Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Should the article mention the break up of the USSR?

Not once does the article mention the word USSR. The Russian position is that Russians stranded in the Ukraine after the break up of the USSR have a right to be united and protected by Russia. This should be in the intro. --Russiansunited (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Sort of. But yes, the USSR should be mentioned somewhere in the article, though not necessarily the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

If you support keeping the Nazi comment by the Canadian Minister in the article say why here!!

Nazi comment in the article should be removed. If you wish to keep the Nazi comment by the Canadian Minister, then it should be balanced with this!!

The balance is this comment,"Russian President Vladimir Putin compared Kyiv's drive to regain control of its rebellious eastern cities to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in the Second World War. He announced that rebels had succeeded in halting it, and proposed that they now permit surrounded Ukrainian troops to retreat."

Source: Canadian government TV network CBC http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-seeks-nato-membership-to-gain-western-military-aid-1.2750162

Why is the Canadian Minister's comment okay but not this? --Russiansunited (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't about the military operation in Donbass. Feel free to add the Putin quote at War in Donbass. RGloucester — ☎ 00:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

this is silly

Re the use of the word "alleged" for captured Russian soldiers, and the edit summary of the revert: That's compromise wording. There's an editor who does not approve of the numbers and wants to fully remove them. Besides, the whole invasion is denied by Russia, thus the number is alleged. Until you find a source confirming its official please refrain

That's a silly argument. If some editor is behaving disruptively and tries to remove reliably sourced content, especially without explaining their reasoning or engaging in discussion, we don't try and "compromise" with them, we revert them. If they persist we report them. And of course in this particular case the editor in question who keeps removing the number is just another in a long list of newly created or sleeper throw away accounts with hardly any edits who've been disrupting these articles for months. Why are we accommodating and enabling this kind of behavior?

And as I explained on my talk page, it is absolutely irrelevant whether or not Russia denies the invasion or not, whether it admits its soldiers were captured or killed. Basing text on what they say, aside from just being crazy, would be original research based on an interpretation of a primary source. That's why we use *secondary sources*. And then the question is simply 1) is the source reliable? and 2) does the source actually say "alleged". If the answers are 1) yes, 2) no, then we don't invent this "alleged" out of thin air.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no invasion of Ukraine by any Russian forces. What is happening is simple, hasty organized forces by Kiev authorities made up of demoralized conscripts and poorly trained extreme right wing militias(in some cases openly demonstrating links to Neo-Nazism) have been routed by local militia made out of motivated and well trained local men(former soldiers and veterans), out of whom a small part are Russian citizens that volunteered mostly due to their families living in the region.To cover up their incompetence and failures Kiev forces invented stories of "Russian invasion" which are not supported by any shred of evidence which were accepted as fact by lazy journalists and politicians abroad with a stake in victory of one of the sides.That is the cold hard reality of the matter.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

We are talking about second-hand and third-hand accounts provided by regular critics of the Russian government with regards to these figures. Such shaky claims should not even be included in the infobox, let alone treated as established fact. The whole account of over 100 Russian soldiers being killed in a single Grad rocket attack is inherently suspect. "Alleged" is not being invented out of thin air as it is a natural extension from "x says" and is consistent with how we generally approach these types of extraordinary unconfirmed claims from involved parties. Just because reliable sources report the allegations does not mean they are endorsing them.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

section on peace deal

This is the peace deal. Terms: Parts of the Ukraine that contain people of Russian origin that wish to join Russia become part of Russia. Second, after this transfer Ukraine be granted European Union status and become part of Nato. Win, win.

Ukraine becomes more stable and Russia protects their citizens. We gain as sanctions are now lifted. We avoid the fallout of a conflict that could undermine our reaching out to Russia to one day become part of the European Union and become a key asset in our defense team.

We must avoid at all costs a fight between Nato and Russia. --Russiansunited (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC) WP:NOTFORUM. RGloucester — ☎ 21:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Should the title of the article include the word 'Revolution'?

There's a long, long wikipedia article on the February 2014 unrest in Kiev entitled "2014 Ukrainian Revolution".

Wouldn't it be consistent to call the "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" something like "2014 East Ukrainian Revolution"? Perhaps "2014 Donestk/Lugansk Revolution"?

After all, the people in East Ukraine have declared independence and formed new governments.

Whether these governments survive is another question, but it sure sounds like revolutionary behavior on the part of the inhabitants of that area.

Son of eugene (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Not per WP:COMMONNAME. Consistency is not an issue here either, as mainstream sources have a principally different approach to the two events. Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"The people" certainly haven't done any such thing, while it is true that large parts of the population were skeptical about the changes in Kiev, the separatists are a Russian supported/infiltrated minority that staged a coup d' etat, in particular ousting locally elected officials as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Using such a title would be original research. Per Jaan Pärn's comment, we use WP:COMMONNAME and, as noted by Kmhkmh, the use of 'revolution' is inappropriate per WP:NDESC as it implies that it is something it is not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a revoluton and the title should be changed to say so. It is orginal research to imply that the revolution implies something it is not. It belittles the revolutionaries to call them rebels. The test is what do the rebels call themselves. Revolutionaries of course. --Russiansunited (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of sourced and attributed material

The reliably sourced viewpoint of the leader of the Jewish communities in Ukraine regarding the role of neo-Nazis in Ukraine has been inexplicably removed[2]. I think it certainly merits inclusion. --Nug (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It isn't "inexplicable". It doesn't belong in this article, which is mostly historical. Something from September belongs in either War in Donbass, or in the ideology section of Federal State of Novorossiya. RGloucester — ☎ 12:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It's as inexplicable as your contention that 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is barely 5K in size[3] (the revision history shows that it exceeds 120K[4], go figure). Perhaps you need a break? The appropriate section for this reliably sourced material is 2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine#Russian_citizens since it is about notable Russian citizens supporting pro-Russian unrest, mentioning their visits to the eastern Ukraine back in March and May. The War in Donbass is about the military conflict, however the source does not explicitly claim these groups are currently actively fighting in that war. The ideology section of Federal State of Novorossiya isn't appropriate either since it is about the ideology of certain citizens from Russia (not "Novorossiya") and the fascism of Russia as perceived by Ukrainian Jews. --Nug (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't about events in Donbass in September. RGloucester — ☎ 16:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, didn't I just write these notable Russian citizens were involved in supporting pro-Russian unrest in eastern Ukraine back in March and May. --Nug (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite the article

The article is very strong POV against the protests. It should be completely rewritten to sound more like the article about Euromaidan. The nature of the protests was initially the same: hundreds of thousands of people went out on the streets to protest against the current regime. The lead should say this. Actually, Euromaidan was even worse. During Euromaidan, there were paramilitary groups lead by Ukrainian ultranationalists. During the "(so-called) pro-Russian" protests, there were no arms until April when the War in Donbass started. And the pro-Russian rebels aren't nationalist. They are against the nationalists that took power in Ukraine.

I have attempted to make the lead better [5], but I was very rudely reverted [6] without an edit summary.

The previous attempt here: [7] and a very rude unexplained revert: [8]. The editor started an edit war, therefore I can't edit this article anymore and have to leave it as it is now, but I will return...

P.S. I truly believe that strongly POV articles like this one are a disgrace to Wikipedia. Please respect the readers of the encyclopedia and and don't use the website for propaganda. The lead is truly outrageous and badly written, too. Anyone can see that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no propaganda that I can see, only the use of reliable sources. Please don't try to right great wrongs. RGloucester — ☎ 00:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The people who wrote this used only the sources that said what they wanted the article to say. I can completely rewrite it based on other reliable sources and it will be more neutral.
And by the way, a couple of days ago you removed a reliably sourced part: [9]. Why? --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "remove it", I moved it to the humanitarian section of War in Donbass, where it belongs. This article isn't about the war. RGloucester — ☎ 00:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Isn't my version of the lead better [10]? I can found hundreds of sources that support what it says. If there are sources, will it be okay to change it like this? --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Your version removes (reliably sourced) stuff so I'm not sure what hundreds of sources you potentially can find have to do with it? How are you planning on finding and using sources to remove info?  Volunteer Marek  01:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliably sourced stuff, what a joke!! Your gang knows how to use wiki termology to cover your point of view against Russia. There is no hope for this article being fair. The reliable sources call them separatists yet you keep removing that label. It is disappointing that the artilce fails to include that these regions of the Ukriane were added to the Ukraine district and were part of Russia and fails to include that the People in these regions speak Russian not Ukrainian. --Russiansunited (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

POV tag attached. Strongly pro-Maidan and anti-separatist/federalist, which includes the naming of the entry.

POV tag attached; the entry is strongly pro-Maidan and anti-separatist/federalist, right down to the naming of the entry. For example, consider balancing this sub-section -- "Anti-Maidan and paid protesters" -- with similar accusations against pro-Maidan protestors and militias. Also, please consider removing "ultra-nationalist" from the entry's lead sentence. Also, consider including the well-evidenced (tape-recorded phone call) narrative that the West, in particular the U.S.'s Victoria Nuland, was heavily involved in Maidan orchestration and in the selection of the first post revolution/coup Prime Minister. Well, I'm sure the POV tag is obviously amply justified so I don't need to continue.Haberstr (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Tag removed per WP:TE. Haberstr, the only problem with WP:POV this article is suffering from is the fact that it doesn't suit your personal bias. The terminology has not been invented per anyone's POV: it follows reliable sources. Even there, great care has been taken to keep the language neutral and allude to sources that (as you well know) were being dismissed on the RS/N. Thank you, in advance, for resisting any further temptation to tag articles because you aren't getting your way and feel that you must right great wrongs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The article title is pro-coup POV, because if the unrest is caused by being pro-Russian, then why did it only begin after the coup in Kiev? This is just the usual "blame everything on Russia" POV that is ubiquitous in articles related to the coup. And don't tell me it's all about reliable sources. The West has one point of view; Russians and Novorossians have another point of view. Reliable sources exist for the latter just as much, if not more, as they exist for the former. – Herzen (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This not simply a case of Western versus Eastern views, that approach alone is already nonsensical since in reality there a lot of different views (in Russia and in the West). If you want attribute official positions of Russian or Western governments fine, but do not declare any reliable source simply as partisan. As for your question, there is an "obvious" simple answer, the pro Russian unrest began exactly when Russia was losing influence in Kiev. There was simply no need for pro-Russian unrest while the government was pro-Russian anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Herzen, and think that Kmhkmh's perspective is OR, and so the title of this entry is OR. Yes, it's fine to speculate on why the separatist conflict broke out in eastern Ukraine. But also admit that you don't really know. Your OR should not influence the title of a Wikipedia entry. 'Separatist' is a perfectly good description of what is going on in Ukraine's east. 'Pro-Russian' is OR speculation and Western propaganda.Haberstr (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the article's talk page and not article itself and I did not suggest any content for the article whatsoever, hence there is no WP:OR. I merely answered Herzen's question which contrary implication actually has a straight forward answer.

