF. Eh, I could go on but I am done here. The section is improved and stable, editors interesting in improving it are discussing content below, this quarrel is pointless. I repeat my suggestion that you WP:REFACTOR your comments here, I am also fine with our discussion being collapsed as it is now a useless exercise of childish finger pointing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Europe/US can not see Crimea as part of Russia but that doesn't preclude all of those officials from now being legal Russian citizens with Russian passports now (or at the time of sanctions, depending) --Львівське (говорити) 06:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Are there any concerns about neutrality of inaccurate facts? I tried to use wording which is both neutral and accurate, through I am sure it can be improved, particularly with an expansion; the section is still rather short. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
@Lvivske, if I'm correct about how this works, technically they're now legally both Russian and Ukrainian citizens. More to the point at hand, I don't think the former Yanukovich government officials covered by the sanctions have accepted Russian citizenship (if they did that might throw a wrench in any plans to put them back in power).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Velyka Novosilka

A group called the Donbass batilliion (Ukrainian Unity Group) has retaken the a police station in Velyka Novosilkahttp: // — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbutus the tree (talkcontribs) 22:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move

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

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

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

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

Guardian classifies this now as "armed uprising" which seems to be a fitting description [16]. "Unrest" in face of recent events when both sides engage in regular fighting using firearms and APC's is no longer a word that suitably describes the situation.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

"Turmoil" is exactly what is happening in Ukraine at the moment. Turmoil. Both armed and unarmed. The scope of this article is not just of areas that have armed conflict. To call it an armed conflict in Kharkiv, in Kherson, in Mykolayiv, in Odessa…that's false! Sure, Odessa had one civil clash. However, there have been no more clashes there, no insurgency, no militias, no military operations. I do not understand why you wish to blow the conflict out of proportion. RGloucester 02:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per RGloucester. What's 'insurgency' when it's at home? I'm highly disdainful of the use of any spin-doctored terminology since '9/11', it's used as a catch-all for combatants in a regions where the 'insurgents' equals 'bad guys' (just so's readers aren't in doubt as to who's naughty and who's fighting for niceness). It is not neutral; it's no more meaningful than 'regime change'; it sounds more like a press beat-up than an encyclopaedic article. We're hardly at a point at which there's a bazooka on every corner and the whole of Ukraine looks like a trashy Hollywood post-apocalyptic blockbuster. There are pockets of serious unrest that have had tragic consequences. I know boys like extreme video games, but keep it in your pants. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As the article insurgency states: "Where a revolt takes the form of armed rebellion, it may not be viewed as an insurgency if a state of belligerency exists between one or more sovereign states and rebel forces". Given that a state of belligerency exists between the sovereign states Russia and Ukraine, with Russian troops massed on the border and the admitted involvement of Russian forces in Crimea, "insurgency" isn't appropriate here. --Nug (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ukraine has already had insurgencies in 1918, 1942-1949 and earlier this year. Nevertheless, I'd favour a change in the title, since it's simplistic to say the people involved in the unrest are all looking for an unification with Russia, rather than aiming at overthrow or oppose the current government in Kiev.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
"Pro-Russian" doesn't mean that they favour unification with Russia. It merely means that they support the Russian government, and favour closers ties with Russia over Europe. Reliable sources consistently describe the demonstrators/militants/protesters/activists as "pro-Russian". RGloucester 16:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Please provide sources to substantiate your theory, Mondolkiri1. —Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
It isn't WP:OR. It is called the ENGLISH LANGUAGE that we are speaking. The prefix "pro" means, according to the OED

Favourable, positive, supportive; favourably disposed.