As far as "separatist" I have no objection to use that term (as it is accurate in a way and is/was used by many sources). However that the separatist movement (not necessarily the actual population) is pro-Russian is rather obvious and you certainly need no propaganda sources for that nor even much an "interpretation" of known facts, you just need to pay attention the statements of the separatists leaders themselves. If there is any propaganda at work here, then it is declaring them as as not "pro Russian".--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Iryna, please remove POV tag not immediately but after a civil discussion and an attempt at consensus. Note the WP emblazoned directly on the POV tag: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." For further and more general advice, and please note the passages on civility, read the WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:CLOSE.Haberstr (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Iryna I do not see anything wrong with the current title. The facts on the ground are that the protesters and rebels fighting are pro-Russian. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If you mean pro-Russian as in favor of annexation by Russia, that is simply not true. A substantial majority or minority may want that, and a substantial majority or minority may want Novorossiyan independence, and a substantial minority may still want a loose federation inside of Ukraine. The title of the section misleadingly indicates loyalty or fealty or desire for union for Russia, when perhaps only a minority in eastern Ukraine want that. The best NPOV term would be 'separatist' not 'pro-Russian'.Haberstr (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Haberstr that "pro-Russian" is a POV term. The unrest is an "anti-Ukrainian government" unrest.
And the word "ultranationalist" in the lead is just crazy, if you ask me. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The unrest is not nationalist, it's against Ukrainian nationalism. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article is blatantly pro-coup POV and must be tagged as such until corrected. (I think the article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Because it undermines the value of Wikipedia as a worthy source.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

For the final time, "pro-Russian" does not mean "seeking annexation by Russia". It merely means they favour relations with Russia as opposed to the EU &c. It is the only term that encompasses all viewpoints within the anti-government camp (separatist, federalist, New Russian). We've had this discussion multiplicitous times before. "Anti-Ukrainian government" does not disambiguate the events from Euromaidan (which was also anti-government). RGloucester — ☎ 14:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

But there are so many people who don't understand the "pro-Russian" part of the title. Maybe it is a sign that it should be changed... --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It isn't my fault that non-native (or even native) English speakers don't understand the English language, which is very precise and clear in this matter. I've provided dictionaries definitions numerous times, and I'm not going to do it again. Pull out your copy of the OED and see for yourself. This title was agreed upon by consensus at an RM, and it was made explicit at that point that no more frivolous moves should be carried out. There is no adequate alternative to this title, as we've hashed it all out before. Reliable sources describe the unrest as pro-Russian, as do the protestors themselves. RGloucester — ☎ 15:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, in the Russian language, the word "pro-Russian" would mean the same as in English: they love Russia / support the Russian policy and Russia's views on the world. But it's not really the meaning it's being used in here. Okay, I will look at the archives.
But the article itself is pro-Maidan. (The word "ultranationalist" in the lead being just one example. The whole article is like this, anyone should be able to see it.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

it is not suprising that all the moskals come to play on wikipedia as they conquer novoazovsk leave this place glory to ukraine glory to heros — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.16.147 (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"Anti-coup" also "encompasses all viewpoints within the anti-government camp". And precisely because Euromaidan was anti-government, it supported the coup, so there is no ambiguity. Since many Ukrainians see Russia as their historical oppressor, the term "pro-Russian" produces the impression that southeast Ukrainians not liking the present government in Kiev means that they are disloyal to Ukraine. But it is actually the people in the current government who are disloyal to Ukraine, because they grabbed power through the violent overthrow of a legitimate, elected government, i.e, a coup. Thus, another POV represented by the title is that a government's adhering to its Constitutions and laws is of little importance: violence trumps the rule of law. – Herzen (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

RS do not call Euromaidan a "coup". RGloucester — ☎ 02:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you can expect that claim to be taken seriously. John Mearsheimer is one of America's most respected political scientists specializing in international relations, and he recently published this: Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault. To quote it:

For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a “coup” -- was the final straw.

One article by Mearsheimer in Foreign Affairs trumps 100 newspaper articles. – Herzen (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether one article my Mearsheimer automatically outweighs 100 newspaper article is debatable. In doubt other scholarly sources/comment by scholars need to be consulted as well. However you can certainly argue based on Mearsheimer that the WP article the description as coup should be included into the article at least as well and Mearsheimer is definitely more important than individual newspaper articles (unless that were written by a scholar of comparable reputation). However I'd like to note a personal problem that i have with Mearsheimer's approach. While (almost) everything he writes is correct he nevertheless delivers are rather incomplete picture by only looking at specific geostrategic angle. Yes it is true That Nato but even more the US alone needlessly encroached into the Russian backyard and tried to directly influence local governments and set up military bases in former soviet republics. You can also argue that Maidan (with at least some Western support behind the scenes) toppled an elected president and the the EU needlessly tried to freeze out Russia in trade relations with the Ukraine. Certainly the West and particular the US can be blamed for that. So far so good. What's missing from that picture however is, that first of all the backyard principle is a rather questionable. The same way the US possesses no rights over Central America, Cuba or Grenada (and its actions there are morally reprehensible and often in violation of international laws), Russia has no rights over its former republics. In this context it is also worth to note that the former soviet republic by large are colonial leftovers from the czarist empire, so there possible emancipation from Russia is sort of a natural thing to begin with. It also ignores that by now Putin essentially runs Russia as an autocrat/semi-dictator and that the former soviet republics he attaches to Russia are run by autocrats as well. It also ignores that Yanukovych though democratically elected in 2010 was exactly of that autocrat breed you see in in most of the former soviet republics and as in hed did once already in his earlier career he was transforming the Ukraine into a more and more authoritarian state again. In that context Mearsheimer complete ignores the self determination angle of the involved populations, they are simply treated as pawns in a geostrategic chess game between Russia and the US.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The realist view is outdated, and so is Mearsheimer. Regardless, his description of the events can be included as a significant minority viewpoint. However, RS consensus overall does not label Euromaidan a "coup". RGloucester — ☎ 15:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This is just more spurious tagging. It seems some user(s) have decided that "since you won't let us push POV in the article(s) we will tag it up". This is just WP:POINTy and disruptive. Volunteer Marek  18:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I could say just the same that some users decided that "since there are more of us, pro-Maidan POV pushers here, we can do whatever we want and won't even let you tag this article". And that it was disruptive to remove the tag instead of discussing. (But I won't say this.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Haberstr: I explained the removal in the very first sentence of my reply: "Tag removed per WP:TE." If you were using tags responsibly, this would not be an issue. What you are engaging in is tag-bombing articles bringing up the same issues you have brought up time and time again with consensus being against you. Tagging 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and Media portrayal of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine simultaneously is WP:POINTy to say the least. When all your arguments are based on reiterations of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, I remove the tag... as was done with the other two articles by other editors. Your editing pattern has been, and still is, based on WP:POV disdain for neutral, encyclopaedic content, and is indicative of non-content related problems. I don't care how hard you try to couch your biases in policy and impoverished attempts at pseudo-rational discussion, the end product is the same: you're merely floundering at gaming the system. Would you like me to throw a few more policies and guidelines into the mix, or are we done on your casting WP:ASPERSIONS as to my editing practices? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: Are you saying that it was disruptive to remove the tag or not? "But I won't say this." is complete bollocks as disclaimer. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you. The tag was eventually removed by an IP in a very disruptive way, with offensive edit summaries: [11], [12]. (But I think that you shouldn't have removed it too, and now when two people have explained to you how the article is non-neutral, it would be correct to place it back.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that the IP removed the tag twice using brazenly inappropriate edit summaries (and have, consequently, left an explicit warning on their talk page). By the same token, I'm still unconvinced that it is warranted as, per my previous input on this talk page (in the archives), and the ensuing discussion hasn't provided any reasonable evidence as to its being POV. If, however, unlike me, you feel that there are genuine policy-based arguments for restoring the tag which have not been addressed properly, you are welcome to restore the tag. I won't remove it, but other editors are justifiably bound to. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree

The title is baised and should be changed. Separatist movement is appropriate. Several of us are in agreement on this, we wish to make it so. --Russiansunited (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Russiansunited: This is not a vote. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In practice, it is. Wikipedia is supposed to be edited by concensus. The problem is a small group of pro-Ukrainian activists, who would like to use Wikipedia as a tool of propaganda.Keverich2 (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Real Clear Politics ref

There is a ref to a Real Clear Politics article in the first paragraph. RCP has been widely used as RS here at wikipedia. It is an online news division of Forbes. The article is not a blog post or opinion piece. The author writes at RCP and is a contributing editor to Reason. I see no policy based reason to remove it. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added a new reference, this factual analysis here. --Nug (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems you POV-pushers are under the mistaken impression that being able to find a biased source saying something, like POV pieces from U.S. government-linked think tanks such as The Jamestown Foundation, means you can put this in the lede and prominently associate the entire period of unrest as "ultranationalist" or extremist in nature. What you are doing is clearly at odds with policy. Fact is, the Jamestown piece doesn't even say the unrest is ultranationalist in nature, but just says there are some neo-nazis and ultranationalists involved in the movement. The same was true with Euromaidan, with the current government in Kiev, and with the volunteer battalions fighting the rebels. Your usage of the source to add ultranationalist to the first sentence of the lede is POV misrepresentation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Focus on content. I have no POV to push in this article. I couldn't give a flying fig. This (RCP) is a RS. There are multiple editors agree that it is RS. Aside from assertion that this is something you don't like is there any policy based reason to remove? Capitalismojo (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It is obviously an opinion piece. Anyone who read the article would be able to tell that much and the same goes for the Jamestown source. You want us to use opinion pieces to make claims of fact in the lede associating a movement with extremists. That is something a POV-pusher does, not someone who does not care.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The "article" in RealClearPolitics "Fascism Comes to Ukraine -- From Russia" is actually an opinion piece by Cathy Young. RealClearPolitics bills her as a columnist.[13] As "contributing editor" to Reason, she writes a column for them. Policy says, under "News organizations", "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." TFD (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::@The Devil's Advocate: - well said. For our POV pushing team, who apparently own the articles of Ukrainian-Russian topic, any sensationalist rubbish, esp. this Real Politics page [] goes when it helps to smear the enemy. Not very neutral attitude. Then we reach such 'brilliant' gibberish (cited to the very website!) like ″Notable figures belonging to anti-semitic Russian-nationalist extremist groups were involved[6] including: Donetsk Republic leader Pavel Gubarev, neo-Nazi/fascist/Stalinist [sic!] writer Alexander Prokhanov″ or, say, ″Russia's extreme-right[1] newspaper "Завтра" (Zavtra - Tomorrow), that combines ultranationalist and communist views″. Neo-Nazi Stalinists? Right-wing communists? Well, yeah, add ″transphobic″ and ″islamophobic″ labels, too, then everything bad is listed. Ну что поделаешь, надо смириться.Iwan Moldowan (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM mr one-edit-but-know-my-way-around-wikipedia account. Volunteer Marek  20:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::::If I were you, I'd rather try to fix the nonsense you concocted [14], [15] instead of trying to shoot the messenger. The dadaist nonsense I cited is really not only an egregious violation of NPOV, but, well, an insult to intelligence. Iwan Moldowan (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I see. So you're this joker. Not even gonna bother filing an SPI. Volunteer Marek  21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that the present source should be removed (per TFD) until a proper one is found, though I think this article seems to imply something similar (would be WP:SYNTH to include as is). RGloucester — ☎ 20:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The realclearpolitics source has already been replaced by the one from the Jamestown Foundation, which is an investigatory piece that itself cites references to back up every conclusion it makes, so therefore it is of the highest quality. What regular news source cites references? The Devil's Advocate is misrepresenting the wording of the lede to suggest that it implies that "the entire period of unrest as "ultranationalist" or extremist in nature". That is not the case at all, the wording "pro-Russian, anti-government, and ultra-nationalist groups" clearly suggests that the unrest is by disparate groups exhibiting one or more of the characteristics of pro-Russian, anti-government and/or ultra-nationalism. What about this source or this one? It is one thing to claim neo-nazis and ultra-nationalists were involved with Euromaidan, with the current government in Kiev, and with the volunteer battalions fighting the rebels, but don't pretend the same isn't happening with respect to the separatists. --Nug (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The wording used in the Jamestown article is "Since the end of February 2014, demonstrations by pro-Russian, anti-government, and ultra-nationalist groups." I don't think the article says that ultra-nationalists were involved in demonstrations but that some of the people involved in the violence are ultra-nationalists. I think we should mention the far right's involvement but I don't think it is best included in this sentence. Also, the source uses "ultra-nationalist" as a synonym for far right nationalism. Presumably there were more moderate nationalists in the demonstrations. TFD (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Capitalismojo and Nug, if you're of the conviction that Real Clear Politics com and the Jamestown Foundation are WP:RS, I'd suggest you start an RSN section explaining why, and why they are appropriate in the context of this article. Good luck on that. Neither meet any RS standards I've come across (other than being used as WP:BIASed sources requiring WP:INTEXT attribution - and there, only if there is clear talk page consensus). I failed to find any substance in either article... but, then, once you've picked out the frothing-at-the-mouth rhetoric, there isn't much left, really. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Insert: Ordinarily the person who has the problem with a ref can start something at RSN. RCP is a professional news org owned and run by Forbes. The RCP article is not an op-ed. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Response: There appears to be consensus on this talk page (and via multiple reverts of your content and ref by various editors) that your ref is WP:UNDUE and plain old undesirable. Given the circumstances, the onus is on you to find consensus via an RSN that the ref and content you wish to introduce is acceptable in this context. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, incidentally, as regards the Jamestown Foundation article, I assume this is your expert? Not sure as to his standing in the global academic world, or his standing in the world of journalism. Is Muskingum University a recognised university with serious credentials? (EDIT) Addendum: I've noticed that they finally managed to scrape through accreditation in 2012. Sarcasm aside, I'd be very wary at this stage to grab at any papers, articles, etc. just because they're written by an academic. The scholar in case here has a clearly identifiable bias. Until there are more academics publishing on recent events, there is nothing to compare his views to, or identifiable academic consensus as to mainstream analysis of the events. I'd rather wait it out until there is academic discourse than allow WP:RECENTISM dictate the direction of the terminology applied. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't post the think-tank ref, but I read your link and I'll note that the author got his PhD at Ohio State not Miskingum and apparently wrote his dissertation on these very issues. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the Eurasia Daily Monitor of the Jamestown Foundation qualifies as a reliable news source. All that means is that we can rely on the facts they present, it does not mean it is not biased or even that many people share the opinions that individual writers express. I would concentrate on the fact it does not support the information presented. Capitalismojo, whether or not RealClearNews is a news reliable source, columns, even when published in reliable sources, are rarely considered reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with both of you that there are articles published by the Jamestown Foundation that need to be evaluated on a case by case basis, notably in light of critiques of the foundation. Nevertheless, given the large number of scholars in the world who are recognised authorities (many of whom have based their careers on being controversial), in order to adhere to the spirit of the project, a little discretion and good judgement needs to be applied in the use of sources, particularly when choosing to use heavily value-laden terminology just because it can be attributed. Within the context of where 'ultra-nationalist' was being introduced to the content, I'd consider it to be inappropriate on various policy and guideline levels, the most obvious on being per WP:SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

A major problem is that someone reads something in a dubious source then tries to find a reliable source supporting it. I think we could avoid many of these issues if editors would stay with mainstream media and provide the same weight to information that they do. Did CNN cover this? Did the New York Times?. If not, it's hard to justify its inclusion. TFD (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I hardly think that the opinion of a Marxist think tank, Institute for Policy Studies, reportedly funded by the KGB back in its day, on The Jamestown Foundation carries any weight given the obvious ideological bias. And attacking the character and qualifications of the author really doesn't do you credit Iryna. More useful would be to see how more mainstay organisations rate the value of the Jamestown Foundation, for example the UNHCR endorses the JF as a valid source:

"Utilizing indigenous and primary sources, Jamestown’s material is delivered without political bias, filter or agenda. It is often the only source of information which should be, but is not always, available through official or intelligence channels, especially in regard to Eurasia and terrorism."[16]. IPS doesn't even get a mention.

And that indeed what JF has done in its article "The Involvement of Russian Ultra-Nationalists in the Donbas Conflict", cite indigenous and primary Russian language sources that point to involvement ultra-nationalists. It is thus a secondary source. Where is the synthesis? JF explicitly states Russian ultra-nationalists are involved citing supporting sources that can be verified, and that is what the text in this article states without any embellishment. --Nug (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I do apologise for being snide about the author. You're quite right to reprimand me on that issue, Nug.

By the same token, I believe you're doing yourself a huge disservice in countering criticisms by Institute for Policy Studies on the basis of its having been "...reportedly funded by the KGB back in its day...". What next? Should I now note that I've heard tell of the Jamestown Foundation being funded by the Illuminati? Could we please keep fringe theories and our own political predilections out of the argument. My view is quite simply that the content you added was bad WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDUE in the context. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The RealClearPolitics reference has to go. The title is a pov and it is an opinion piece. The intro does not need the reference and there are way better references available. Inotherwords; it is going to be edited out if used as a reference and to those that try and keep it in will be subject to the 3 revert rule. The word fascism has no place in the article. IF IT IS SO IMPORTANT MAKE THE CASE, RATHER THAN SAYING THE SOURCE IS GOOD, SAY WAY THE SOURCE IS NEEDED. HAVEN'T SEEN ANY REASONS WHY THE SOURCE IS REQUIRED?? --Russiansunited (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Check your caps lock. It seems broken. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Soldiers' Mothers is a Western-funded NGO!

Its claims should not be treated as a fact. Futhermore, soldiers' mothers has no inside access to casualty figures in the Russian military, so whatever numbers they mention is clearly a conjecture, and probably a lie.

In short, Soldier's Mothers cannot be considered a reliable source when it comes to (alleged) Russian military casualties in Ukraine. This should be clearly stated in the article, so that the readers don't get undue impression that there is some hard evidence of Russian military involvement in Ukraine.Keverich2 (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That's absurd, you seriously claiming a mother would not notice her dear beloved son dying from gunshot wounds? The numbers provided by Soldier's Mothers would have been collated from mothers, obviously, and thus are reliable. --Nug (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if there is a gunshot wound, there is no way of knowing if it was in Ukraine or North Caucasus or any other conflict Russia is actually involved in. It could have been an accident (hundreds of soldiers die from "dedovshina" every year). Once again, I'd like to draw everyone's attention to this blatant contradiction, when the data on Ukrainian casualties is taken exclusively from official sources, while the Russian casualties are alleged based on comments made by some Western-funded NGO!Keverich2 (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why

This edit seems to be using Wiki as a ref, hence the revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What's you problem? This edit uses news article a refKeverich2 (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Soldier's Mothers is the name of the "human rights" organisation, which made the claim.Keverich2 (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No Chechen paramilitaries in Ukraine!

So why does article claims they're fighting on the rebel side? It's just one of the many ways pro-Kiev activists introduce blatant fiction in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia piece.