As you see, the proesters are in favour of Russia. They have a "favourable" viewpoint of Russia. There is no doubt about that. They fly Russian flags, they talk about Putin, they talk the glory days of old. Western sources all say "pro-Russian", and I don't need to provide any to show you, because they are all over the place. It is not my fault if you cannot understand the meaning of the word "pro". It does not, on any level, imply "secession". RGloucester 00:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
This isn't directed at Ms Harpy, if I may clarify. It is merely more for Mr Mondolkiri1. RGloucester 00:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, thank you for answering on my behalf. I wasn't going to answer anything that would contradict what you just wrote.,RGloucester. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Highly inappropriate behaviour, Mondolkiril. Please don't overwrite other people's comments again[17]! —Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I apologise, Ms Harpy, as I originally read your comment as being Mr Mondolkiri's. He has accused me of original research multiple times, and his name was placed right next to yours. Hence, I replied, clarifying why I thought that "pro-Russian" has nothing to do with secession, necessarily, and why it is not a problem of POV. I understand now that you were asking him for clarification as to where he got the idea about the protesters not being "pro-Russian". Editing these pages could definitely drive one to insanity. RGloucester 01:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't overwrite anything. There was an edit conflict. Maybe that's why there was some confusion.,Iryna Harpy. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you of anything, Mr. RGloucester. I just stated opinions (I'm allowed to it, am I not?) about the events taking place in Ukraine. You're saying that I accused you of "original research multiple times"?????????? When? Where? How? That's a serious accusation against me, Mr. RGloucester!,RGloucester. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
There has evidently been a communication breakdown exacerbated by bad threading, and including an ec. Yes, Mondolkiri1, you are entitled to an opinion: we're all entitled to an opinion. Our opinions, however, should not be the basis for a title for the article. Political/economic issues are, by their nature, complicated. In accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, however, we are guided by secondary sources. No one has made exaggerated or excessive accusations against you, merely qualified that you are overstepping the line into original research. I think you may have overreacted to observations and taken them as personal slights. I hope you can see that these were good faith misunderstandings and not attacks on you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Everything is fine! Any opinion that I have about the issue that I wish to express, is in the Talk Page, without the need to provide references, because I do so when I edit the page itself. But editing on this issue is becoming increasingly unpleasant, I must confess. Greetings.,Iryna Harpy. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I take it you're not familiar with Ukraine. There have been many many many insurgencies in Ukraine. In particular there's that under Nazi rule as being a recent prominent one. And there have been several serf rebellions under Lithuanian and Russian rule. -- (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Making a specific article into one covering many many insurgencies, while this series of events has an insurgency covered in only 10% or less of the whole article? No - title seems a little POV and OR.
Comment I believe some people are getting a little confused, and seeing a problem when there is not one. The article covers those in favour of federalisation with Russia, and those who want to become part of Russia. These events cover both those aspects: pro-Russian Federalisation, and pro-Russian Inclusion. Be it one or the other, Federalist or Inclusionist, both sets of instigators and the aims of both beligerents are pro-Russian. It sounds to me as if each is forgetting the other side of this double-edged sword. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Full protection is disrupting this article

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

It isn't disrupting the article. There is no deadline with regard to Wikipedia, and it is better for there to be some time for the conflicts of the past to become distant. There is no reason why you can't submit an edit request. It will become unprotected in a few days. RGloucester 23:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NODEADLINE is an essay on which two provide a counter argument for. As for conflicts of the past, if they have been resolved then okay good we should move on, if not then they should be addressed more so that they do not pop up again in the future (It is not good to reinvent the wheel). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree, having this article fully protected is disruptive. Disruptive editors can be blocked, and simply looking at the article's history is seems like the biggest disruptions came from IP editors (which a partial protect can deal with). I also can't seem to find any discussion on the matter at all. Coinmanj (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Look above, at the discussion about "counter-insurgency". RGloucester 22:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I have and have seen no recent replies for over 24 hours for that section. The discussion is just about dead with what looks to be a no consensus result. You should have an uninvolved editor or admin close it so we can move on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