Or perhaps pro-Kiev folks don't know what the word 'paramilitary' means? The [NYtimes article] referenced here only mentions specific volonteers from Chechnia and other Russian regions. The word paramilitary is never used in that article, so if you want to write "chechen paramilitaries" in Ukraine, you need to find an actual source.Keverich2 (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Please drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Also, "paramilitary" is obviously a correct term and the article does say they are there. You've just come up with a flimsy reason to remove sourced info. Volunteer Marek  06:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, we have some major comprehension problems here. The word 'Paramilitary' refers to an organization, not an individual fighter. Show me an actual quote from the article that deals with 'Chechen paramilitaries' in Ukraine.Keverich2 (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Drop the personal attacks. Here and elsewhere.

Here: [17] [18].

You are using this as an excuse to remove the "Russians" and "Chechens" from the infobox. Volunteer Marek  07:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I was looking for an actual quote and I only found this: "The Chechen leader has derided allegations that he dispatched militias to Ukraine" Again, you don't seem to know what paramilitary means. Just because some rebels "look like they come from North Caucasus", does not mean there is a Chechen paramilitary force operating in Eastern Ukraine. You might want to read wiki page on Paramilitary. Educate yourself.Keverich2 (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Press control-F. Type in "paramilitaries" into the little box. Presto.

Anyway, the issue is irrelevant. If you'd like we could change it to "Russian and Chechen soldiers" or something. Here, this just looks like an excuse to try and remove the words "Russian" and "Chechen" with this "paramilitary" business just a red herring. Volunteer Marek  07:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not looking for excuses. I'm looking to remove unsourced BS.

Volonteer fighters from Russian Federation - that's how I'd like to have it. "Chechen soldiers" makes no sense. Chechnia has no army.Keverich2 (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's sourced. "Volonteer fighters from Russian Federation" is obvious POV and contradicts reliable sources. It is irrelevant whether Chechnia has an army or not. Volunteer Marek  14:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Chechen reference is what??? A primary source is not allowed on wiki. Have doubts about the primary source neutrality. Please provide a secondary source saying this, and until this is done the Chechen wording is inappropriate in the article. --Russiansunited (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Heavy pro-Kiev bias in the article

The information on Ukrainian casualties is based entirely on official Ukrainian claims, even though the rebels claim to have killed thousands of pro-Kiev fighters already. Hundreds of Ukrainian troops and paramilitaries were exterminated south of Ilovaysk, but official Ukrainian casualty figures have barely budged. Ridiculous!

On the other hand, the article asserts that 200 Russian soldiers were killed in Ukraine, based on some 'human rights activists', even though this figure is clearly a conjecture. Activists have no access to this kind of information in Russia and the Russian government has yet to admit it's fighting in Ukraine.

Overall, the article assigns undue credibility to pro-Kiev and pro-Western sources. Pro-rebel and pro-Russian sources are ignored.

Neutrality alert!Keverich2 (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is Kiyv Post considered a reliable source on the alleged Russian military involvement in Ukraine? Completely and utterly ridiculous!Keverich2 (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The wests position should be the one in the movie November Man, it seeks Russia to join Nato. The dream team. The pov in the article undermines this, thank you Keverrich for taking on this misguided pov. Nato thanks you too Keverich. --Russiansunited (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Volunteer Marek  05:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should not present the estimates of the Union of the Committees of Soldiers' Mothers of Russia as fact, particularly when the source used, GlobalPost does not do so. All we can say is that the Committee provided these estimates. As for bias, that is unavoidable. But we should go with mainstream Western media rather than the Kyiv Post. There is significant coverage in mainstream Western media to cover the story. TFD (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point. This NGO is simply not in the position to provide any estimates. They have no access to primary data. (I might as well make a claim that Barack Obama has a vagina) The fact that these claims have been parroted countless times in mainstream Western media doesn't make them any more accurate.Keverich2 (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't think a mother attending her son's funeral is "access to primary data"? --Nug (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't make any sense at all. Hundreds of servicemen die in the Russian army, during peacetime.Keverich2 (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@TFD, The Kyiv Post is mainstream Western media, it is owned and edited by Westerners. --Nug (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm,it seems to be non-objective then, considering current conflict of the West with Russia.

I also agree with Keverrich that current article is in terrible state, with every anti-Russian propaganda treated at face value, with Kiev's claims taken as fact.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well that is your POV, as a "Supporter of Polish-Russian reconciliation and friendship" according to your user page, but I don't think Wikipedia should become a venue for WP:ADVOCACY no matter how noble you may think it is. --Nug (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is biased to the point of absurd. A small group of pro-Kiev activists have made it this way. And the worst part, these people have the gall to deny that the article is biased (they keep removing tag). Clearly, they have no interest in improving Wikipedia, they must think they are at war, or something.Keverich2 (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

:::I'd rather say that a small group of paid FSB trolls are trying to fill this article and other articles of this topic with thinly veiled pro-Putin stuff. Andrew Stepanovich Gongadze-Kolokowsky (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because I have a different perspective, doesn't mean I work for FSB.(LOLOLOL) If you believe in these conspiracy theories, you should not edit wikipedia.Keverich2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Struck edit by sock of User:Abdurrahman Muslim. Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The POV warning attached to the article should not have been removed

Many are saying there is a point of view in the article, thus wiki allows/permits the pov label on the article. If someone wishes to remove it state in the talk page why you think there is not point of view dispute. --Russiansunited (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

point - There is a merge discussion taking place above. Please stop obsessing about details and pay attention to what is happening on the talk page outside of your WP:NOTHERE concerns. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

When editors award merit of the Ukraine awards and edit this article, wiki policy is clear a point of view label can be given. Harpy please explain the use of the merit of Ukraine award as you were given one for your edits to this article. --Russiansunited (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Russiansunited: Your complete misunderstanding as to who can award me, as well as the rationale behind any such awards, has been explained to you clearly on your own talk page. I'd suggest it best that you strike through your personal attack. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Harpy you have not explained the MERIT OF THE Ukraine award given to you and how you and other editors are targeting single editors working alone to remove their edits in this article. Rather than saying the rationale has been explained, do explain it here as it was certainly not explained elsewhere why you received the Merit of the Ukraine award, shows an extreme point of view and wiki does not like editors working in concert to restrict individual editors. --Russiansunited (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

edit: pro Russian separatists verses pro Russian groups

The vast majority of western media outlets secondary sources say pro Russian separatists.

Only a few secondary sources say pro Russian groups, this should decide this edit issue.--Russiansunited (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, because they were not all separatists. There were many federalists, and various other varieties of protestors. Casting them all as "separatists" ignores the nuance of the situation. "Groups" merely means to imply there were disparate groups with different interests, which there were. RGloucester — ☎ 22:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Try reading sources carefully, Russiansunited. You're conflating some of the groups represented in the context of demonstrations with current reportage on the conflict. Of course you're going to find a multitude of articles using the terminology 'pro-Russian separatists' in relation to the combatants. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Military Intervention?

Im German and in the German-speaking countries the most news papers and other mass media dont reported about a military intervention. Are there any evidences for it? And what about the American mercenaries?--77.3.77.126 (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

References

The article has many references to junk Ukrainian sources. References to small news sites that no one knows. I suggest leaving only major ones like Ukrainska Pravda, TSN, UNN, Kyiv Post. By the way, the last one is the only one that ever attempted to be objective (or rather, it chooses more cautious words), the other ones have always been just propaganda engines for Maidan supporters. As I said, I suggest leaving only the major ones and add more major Russian and Ukrainian pro-former government and anti-Maidan sources for balance. Now there are, like, two Russian ones and 460 Western and pro-Maidan ones. Probably more than two, but they are hard to find. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

So, how about adding more different pro-rebels sources to make the article look more neutral, to balance the opinion of the propagandistic Ukrainian and Western ones? Cause Ukrainska Pravda and UNN and so on are terribly POV, their very aim is to blame the rebels and Russia for everything. And yet they are being used here as references.
Note that I'm not against using them cause they represent the opinion of one of the sides on the conflict. But they must be balanced with sources supporting the other side. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Move probably appropriate (rename)

There is an inaccuracy in characterizing the topic as "pro-Russiann" in that the unrest is not a matter of expressing sympathy, support for Russia, Russian policy or the Russian existential situation so much as an expression of the will and desire of many within east Ukraine to separate from Ukraine and then persist either as an independent people's republic, or annex to Russia. It is about their own issue not about RUssia per se. Obviously we are chained to some degree by the usage of journalists and even more so by academic historians or Slavic studies specialists. Honoring WP:NOR and WP:SYN however does not mean that we have to misidentify topics. WP:RS pertains primarily to the text of an article and to some degree, but a lesser one, to the actual title. The selection of a title is more subject to the rationality of WP editors rather than the trends of media. Hence, it seems that the move is probably justified by logic but might not prevail if the consensus is formed without a recognition of the distinction betwen WP:RS as it applies to naming conventions as opposed to article text. Wikidgood (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Probable rename might be 2014 Russian nationalist unrest in Ukraine Wikidgood (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That's an absurd proposal, at face value. Most of the protesters were not "Russian nationalists". Keep in mind that this article is not just what happened in Donbass or Crimea. It is also about Kharkiv, Odessa, and other parts of Ukraine that had pro-Russian protests. Many wanted to federalise Ukraine, and do other various things. Don't pass off the fringe as the majority, and don't conflate the Donbass events with what happened elsewhere. RGloucester — ☎ 21:21, 3 October 2014 (9 days ago) (UTC−4)