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

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

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

UN Human Rights reports

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

Misplaced text

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


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

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

Protected edit request on 21 May 2014

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

Beginning on 26 February, pro-Russian forces[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9], subsequently confirmed to be Russian troops by Vladimir Putin[10], began to gradually take control of the Crimean Peninsula. During this time, the question of joining the Russian Federation was put to a referendum, which had an official turnout of 83 per cent and resulted in a 96% affirmative vote[11] but has been condemned by the EU, the United States, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar officials as contrary to Ukraine's constitution and to international law.[12][13][11][14] On 17 March, the Crimean Parliament declared independence from Ukraine and asked to join the Russian Federation.[15] On 18 March, Russia and Crimea signed a treaty of accession of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol into the Russian Federation.[16][17] On 21 March, the accession treaty was ratified and the establishment of two new constituent entities in the Russian Federation was marked by a 30 gun salute under an executive order of the Russian President.[18] The U.N. General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution that declared that the referendum was invalid, and the incorporation of Crimea into Russia as illegal.[19][20]

By 1 April, around 3,000 people had fled Crimea after its annexation.[21] 80% of those who fled were Crimean Tatars.[21]Teams from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast and Chernivtsi Oblast have assisted internally displaced persons who have resettled in western Ukraine from Crimea.[22] RGloucester 15:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

8 sources for one little sentence is REFBLOAT and I object to that. Please trim it down to the 3 most reliable supporting sources. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 16:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
This isn't about adjusting content. This is merely about restoring the previous version before it got screwed up. I don't think changes in content are appropriate at this moment, but can be dealt with later. I can't really remove references, as some are used later in the article. To do that, I'd have to be able to edit the whole article. Regardless, we can deal with that later. The most important thing is to get the old text back in so that article at least makes senses, and doesn't have a ton of nonsense in it as it does at present. RGloucester 17:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneMr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Strangely redacted subsection

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

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

How did this happen? The original sources are still there, but the text has changed. It doesn't make any sense. It wasn't like this a few days ago. RGloucester 15:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for chasing this up, RGloucester . I got up early in order to track the history and see whether I could identify the edit that threw everything out and restore it. Now I can get on with my RL obligations for the day. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[18] [19] [20] [21] I believe detaining foreign journalists by the government is notable.According to the sources above not only Human Rights Watch but also OSCE called on authorities to release them immediately.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The title of your section is misleading. The Human Rights didn't demand anything. Putin's propaganda outlet claimed that it did. Likewise the ibtimes explicitly uses the word "allegedly", even in its title. Phillips appears to have been detained for a few hours then released. That's a non-story, it's just being blown up by Krelimin's propaganda. The two Russian guys were detained because they entered Ukraine illegally (and the Ukrainians claim they were carrying anti-aircraft missiles, but who knows).
This is just Putin trying for some kind of counter to [22]. The separatists have detained and disappeared journalists so a story had to be manufactured to "balance" that fact. And of course RT and VoR are all over it.
Not notable for inclusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how this is very notable. Minor incident, probably better served on the Timeline. Graham was detained and sent to the UK embassy, the other two were caught with a rocket launcher without proper documents and entered the country on false pretenses. I understand RT/LifeNews wants to make an international incident over it, but in the context of this article I don't know where minor things like this would go. --Львівське (говорити) 20:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

GP's own words [23] - "All my work in order, no charges, no deportation, no one laid a hand on me in anger, Ukrainian authorities treated me fairly. All ok." --Львівське (говорити) 20:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Marek-this is very notable for inclusion, just like detention of the Vice reporter. And for the record I think you are a bit exaggerating about Putin, he certainly doesn't write articles in The Guardian. MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The vice reporter was taken hostage, beaten, and held for days by armed guards for no reason. These two were detained by security forces in a combat zone. I don't see the similarities. --Львівське (говорити) 20:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal views are unimportant. We will see what the Human Rights organizations will have to say about kidnapping of journalists. For the record UN Report already included "forced disappearances" as one of the violations conducted by Kiev forces.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
But that's the whole point. One side takes a report hostage, beats him and tortures him and holds him for days. So the other side cooks up a story to try and pretend that the other guys are "just as bad". Wow, this is like a throwback to the good ol' days.
Anyway, if you want to know what Human Rights Watch actually says about the conflict, rather than what RT people invent, here it is [24], [25], [26].Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
So now we jumped from claims that Putin writes articles in the Guardian to claims that Russian and British journalists kidnapped by Kiev forces were actually kidnapped by Russia? Sorry Marek, we have known each other and worked together for years on Wikipedia, but I sincereily believe you are not looking at this with cool head. In any case, let us wait what the media say about this event and Human Rights groups. For the record the links you gave actually do criticise Kiev authorities and Maidan activists for violations of human rights and other crimesMyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC).
That's a ... "very strange" paraphrasing of what I just said.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there's "very strange" and misrepresentation. I'd say that MyMoloboaccount is tipping the scales towards the latter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I really don't know how came up with that, VM didn't say that at all. In any event, HRW has commented on it [27] --Львівське (говорити) 23:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Given the level of the complaints, interpreting the actions as 'violations' seems a teensy bit strong. Sounds a lot more like some grumbling about restricting journalistic access and a lot of hysteria in MyMoloboaccount's reading of the situation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Not notable per above discussion, no consensus for inclusion. --Nug (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Not notable per above discussions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I like how MyMoloboaccount starts the section "I believe...", but when he hears that somebody opposes he replies with "Personal views are unimportant." There are videos of the LifeNews reporters who acknowledged the fact that they entered the country illegally and there are videos where they act as spotters for pro-Russian forces during a gun fight. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the plain solution is to wait to see how this plays out and keep updates saved on the timeline for reference if need be. The Graham story is already a non-issue since he was released within a day with no issue. The other two may either be released or charged, we don't know yet; the HRW mostly petitions Ukraine to release info on why they were detained and for all we know that info could be coming today.--Львівське (говорити) 02:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

not sure if relevant

[28] [29] Zhirinovsky donated a GAZ Tigr to militants in eastern Ukraine. Notable Russian army colonel privately funding / aiding the militants...--Львівське (говорити) 00:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Name of the article

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

It isn't a civil war until reliable sources call it the 'Ukrainian Civil War'. They don't. RGloucester 22:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
What about '2014 unrest in South-Eastern Ukraine'? Wouldn't such title accommodate both POVs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)<!— Template:Unsigned IP —>
Odessa isn't in "south-eastern Ukraine". It is in "south-western Ukraine". RGloucester 14:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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

it's not a civil war yet IMO and them militancy is contained to the Donbass --Львівське (говорити) 19:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Not only to Donbass, as we saw in the last few days, in Odessa.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 4:58, 9 May 2014
There are no insurgents in Odessa. Those were civilians that took up arms during a riot. RGloucester 20:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
It should be renamed..149 corpses in Mariupol... Fakirbakir (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Attack on Ukranian Forces of May 22.

News are coming from Ukraine of a "Pro-russian" by some "Right Sector" by others, attack on Ukranian forces in Donetsk with over 8 dead and 15 wounded or 15 dead and 27 wounded acoording to other sources (BBC reporter). Any information regarding this event??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Some sources that could be used:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

right sector doesnt attack Ukrainian troops and isnt even operating in Donetsk separately from private enlistment in Donbas/Azov battalions. --Львівське (говорити) 16:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, this is either a clash with Right Sector militia(not the first time they fight with Ukrainian military) or friendly fire. There are no known rebel groups in this area and they don't have that kind of firepower.Most likely the several BMP's destroyed were from helicopter friendly fire.Rebels already denied that they took part in the fighting, which stands in contrast to other clashes where they confirmed the fighting.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
From the BBC report:
Speaking on condition of anonymity, an army major who spoke to the survivors of the attack told our correspondent he was sure that the attackers were not Donetsk separatists but "mercenaries".
Herzen (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

More Updated Info here. Now the dead toll its at 16 killed of whom 14 are Ukranian Soldiers, 13 dead in Donetks and 1 in Lugansk. (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