I have objected in the past to the use of the expression "pro-Russian" here but have gotten used to it. "Pro-Russian" does indeed accurately describe how the rebels see themselves. In a recent interview, a rebel said, "What is happening now is that the grandsons of soldiers of the Red Army [which was by far the most instrumental force in the defeat of Nazi Germany] are fighting against the grandsons of the Banderites [Ukrainians who fought on the side of the Nazis, who committed atrocities not just against Russians and Belorussians, but also against Poles and Jews]." Thus, for people against the current government, "pro-Russian" entails being against the government. This is why I no longer object to this term. It corresponds to the self-understanding of people who are against the current government. (Previously, I thought the title should be changed to something like "anti-central Ukrainian government unrest".) – Herzen (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Herzen thank you for making a thoughtful comment rather than simply branding the suggestion as "absurd" etcetera. Now indeed no one thinks that the protesters who are opposing the Ukrainian government are not "pro-Russian", except perhaps Mr. Gloucester, who I don't think I quite understand. But the concept of "pro-Russian" does not really do justice to the fact that many of the people behind the unrest are in fact themselves Russian citizens. It seems more accurate perhaps to think of it as "Russian-directed" but that appellation would probably not achieve consensus because there is a tendancy towards merely voting consensus. And it is not entirely directed by Russian intelligence. But clearly it is not mere "pro-Russian" sentiment. Your concept is useful in that they are indeed against the government. I think we are in a bit of a quandary though. I think that there will be an attempt to block consensus just for the sake of being argumentative. This article overall has done a good job and Gloucester has made many very good points throughout the history of edits but it seems that he will be tenaciously guarding his own preferences It is certainly unhelpful to simply dismiss as "absurd" a perfectly valid point. It plays into the hands of Vladimir Putin to allow Wikipedia readers to think that the violence is all simply a matter of locals who are "pro-Russian" when in fact much of the agitation is coming from Russia itself. I don't know that Wikipedia has the mechanisms and the will to address this POV slanting. So far the coverage of the Donbass war has been better than I would have expected but I don't sense a spirit of collaboration. I think I will have to address the Gloucester points one by one.

To say that the point I am making is absurd is addressed above but going forward please refrain from making insulting dismissals just because you disagree.

Most of the protesters were not "Russian nationalists". (-Glouceser)

I am not saying they are and am not invested in that particular terminology. But the "pro-Russian" ones seem to be pretty clearly "Russian nationalists". I don't understand how you could think otherwise. They are flying Russian flags. They want to separate and join the Russian Federation. It is not an exact scientific term like the wavelength of light or the structure of DNA. But as a political term it seems more accurate than 'pro-Russian' which does violence to the fact that they are not a group of people concerned about helping Russia they are (nationalists) concerned with joining Russia, and it does violence to the fact that many of the agitators are Russian citizens themselves. Please explain how it is that you think that the pro-Russians are not Russian nationalists.

I would actually prefer the term "Russian chauvinist" but think that would be harder to get consensus on.

Most of the protesters were not "Russian nationalists".

Obviously there are counter protesters who are pro-government, pro-Kiev, Ukrainian patriots, or, if you will, Ukrainian nationalists. But the term "pro-Russian:" no better than "Russian nationalist" or "Russian chauvinist" to include that aspect nor is this article aboutthat. Perhaps a middle ground would be available if we put on our thinking caps.

"Keep in mind that this article is not just what happened in Donbass or Crimea. It is also about Kharkiv, Odessa, and other parts of Ukraine that had pro-Russian protests." (Gloucester)

Of course. I don't see how that point is at all relevant.

" Many wanted to federalise Ukraine, and do other various things. Don't pass off the fringe as the Keep[sic]" (Gloucester)

Well of course there was talk of federalization, again a Putin talking point, but no one really thinks they want federalization. But even granting for the sake of discussion that very naive acceptance of the Putin smokescreen, and taking it at face value, it is still a mechanism to accomodate nationalism. Federalization is exactly that an accomodation for nationalism. The USSR to some extent paid lip service and/or gave room for real nationalism through the mechanisms of the SSR's and the autonomous areas. I appreciate that you are concerned with more than just Donbass (and I am surprised you think that my point depends upon a narrowed concern with Donbass), But please take that insight to a broader level: the underlyig problem exists in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Caucasus andcentral Asia wherever there is a substantial Russian speaking Russian ethnic population that can be stirred up with a little FSB money under the table. There will be these outbreaks of Russian nationalism. It is not really adequate to characterize this as "pro-Russian" because it is not a matter of them being supportive of the Russians it is a matter of them identifying with Russia and being generally desirous of more autonomy if not separtism.

Rather than arguing though I think that you have a lot of insight into WP and into the situation in Ukraine. IF there was to be a different name what might you be able to suggest? 2014 Separtist unrest in Ukraine? I would have to give you credit for at least provoking the conversation to a deeper level, I never would have come up with that idea without your feedback.

You have done great work in this area I have generally agreed with your views. I hope that your intellect can help continue the development of WP in this area, whether or not we come to a consensus on this particular point. Thank you. Wikidgood (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Secessionist unrest in Ukraine Just another idea. Wikidgood (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I oppose all renaming, especially these proposals, which are a bunch of original research. RGloucester — ☎ 02:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my Americanism, but I couldn't help myself. "Pisses" seemed quite appropriate. Please explain, dear "Wikidgood", why you modified my comment with this edit, and destroyed its grammatical form. Why did you do this, and quote me with a "sic"? Hmm? Why? RGloucester — ☎ 02:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been off line due to RW obligations. Please pardon the delay in providing a response for your edification and enjoyment.We don't "vote" nor do you own the page. What counts is not whether User:RGloucester supports or opposes a rename, a move, AfD's, edits, etc. but what serves the common objectives of the Wikipedia Foundation mission statement to which we all presumbably are dedicated to good faith collaboration upon. I note that on three recent occasions you have used highly derogatory characterizations of things you don't agree with but in these instances provide no rationale or logical explanation. You seem to think that because you have in the past made some points, and prevailed in having things go your way, that you are entitled to use bullying tactics. Please do not dismiss what you don't agree with by making snide remarks intended to belittle those who do not agree with you and do not make comments about other editor's WP log in name which are straight from the gutter. As you can see, the suggestion in this thread has achieved some resonance and support. The plain fact is that the unrest is not all entirely due to "pro-Russian" activities. Just yesterday there was a riot by your favored participants, and Right Sector affiliates were featured on international media swinging a doubled chain some meter and a half long at riot police in Kiev. You may hide behind a lot of links to WP policies but clearly you do not read and appreciate those policies and you are barely ninety days out of a suspension which resulted from your combative style, rudeness and disrespect for WIkipedia moderators. You seem also to be hyperscrutinizing my edits and almost instantaneously attacking them with juvenile hyperbole or reverting without discussion. This is similar to behaviour you exhibited in the past when you bullied others to assure that your point of view has prevailed. Among the items you have subjected to this hyperscrutiny is that a few non-pertinent words were inadvertantly deleted when I kindly took the time to provide a detailed point by point discussion of your remarks. The deletion is an artifact of the incorrect sensitivity adjustment on my touchpad and I apologize for any inconvenience. Nevertheless, you should get the point and if you disagree please state your reasons rather than rest on laurels of past instances when you have bullied other editors into accepting your Euro-centric point of view and downplaying matters such as the Odessa tragedy, overt neo-Nazism amongst your comrades in the ranks of the Russophobic tendency and the provocations against ethnic Russians in your privileged area of interest. In short please stick to the issues and keep your bathroom humor and schoolyard bullying to yourself. Thanks.

Lord save us all, it seems the calvary's barged onto the field of battle. I shan't indulge this behaviour, so spare me the nonsense. "Inadvertently deleted"? Then why, dear fellow, did you feel it necessary to include the "sic"? Hm? Perhaps it was a matter of bad faith manipulation? Or perhaps a mere mistake? Who's to know. I shall return to the bunker where my fascist neo-Nazi comrades and I reside, and wherein I shall plot to overthrow the great Lord Protector of Wikipedia, "Wikidgood". RGloucester — ☎ 20:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Gloucester, please. Spare us the sarcasm and stick to the issues, which in this thread is the problem that the article title does not accurately reflect the contents of the article, which includes the general unrest including but not limited to the unrest provoked by, continued by and RS-documented to be unrest on the part of Ukrainian nationalist formations. This includes but is not limited to Right Sector, some of whose members are by their own admission sympathetic to National Socialism, the Social-National formations, and various parties who sport Wolfsangel. In addition, there is Russophilic unrest which is not strictly speaking pro-Russian at all but more specifically anti-Maidan, anti-EU, anti-Western, anti-Kievan. Indeed if you goolge "Unrest in Ukraine" you will see that although some journalists use the expression "pro-Russian unrest" most don't, and it is Wikipedia itself which is the most prominent exponent of the coinage. Thus, it is a violation of WP:OR to propose that title as some kind of sacred title. Much of the article itself is also blatant OR violation. So if you have anything to say to the issue please have at it. As for your fixation on the typo yes indeed I did at the time think that it was Spelling Is Correct but I already explained the technical glitch which caused this problem and I did apologize. Man up. accept the apology, and put your fertile brain to work improving WP rather than thinking up crafty little insults. Thank you in advance. Wikidgood (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Is Barack Obama a "participant" and if so why not list Angela Merkl and Vladimir Putin?