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

There is already video of the event, and it indicates that this was a friendly fire from the helicopters(perhaps during an attack by the resistance)[31](I do not share or promote views of the person who uploaded the video, it is just for education purpose only).MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, clear case of friendly fire. The video ends with a guy on the radio asking for the attack to be stopped. – Herzen (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
it's unsure what happened at this point, there was no friendly fire in the video itself. In the distance you can see a chopper dropping flares. Too much to comb through.--Львівське (говорити) 22:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
As far as I understand this is first confirmation from Kiev side and sources that this was friendly fire[32]MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
What I'm reading there is that they choppers did that after the original insurgent attack that caused the deaths. --Львівське (говорити) 23:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Unreliable sources to bloggers students etc

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

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

This isn't a blog and the author is actually a published expert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Care to provide some outher sources in support of this use of adjective? I am more than ok with it provided there are reliable sources backing it up. A published expert should be using other references in his studies... or not? On a side note, is there a reason why you followed my contributions to partly undo my edits?(AnonimEditor)

The reality of events[33]

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

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

Then it should be not particularly difficult to provide another reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonimEditor (talkcontribs) 16:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
done. took 30 seconds. --Львівське (говорити) 16:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Way to go. Gratz. A wide range of sources occurred to be an opinion blog on NYT. Fine, but that means I can cite pro-russian blogs too, right? (AnonimEditor (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC))
Getting tired of your obliviousness. That's two highly touted sources now, a well cited scholar and an author / senior fellow with the Atlantic Council's Program on Transatlantic Relations. Your response is to cite "pro-russian blogs"? --Львівське (говорити) 17:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Let me re-phrase it this way. I have heard that Wikipedia became a propaganda tool, and now I am actually observing how it works. You might think that you are being objective here, but let me break a news for you, you are not. You might not realize this, but in academic papers your way of proving that you are right is called "cherry picking sources". Nowadays it is very easy to find a "proof" of whateve statement using Google. I am far from being sure that I want to participate in your games. You guys have fun, I guess. (AnonimEditor (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC))
Don't let the door hit you --Львівське (говорити) 18:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

UN report on human rights

Needs to be in the article [34], the official report is here [35] and we can dig through it in the meantime

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

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

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

  • Peaceful demonstrations, primarily by supporters of Ukraine's unity, deteriorate into violence
  • Protesters are attacked and beaten
  • Local police do nothing to prevent the violence and sometimes openly co-operate with the attackers

UN monitors have also documented cases of targeted killings, torture and abduction, primarily carried out by anti-government forces in eastern Ukraine. The report highlights threats to journalists and international observers, and abductions or attacks on some.

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

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

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

here's another from vice (no time to edit today) [36] - Pro-Russia Rebels Step Up Campaign of Violence to Halt Ukraine's Presidential Elections --Львівське (говорити) 03:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems unreliable. It reprints the long-debunked claims of seperatists ordering Jews to register as well as misrepresents its sources (the Times of Israel article[37] reporting on emigration of Jews to Israel notes "This is not the result of any anti-Semitism but of anxiety and fear from criminal activity and chaos.") to make it appear as if the jewish minority is specifically targeted.B01010100 (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
It's a reliable source, your interpretation of it is beside the point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Please see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:NEWSORG, specifically "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis." I'm pointing out that this specific news story would not be reliable for any specific statement claiming (feared) abuses against the jewish minority because it relies on long-debunked claims and misrepresentations of other sources.B01010100 (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a "generically" reliable or unreliable source, that's just your misunderstanding of the policies.B01010100 (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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

Luhansk Developments

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

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

RGloucester reverted this edit[38], opining "That's not a method of civil conflict". Targeted killings and torture are in fact methods used in this particular civil conflict, as this source state: "In Eastern Ukraine, Torture Is New Weapon". The UN's 36 page report cites examples of targeted killings, torture carried out by what it calls well-armed anti-government groups in eastern Ukraine[39]. Human Rights Watch mentions in their report "Anti-Kiev Forces Running Amok" that “Kidnapping, beatings, and torture are serious crimes and the work of thugs, the reign of terror in eastern Ukraine needs to stop.” It is nonsense to claim targeted killings and torture aren't a method of civil conflicts, just about every civil conflict in the history of the world uses targeted killings and torture in order to terrorise the population. The sources show that this conflict is no different. --Nug (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That isn't appropriate for the infobox. I'm not saying that targeted killings did not occur. I'm saying that it is undue weight to place it in the infobox under "methods". In fact, it is more or less covered under the blanket-term "insurgency". RGloucester 03:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Seems really bizarre that the infobox lists "Hostage taking" as a method, but you oppose mention of targeted killings and torture. Some hostages were tortured and others killed. --Nug (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Not really. Insurgency, by definition, includes killings, targeted and otherwise. "Hostage taking", on the other hand, is a distinct method. Infoboxes only contain the most critical information. They do not go into detail about specific incidents of "torture". RGloucester 03:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Torture is no less distinct than hostage taking, and there are quite a number of incidences of torture reported, warranting mention in the infobox. —Nug (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Torture is not a primary method of advancing the goals of the separatists. Merely because it happened does not mean that it is warranted in the infobox. We do not write in the Iraq War infobox that "torture" was a method. Nor here. We describe it in the body adequately. RGloucester 03:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Citing the Iraq War infobox is irrelevant. It certainly is if the intent is to instil fear, as one of the sources cited states:"Since defecting, Anton has lived in fear of being himself "disciplined" by his former comrades-in-arms."[40]. In fact torture is listed as a distinct form of political violence[41]. As the book The New Counter-insurgency Era in Critical Perspective states[42]:
"For this reason, torture, a tactic used in Indochina, quickly appeared in Algeria as 'an unlimited weapon deployed in a total war to dominate the population …. even the rumor (of torture) served to propagate its terrorising dimension throughout the population"
--Nug (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Yes, there is a distinction between deaths from skirmishing between insurgents and government forces, and targeted killings of civilians. --Nug (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It is pure undue weight. Look at that tactics section at our article on insurgency. RGloucester 04:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

New Russia political party?

I've seen Pavel Gubarev post this flag in the past, but this newspaper from the rebels are using it now too. Looks like the Confederate battle flag but without the stars.[43] Looks like they made a political party? --Львівське (говорити) 19:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Protected edit request on 17 May 2014

Delete the following in the lead sentence:

, ultranationalist,[23]

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

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

What hoax? It's coming from a respected scholar. Anyone would be a fool to ignore that Russian ultranationalists are a part of the movement. --Львівське (говорити) 15:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
What's a mainstream publication? Since when are we categorizing and picking out what is mainstream and non-mainstream? It infringes on a freedom of speech. I think Lvivske has a point. As long as the publication contains information from a specialist on the topic, it is all that matters. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
No, when writing an encyclopedia we are required to strive for consensus, balance and objectivity, which at times in fact does infringe on freedom of speech. It is fine to write on your blog that the pro-federalists in Eastern Ukraine are ultranationalists, but that is far from an RS opinion. In fact that characterization has never been stated in a mainstream news article. Haberstr (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
As you can see in his description, the author, Anton Shekhovtsov, "is PhD student at the UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies." So we're talking about the opinion of a student. There is no other source for the characterization.Haberstr (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I can't see a consensus to make the requested edit here, and there don't seem to be any obvious problems with the source citing the word "ultranationalist". If anyone is concerned about the reliability of the source, then WP:RSN would be a good place to take this. If this is more of a general dispute, then WP:DRN may be a better choice. Please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template if a consensus develops to make the edit. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
It is normal Wikipedia policy to provide a week for discussion before making a decision.Haberstr (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I dont see an actual discussion taking place here, but the whole ultranationalist thing sticks out like a sore thumb. Even my spellchecker does not pick it up as a valid word. All sources used are clearly from one side of the conflict. None of the organisations in question declared themselves ultranationalist, or even nationalist. Calling someone that is akin of insult and should not be used in an encyclopaedia. If desired you can stick in the opinions section of the article, but not in the lead, that would clearly be considered NPOV.--Truther2012 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you honestly arguing that 'ultranationalist' isnt a word? Based off your spellchecker? --Львівське (говорити) 23:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
No, but I am honestly arguing that calling someone an 'ultranationalist' without proper support is slanderous and highly non-NPOV. Furthermore, characterising the entire conflict as such based on some elements or flyers is a bit a stretch.--Truther2012 (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