It seems odd to list Obama along withA, Durgin the gun-toting rebels and the loyalist militias. Is that NPOV? And is it consistent with WP:UNDUE to single him out and leave out so many others who might be on the list under a similar rationale? It seems the word "participant" applies in a wholly different sense. Note also that US policy is to deny lethal aid and real time intel, intended to differentiate US from the level of participation that this list seems to imply is meant. The article glosses the distinction between direct and indirect participants, hence, violates WP:NPOV due to the weighting problem.2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine#Other_foreign_participants Wikidgood (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

International response to the unrest in eastern and south Ukraine

Oddly, the edit warring over the section title, in which Gloucester seems heavily invested in Anything-but-Wikidgood's ideas, has led to a useful insight. The section is clearly about international response, with scores of lines about various countries, and only a small section about Ukraine. The two links below refer to "International reaction". Yet Glouc.insists on reverting when I modify the section head from "Response" by inserting the word "International". Aside from the childishness of the revert, which accomplishes nothing and arguable detracts from the usability of the page, his actions highlight a glaring ommission in this article. There is in fact very little written about the response of the Ukrainian national government. Much is said in related articles but little in this one. That is rather ironic. So I would suggest that we go ahead and expand the coverage and include a section which may also include response from civil society within Ukraine as well. If GLoucester is willing to contribute content to that effect, I would pass on calling him out on edit warring over the insertion of the word "international". As it stands now, however, the fact that the section pertains to International reaction is plain and obvious to all. CC User:RGloucesterWikidgood (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The response of the Ukrainian government is primarily dealt with in the body of the article. However, the kind of response that belongs in a "response" section are bits and pieces of statements from important figures. That's how it usually goes here, and that's how it is here. It does not imply that encompasses all possible responses by all parties. We have child articles for a reason, regardless. As far as "international", there is no need to lengthen the section heading and clutter the ToC, especially considered the responses included in the section are not purely international. RGloucester — ☎ 23:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not "clutter" to change a misleading, overly broad caption to a two-word caption which identifies the content. It is surprising that someone as literate as yourself so stubbornly insists that the section is somehow no longer "International" when it lists responses from the United Nations, the European Union, NATO, the OSCE and 13 different countries. This should be obvious to you. The fact that among those 13 is Ukraine is a red herring, as the Ukraine section is minimal and is at any rate a part of the international response. But as I have suggested, rather than edit warring over minute points, which really seems to indicate a sense of ownership of the page to which you are not entitled, it would enhance your reputation and benefit the WP readers if you would go on ahead and provide some content regarding the Ukrainian response. I don't agree that it is so liberally sprinkled throughout the article that there is no need for a section on it. Be that as it may, I don't think that very many people care all that much one way or another. But it might as a matter of policy and principle be worthwhile for some other editor, or reader, to weigh in. As I see it, one should be able to scan the TOC and get some idea of what specifically is available, and the larger the article the more useful a good TOC can be. You seem to take the view that the reader should have to guess what the section titles mean, scroll down, and, as if opening a box of cracker jack, be surprised at what the section is actually about. Wikidgood (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal re Timeline

This is an empty section. It contains nothing but a link. Thus it belongs in the See also section. Any objections? If so please state a rationale in terms of WP policy, thanks. Wikidgood (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I object. It is common to use headings for the purpose of providing a link. In this case, the section was transferred to a new article, and hence a link remains. There is no policy that supports or opposes this style of usage. It is a purely editorial matter, and it is convenient for readers. RGloucester — ☎ 22:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that this exact location in the article is convenient for readers? Because certainly the article flows better and presents a better page if links are collated at one point. I could understand if your argument was that this location made sense but that is not what you are stating. It seems that we are striving for a readable article not a ragged concatenation of raw links. Wikidgood (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing ragged about it. It is a timeline of the events, and hence, is linked where the timeline would be if it had remained in this article and had not been spun-off. RGloucester — ☎ 22:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay that sounds like a pretty good reason to have a ragged raw link stuck right in the middle of an otherwise well formed article. I will roll with it. Wikidgood (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia precedent regarding "Participants"

Obviously Wikipedians use the word "notable" as a term of art, to use a phrase that one of the local (to page_ editors is fond of. But any casual familiarity with the English language, which, incidentally, another rather contentious editor claims to be a valiant defender of, indicates that the terms "notables" suggests high honors, reverence and universal esteem. Yet many of the participants in the inter-communal unrest in east and south Ukraine have been indicted for multiple felonies, Amnesty International has contended that there have been war crimes, and indeed there are allegations of summary executions by the Russophilic insurgents, in turn, Russia alleging at least SOME questionable mass graves. Irrespective of the bona fides of these allegations, or any mitigating factors due to the fog of war. Wikipedia is committed to a policy of clarity, conciseness and above all, WP:NPOV. Granted, the high falutin' defenders of the King's English may distinguish between notable in the singular and notables in the plural. However, people who get their supposedly "nuetral" take on contentious issues might not have the same level of command of the language.

Aside from the above rational exposition, it appears that indeed the precedent on WP is indeed in favor of my preference to omit the adulatory adjective "notable" and to simply list "participants". Here is just a small portion of the evidence:

Participants in World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_I Wikipedia

Participants in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_II

Participants in Operation Enduring Freedom - Wikipedia, the ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_Operation_Enduring_Fr... Wikipedia

Please explain any rational for tampering with the mainpage thanks. Wikidgood (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a good edit. RGloucester — ☎ 22:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean but AFG. I would be interested in your opinion on the below matter (Obama not Putin,Merkl and whether those kinds of "participants" even belong in the list. Thanks. Wikidgood (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Army of the South-East

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

Should be considered for edition

Groundless detention of number of journalists by the Russian FSB

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

Russian losses

The source used for Russian losses says "Anton Tumanov died in an Aug. 13 battle near the Ukrainian town of Snizhnye. The battle, the soldiers said, killed more than 100 Russian soldiers serving in the 18th motorised rifle brigade of military unit 27777, which is based outside the Chechen capital of Grozny." and "Human rights workers and military workers say some 15 other Russian soldiers have been killed in Ukraine," So would Moscow Connection explain why he reverted this edit? Which clearly follows what the source says. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

First all all, you wrote "150" stating in the edit summary that it was what the source said when it didn't. Secondly, these numbers (100) are based on hearsay / words of an involved party. (I guess the expression "involved party" is not the best when talking about a war, but I don't know how to say it better.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

So you removed reliably cited content because of a fucking typo? Don't do that again, next time look at the actual edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think it could be a typo. Sorry. I couldn't find it in the source, so I reverted. (And at first you reverted to "17 confirmed" which I can't see anywhere in the citation you provided.)
(By the way, all these reports are unconfirmed and look like part of war propaganda.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Question

OK, what exactly was wrong with my edit? It tells essentially the same and removes references, which are not needed in the introduction (can be included back). The only difference: it now tells that Ukrainian military operation was response not only to insurgency, but also to Russian military intervention - as explained in more details on page about 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The intervention in Donbass happened after the war had already begun. It was not a cause for the launch of the so-called "Anti-Terrorist Operation", which is why that was called the "ATO", and not "war against Russia". RGloucester — ☎ 03:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean intervention in Donbass ("that happened after") by regular Russian Army or by regular Ukrainian forces? Yes, the war on Donbass began between Ukrainian forces and "insurgents". I agree if you mean that. My text does not tells anything about "war against Russia". It tells about regular Russian military forces in Crimea (as admitted by Putin) and in Donbass (per majority of RS and as described in 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine). So, what was problem? But OK, I rephrased it per your comment. My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Your version (both of them) is extremely POV, it aliases a link to "intervention" as "occupation". I don't like the current version either (it doesn't make much sense to me and the part starting with "after a crisis in the region, ..." looks like a clumsy attempt to link all the existing articles about Crimea and Donbass from the lead), but yours is much, much worse. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I can use "intervention" rather than "occupation". People, you do not explain what exactly was wrong with my version (I did not make significant changes), except telling "this is POV". My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Title wrong

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

---

The movement is not pro-russian but separatist, with a strong tie to russia and indeed support from russia. To state the rebels are all pro russian and will join Russia if victorious is POV.. and not neutral. Reaper7 (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not what "pro-Russian" means, and we've explained this to you thousands of times. "Pro-Russian" means "favouring strong ties with Russia", not "favouring annexation by Russia". What's more, it is wrong to describe the event as "separatist", given that many were seeking federalisation and various other things. Please don't base your comments in recentism. RGloucester — ☎ 22:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think current title is OK. One might only suggest to change "pro-Russian unrest..." to "pro-Russian activities..." or "pro-Russian separatism ..." as a slight improvement. My very best wishes (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Yes, the title is bad, because it gives the false impression that this is about Russia, when it is really about the Ukrainian project. The rebels believe that the project of building a Ukrainian nation has failed and cannot be salvaged. A recent blog post explains this:

The rebels and their most ardent supporters no longer believe in Ukrainian nation-building. They do not conceive of the Ukraine as the proper political unit for them. This is apparent from their rejection of Ukrainian national symbols and ambition to build up local people’s republics. Many may have considerable, or even mainly, Ukrainian ethnic ancestry, but do not consider themselves part of the Ukrainian political nation. Some are happy to concede that they are Ukrainian, but do not want Ukrainians as a separate political nation from other East Slavs. …

The Donbass rebellion is not a war of the kind we have seen in the Balkans with its sharp ethno-national divisions. It is more like the American Revolution, or the American Civil War. It is a rebellion of people who no longer subscribe to the Ukrainian national project, but who are not necessarily ethnically distinct from those who continue to do so. It is neither a rebellion of Russian-speaking Ukrainians nor of ethnic Russians. It is a rebellion of those Ukrainian citizens who want to remove themselves from the project of Ukrainian nation-building.

Once this is understood, the question becomes what the article should be renamed to. The only thing that comes to my mind is "Anti-Ukraine unrest" (as opposed to "anti-Ukrainian unrest".) Of course, what would then be the full title, "Anti-Ukraine unrest in Ukraine" sounds paradoxical. What about "Ukraine rejectionism"? Suggestions are welcome. We need to brainstorm here.
What is asserted in that blog post is consistent with views expressed by a US ambassador to the USSR, who also blogs. Jack Matlock wrote:

Ukraine is a state but not yet a nation. In the 22-plus years of its independence, it has not yet found a leader who can unite its citizens in a shared concept of Ukrainian identity.

Since Ukraine leaders could not develop an inclusive way of building a Ukrainian national identity, they took the path of fascism. It is not surprising that Ukrainians who remember the last time when Russians and Ukrainians had to defeat fascism were not happy with this turn. The fact alone that voter turnout in the recent parliamentary elections was the lowest in Ukrainian history shows that Ukraine is a failed state. It is not just the rebels in Donbas who no longer believe in the Ukrainian project. No amount of waging war and constant nationalist propaganda shown on TV can change that. The voters in the DPR and LPR showed up in droves and were in a festive mood; voters in the rest of Ukraine were few and far between and looked depressed, the way they did in Soviet times. – Herzen (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Say no to WP:OR bunk! Read reliable sources today. RGloucester — ☎ 03:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What RGloucester said. You guys are in the wrong place - if you want to post your analysis of the events there's oodles of internet options for you to do so. This isn't one of them however. Volunteer Marek  03:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And honestly I'm tempted to just remove this whole discussion per WP:NOTAFORUM and the excessive linking to blogs which appears to be promotional. Volunteer Marek  03:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Might be good idea (or simply archiving it quickly), since aside from being a possible violation of WP:NOTAFORUM it is also full of misconception and misleading or rather questionable claims anyway (in particular looking at Herzen's posting).