New Russia

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

Or vice-versa, as the administrator prefers.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
sorry, was hoping something like this wouldnt happen. --Львівське (говорити) 21:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I created another article about the same subject, but now what shall I do? Or anyone else? The article that I created has informations that are not in the other article and vice-versa., говорити. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's just merge yours into mine (to avoid using parenthesis in a title) and redirect. If the the official name ends up changing to just 'New Russia' or 'Novorossiya' (per english common use) we'll move it again when the time comes. --Львівське (говорити) 21:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, whatever I must do, recommend me to do it!, говорити. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Took care of it :) --Львівське (говорити) 21:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality

These [44][45] changes are propaganda. They are not based on reliable sources. — Chelovechek (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

how does the unrest relate to "US NGOs"? the rest you mentioned also has nothing to do with the unrest itself --Львівське (говорити) 19:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The US State Dep't has definitely played a role, but not nearly as much as the Russian government has. It is misleading for the introduction to portray events as a popular movement. --Smack (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Another Ambush at Donetsk.

According to this an ambush took place on Friday and it have left from 2 to 5 Pro Ukranian forces dead, Aljazeera Live Blog from Ukraine confirm a Tweet of the attack too. Should this be added in the infobox, is there any conection with the 22 may Ambush. Any suggestions? (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, this is Donbas Battalion. --Львівське (говорити) 15:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you might want to recheck those numbers, my sources say that around 16 Ukrainian soldiers were killed on the 23rd, which should bring the total amount of Ukrainian dead to about ~60 . Also around 30 were wounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abattoir666 (talkcontribs) 20:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-neutral title

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

nearly all sources call the insurgents "pro-Russian" and all of the protests that started this article were also "pro-Russian" with the "Rossiya" chants and Russian flag planting. From this we now have two self-declared states that want to join Russia. While not unanimous, 'pro-Russian' describes 95% of what's happening. —Львівське (говорити) 22:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Sources describe them as such, so do we. Furthermore, as I've pointed out multiple times, "pro-Russian" does not necessarily mean "separatist". It merely means they have a more favourable view of Russia than they do of the EU. I provide dictionary definitions above. Please stop, with the nonsense. RGloucester 23:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
for example, some may simply want greater or sustained economic ties with Russia. If Euromaidan was pro-EU and this is the backlash, it's pretty far flung in scope. --Львівське (говорити) 23:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

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

The situation isn't just in "eastern Ukraine". It also includes southern Ukraine. RGloucester 01:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've edited my comment to reflect the fact that there is also unrest occurring in Southern Ukraine, although this does not change my point regarding the appropriateness of the title. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
How about we rename the page to Novorossiya conflict or New Russia conflict or something similar — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

300 journalists rewarded

I expected to find this in the article? It is said that this order includes also a higher pension. --Anidaat (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Russian police troops in Ukraine

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

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

Borys Kolesnikov about DNR

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

"Russian Federation - Chechen paramilitaries" in infobox

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

Mondolkiri1, those are not the same Chechens. Kadyrovtsy are known for supporting Putin. It is kind of similar as in Crimea. Most Tatars are pro-Ukrainian, but there is a smaller faction (called Mili Firqa - People's Party) that is pro-Russian. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Some of the Chechen militants are not even ethnic Chechen people, but rather are simply from Grozny or the Chechen region in general. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)