For instance claiming that the Ukraine has resorted to fascism is frankly close to nonsense. While it is true that fascist groups yielded some influence in the Maidan revolution, they clearly lost in this year's presidential election election with their candidate trailing far behind and in this year's parliamentary election they actually got kicked out even (both svoboda and right sector failed to pass the 5% threshold). In short shorted rather than resorting to (political) fascism Ukrainians voted it out quite decisively (at least for now). And if you take general fascist attitudes or tendencies as a yardstick (rather than the associated political parties), sure they do exist to a degree, but by that measure Putin's Russia (and the current separatists) are arguable even more fascist. Concluding a failed state from a low voter turnout (alone) is a bit of a non sequitur to begin with. Much worse however it is gross mischaracterization. Despite the ongoing civil war in parts of the east the overall voter turn out was at roughly 55%, which is actually much higher than at of the recent US midterms (ca 37%).--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If you can't understand that the form of the current government in Kyiv is fascist, you are no different than an ostrich putting its head in the sand. The Yanukovich government was democratically elected and legitimate; what overthrew it was armed Nazi Banderite goons from Right Sector storming government buildings.

Foreign Policy: Yes, There Are Bad Guys in the Ukrainian Government

Sound policy can only be based on sound analysis of the players involved. That requires conceding the point - even when made by the Kremlin – that more than a few of the protesters who toppled Yanukovych, and of the new leaders in Kiev, are fascists.

Guardian: In Ukraine, fascists, oligarchs and western expansion are at the heart of the crisis

You'd never know from most of the reporting that far-right nationalists and fascists have been at the heart of the protests and attacks on government buildings. One of the three main opposition parties heading the campaign is the hard-right antisemitic Svoboda, whose leader Oleh Tyahnybok claims that a "Moscow-Jewish mafia" controls Ukraine. But US senator John McCain was happy to share a platform with him in Kiev last month. The party, now running the city of Lviv, led a 15,000-strong torchlit march earlier this month in memory of the Ukrainian fascist leader Stepan Bandera, whose forces fought with the Nazis in the second world war and took part in massacres of Jews.

So in the week that the liberation of Auschwitz by the Red Army was commemorated as Holocaust Memorial Day, supporters of those who helped carry out the genocide are hailed by western politicians on the streets of Ukraine. But Svoboda has now been outflanked in the protests by even more extreme groups, such as "Right Sector", who demand a "national revolution" and threaten "prolonged guerrilla warfare".

Yanukovich would not have been toppled without the fascist boots on the ground, so yes, the present Ukrainian regime is fascist. Being in denial about that does not help build an encyclopedia. – Herzen (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed denial does not help to build an encyclopedia. So I suggest you reread carefully what I posted above and read some background material as well (on Yanukovich for instance). The "sources" you quote don't even contradict my argument above, in fact if anything they confirm it. There is no argument that Ukrainian fascists were involved in the Maidan revolution as I mentioned above already. And you can even speculate that without the "fascists boots on the ground" Yanukovich's police state might have prevailed. This however doesn't make the Maidan revolution a fascist takeover unless you blindly ignore the majority of political parties and citizens involved in Maidan as well (speaking about denial). Furthermore both subsequent elections (after Maidan and after the publication of your quoted "sources") turned the fascist into a fringe group that didn't even make it into parliament anymore (nevermind creating "national revolution"). The fact that US foreign policy (and to a degree EU policy) in the past had no problem with supporting fascist regimes in other places and McCain meets with a fascist, doesn't make the Ukraine fascist by association. There is also no argument that Western policies (based on shortsighted national geo-strategic and economic egoism) aggravated the situation in the Ukraine, but that doesn't make the Ukraine fascist either. Avoiding denial requires not to fall for the propaganda from each site and to avoid pressing the realities into black and white schemes. As I pointed out above with regard to election participation the Ukraine is no more a failed state than the US and as far as nationalist/fascist sentiment is concerned the Ukraine is no more "fascist" than Putin's Russia.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Templates

An editor wants to remove the "anti-government protests" templates: [19]. I think it's strange (who would care about the templates, really?) and the editor's edit summaries are unacceptable, too. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Categorization

Someone categorized the pro Russian unrest in Ukraine as anti-government. Even Russian political experts acknowledge the fact of the Russian invasion (Lilia Shevtsova. Putin Ends the Interregnum. Carnegie Moscow Center. 28 August 2014. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

They are anti-government. Ukraine has some kind of government (doesn't it?) and the protests are against it. I wonder why it is now when you decided to remove the templates... I think no one should care about them... --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(And FYI, no one has "acknowledged" anything. She is from the Carnegy Center. She can say whatever she wants. [We have freedom of speech.] It's just her personal opinion.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Moscow Connection, apparently, you care. And about your statement on the Ukrainian government, the article First Chechen War is not categorized as anti-government riots, even though Russia has also "some kind of government". Same thing goes for the Transnistria War and the Russo-Georgian War. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, the LPR "terrorists" acknowledged to the OSCE representatives that they are fighting each other. (Latest from OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine, based on information received as of 18:00 (Kyiv time), 12 November 2014. OSCE.) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it. To me personally, it's like you are saying some random stuff and showing some random links. You probably are basing the removal of the templates on some kind of very clever original research. But it's just an original research. The templates should stay. That's all I can say.
First you say it's a "Russian invasion", now you say some "terrorists" are "fighting themselves". Do they by any chance also bomb themselves? (If anyone reads this and doesn't get it... Ukrainian TV says the "separatists" fire missiles at their own cities... Like, the Ukrainian army has nothing to do with any destroyed villages or killed civilians.) ---Moscow Connection (talk)

Just to be clear, this article does involve protests. This is not the article about the war, or about "Russian invasion". It is impossible to deny that there were protests back in March/April. This is well-documented. RGloucester — ☎ 21:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you add the templates back, then? (I just want this to end cause I'm only here because I'm doing other stuff in another language. I didn't really care about the templates [as you may understand, it's not even remotely serious in comparison to everything else], but I simply didn't like it when the editor removed them like he did [20].) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Clean up needed

This article needs a lot of clean-up. The article should be about political unrest in Ukraine. Armed insurgency, which grew from this political unrest, should be in War_in_Donbass.

Section "Second counter-offensive" should be deleted. Section "Continued fighting" should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5huhulalu (talk • contribs) 03:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Anyone have any objections to those two sections being deleted? They really don't belong here. – Herzen (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

About Liga News

If someone regard Liga News as hoax, please do remove all the statements and citations related to it indiscriminatively. 霎起林野间 (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't regard it as a "hoax". I just don't see that this bit is clearly related to this article. What's more, these stories have not been picked up in mainstream reliable sources. Therefore, I imagine it is WP:UNDUE to include them at this point, even if they are related. RGloucester — ☎ 06:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the explosions in Kharkiv are definitely part of the "unrest" in the region, though might not be directly linked to "Pro-Russian" ideology according only to the sources cited. However, considering the time, the means, and the severity, it is hard to imagine that it has nothing to do with the topic of this article. 霎起林野间 (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

We need to allow reliable sources to make that connection. I agree, that such an explosion would be related to unrest. As you say, though, this article is about the "pro-Russian unrest". More likely, this should be added to Kharkiv article, until it is clear that is linked to this. RGloucester — ☎ 15:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move November 2014

The following is a closed 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: page not moved at this time, per the discussion below; consensus that a more precise title is preferable, and that the current title is more precise. Dekimasuよ! 07:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

---

2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine → Pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine – There isn't one title named "Pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine", which is now a redirect to this article. Is the year necessary for readers to type? A speculation of another pro-Russian unrest violates WP:NOTBALL policy, and a speculation that there will be only one pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine for life also violates the policy. Whether retaining or removing "2014" violates any policy, like WP:NOTBALL or WP:AT, or guideline, like WP:NCE, is up to you. Of course, rules may prevent us from improving the article's title and to help readers search for the topic efficiently, so we can ignore all rules unless one rule may encourage one title and discourage another. George Ho (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose – Are you mad? This is a WP:NDESC title, and it isn't the first time that there has been "pro-Russian unrest" in Ukraine. We need to be WP:PRECISE, otherwise it won't even be clear what the title is referring to. As an example, please see 2006 anti-NATO protests in Feodosia. Please withdraw this proposal at once as boneheaded. RGloucester — ☎ 05:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

"Protests" and "unrest" are not the same. After all, you tried to rename 2014 Hong Kong protests into "Umbrella Revolution" or "Umbrella Movement". And... there is only one anti-NATO protests in Feodosia; Feodosia is a city/town of Crimea, which Russia and Ukraine have been disputing for two decades. --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If they've been disputing it for two decades, that alone is a reason why this article should not have a scope that includes the beginning of history. RGloucester — ☎ 05:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Before Russians and Ukrainians, there were Crimean Tatars. Of course, 2014 Crimea crisis is already part of this unrest. Still, are you certain that readers will type in exactly "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" (without a help from AutoComplete)? --George Ho (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

What a rubbish response. I can't ever be certain what anyone types, and nor can you. Luckily for you, however, there are a wide variety of redirects available. What's more, this article has had no trouble being found for the past seven or more months that I've been working on it. I wonder why that is, Mr Ho? A title that doesn't define the scope of the article is useless to both the reader and the editor. RGloucester — ☎ 05:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@George Ho: Don't feed into it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support I don't see how this goes against WP:NDESC, if there hasn't been a prior unrest in Ukraine why are we adding a date to it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you being boneheaded? Did you read my god-damned comment? There have been many "pro-Russian" agitations since the independence of Ukraine, not least of which is the Feodosia protests. Regardless of that, the proposed title would mean that this article would have to detail the history of pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine since the beginning of time. It would have no scope, per WP:PRECISE, and would not be any easier to find. It would be harder to find, because it would be at a location that didn't make sense. RGloucester — ☎ 05:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't see how this is a bad thing expanding the scope of the article it would make for an interesting read. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester, rescinding your name-calling would be wiser than retaining it. I have been doing rebuttals which turn out ineffective; I bet your rebuttals are attempting to be effective but instead rather insulting. --George Ho (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I concede, I have a sharp tongue, and an even sharper temper. However, the fire in my gut will not recede at your whim. RGloucester — ☎ 05:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Then take a break your sharp tongue is only making for a hostile editing environment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Your tongue is making for a failed encyclopaedia. Which is worse? RGloucester — ☎ 05:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That's your point of view that can be debated I can see people agreeing that going around with a hot temper is not a good way to edit in general. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's not go down that road; civility is the most important thing to do and the important policy to follow. --George Ho (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I can imagine people agreeing that dishonouring the encyclopaedia with pseudo-academic bunk is not a "good way to edit in general". I shan't relent. If there is one thing you must know about me, it is that I might as well be Don Quixote. RGloucester — ☎ 05:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Your insults are like pebbles to me, if you want to have a serious debate lets do it I left my opinion and you attacked it you don't see me cussing or going off at you because in the end this is just another website. Focus on content not the editors please. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I can see the pebbles growing into boulders, lush with moss. I don't speak the American dialect, so I apologise that I simply don't understand what you're trying to say. RGloucester — ☎ 05:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm having trouble even understanding the convoluted rationale, but I'm guessing it's trying to say that there could be some other pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, but yes, that would be crystal-balling, so let's just "ignore all rules" because... not clear exactly why. So no. Volunteer Marek  05:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll rephrase for you: readers first (link to essay actually) by concision or retain such extra precision. --George Ho (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The proposed title fails RF, it does not place readers first, since it makes the confusing statement this covers pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, when it does not, it only covers the 2014 unrest, not unrest of the pro-Russian variety in Ukraine. So the proposed title's scope is much much greater than the actual content of the article, and begs readers for expansion to cover the entire history of pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, or misleads them into thinking there's never been pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine except for this period. As the article title is a descriptive title it should actually describe the topic the article seeks to cover. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – This article is clearly specifically about the unrest that has occurred in Ukraine since the February 2014 coup. The title should reflect that. – Herzen (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Were there any such pro-Russian "unrests" in Ukraine, like Feodosia protests in 2006? (Note: a protest is not an unrest) --George Ho (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

A "protest" can be part of unrest, yes. Please note, for example, the Ferguson unrest, which is largely protest-based. This unrest, too, was based in protests in Donetsk, Luhansk, &c. Those protests caused unrest, unlike in Hong Kong, where unrest has been limited. Being a "protest" is not mutually exclusive of "unrest". RGloucester — ☎ 06:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

We got War in Donbass, a part of such unrest. Well... not all unrests lead to war in one area or another. Ferguson or HK one has no war, thank goodness. --George Ho (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose fails WP:PRECISE -- does not have enough precision to identify the topic. This article does not cover pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, it only covers it from 2014. There's nothing about the post-Orange Revolution unrest, nor about the post-Soviet break-up unrest, nor the WWII-unrest, nor the 1919 unrest, etc. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be a serious contributor. So I have a question for you: why do you remain an IP, instead of getting a user id? I don't think I made a single edit before registering. I really would like to hear an explanation of why someone chooses to remain an IP for so long, since I really can't understand such behavior. – Herzen (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That seems odd to me, that you'd register for an account before even editing. I don't see why people so readily register for things at all. If you don't need to register, why do people register for things? I'm not trying to obtain admin status, so there's no need for an account. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

We are getting into forum territory here, but I think there's little harm done, since the outcome of this proposed move is clear. The reason I registered "before even editing" was that I intended to edit. You take the position that you are against registering at Web sites. I don't like to register at commercial Web sites, unless I get something out of it (like being able to buy things from Amazon.com or NewEgg.com). So I have avoided registering at a couple of Web sites that host academic papers that are cited in Wikipedia articles. But Wikipedia consistently follows a philosophy of being free and open, so I don't see why anyone would have problems with registering with it. And registering gives you more privacy. For example, I can tell from your IP address that you are in Saint-laurent. But since I am a registered user, you can't find out what my IP address is, so you can't figure out where I am. – Herzen (talk) 09:33, 27 November 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.

Request for input

This may be of interest to editors of this article. There is a dispute on the article about the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development on what title the section of the article which is about the bank's 2014 suspension of new projects in Russia. I would prefer to use the title "2014 suspension of new projects in Russia" but I've noticed this has been reverted twice now to "2014 Sanctions Tool against Russia". I'm not going to press my idea further, but more input would be welcome as to which headline is the most NPOV and descriptive, I think. Yakikaki (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move to "Post-Euromaidan unrest in Ukraine"

This article has recently been renamed from "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" to "2014-15 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine". But what is happening in Ukraine is a proxy war between the United States and Russia. Thus, the unrest will continue until one side or the other is defeated. At present, what we have is a stalemate. Is it really worth the trouble to tack one more year on to all these articles each time the year changes? Why not settle on a stable, neutral, clearly and unambiguously descriptive title instead? "Pro-Russian" in the title is not neutral. The unrest is not about Russia, but about the overthrow of the government in February, Everybody should be able to agree about this, since there was no unrest until the government was violently overthrown. in the climax of the Euromaidan protests. There is an article titled "Euromaidan". Thus, Wikipedia recognizes the historical significance of the Euromaidan protests, which involved the occupation of government buildings, leading to the overthrow of the government of Ukraine. Renaming the article as proposed would create both neutrality and stability in the title.

• Support as proposer. Herzen (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – This article is only about the unrest in the immediate aftermath of the revolution, not about the ongoing war. Your proposed title broadens its scope considerably. The war is described at War in Donbass, and the Russian intervention is described at 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. The unrest, as has been explained many, many times, was described by RS as "pro-Russian". The article for the whole crisis, i.e. the protacted unrest you mention, is 2013–15 Ukrainian Crisis. RGloucester — ☎ 22:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know about the existence of the last article you mention. Still, I think that your comment is self-contradictory, since if this article is about "the immediate aftermath of the revolution", why does the new year need to be tacked on to the title? Also, your referring to the overthrow of the government as a revolution instead of a coup, given that before the coup, Ukraine was run by oligarchs, and after the coup, the control of the oligarchs just became more consolidated (with the exception of the resistance of the people of eastern Ukraine), throws your intellectual integrity into question. – Herzen (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that you have peremptorily renamed this article back to "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine". On your Talk page, you wrote "Those pages are about the protests, i.e. finished events." That is crystal balling. The article mentions that "until mid-December", Kharkov was struck by bomb blasts. What gives you the knowledge that this kind of thing will not continue into the new year?

In any case, my proposal still stands, since my proposed new title for the article is more neutral than the current title. – Herzen (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on ordering these articles. I have to go through here and separating out the stuff that belongs at this article, and at other articles. I've got to get rid of some Donbass war stuff, for instance. The "bomb blasts" don't belong in this article. The "new year" doesn't need to be tacked onto the title. This article is only about the unrest in the spring of 2014. The other stuff should not be here. It is only here because whilst developing this article, we didn't have other articles on the war, &c. Now, we do. Once I've done that, it'll make this all a bit more rational. The article for the overarching "crisis" is the Ukrainian Crisis article. The "2014" is necessary for this article, as "post-revolution" does not specify the scope. It could include any event in the next ten years, which will certainly be in the "aftermath", if the date is not specified. Regardless, it is wrong to say "pro-Russian" is non-neutral. Repeated move discussions from the start of this article have proven otherwise, and so do reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 00:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: The Ukrainian "national guard" have commenced "anti-terrorist" operations in Odessa: В Одессу вошли колонны Нацгвардии в рамках антитеррористической отработки. Are you still willing to claim that this article is about a "finished event"? – Herzen (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to read sources in a language I can't read. Regardless, even if something is happening in Odessa, it isn't the same event that this article is about. This article is about the spring protests of last year. RGloucester — ☎ 03:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, I thought you can read Russian. If you can't read Russian or Ukrainian, I do not believe you are qualified to edit articles about Ukraine. Sorry. As for this article being "about the spring protests of last year", this is not reflected in the article's title. This position, as far as I can tell, is something which exists only in your own mind. The lead of the article certainly gives no indication that the article is about a "finished event". Resistance to the junta is going to continue across Ukraine, not just in Donetsk and Lugansk, and this article would appear to be the correct place to discuss such resistance. – Herzen (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Resistance to the junta - at the very least, will you please quit it with the "junta" nonsense? Even Kremlin outlets have given up on that phrase. This is getting silly. Some Wikipedia editors are more pro-Kremlin than Kremlin itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – Like many times before Herzen is again using a talkpage to share his political and historic views with the world (which could be completely not corresponding with reality; just like my own view on historic events (maybe Mr Blobby did not kill Joan of Arc.... (I am 110% sure he did!)). My dear Herzen Wikipedia is not a forum. Pages should only be moved after English media started to use different words for an event so that people can easily find a Wikipedia article. (The word "Euromaidan" in most English media is never used; at best they use the word "Maidan" so this page move proposed would not make sense anyhow...). Wikipedia is following what others say; it should not create its own names for things... The majority of reliable sources do not describe the current situation in Ukraine as a proxy war between the USA and Russia; so we can not do that.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Novorossiya

I have removed Novorossiya from the "failed proposals" category to a new "uncertain status" heading. I have already discussed reasons not to consider Novorossiya as unequivocally "failed" here, and I have added a couple citations suggesting that it continues to function in some form.

I have deleted some statements that exemplified what has become a perennial problem of mixing up the New Russia Party, which is not in power in either of the two People's Republics, and the confederation of Novorossiya. One of these was the statement that Novorossiya "was led by self-proclaimed president of the Donetsk People's Republic Pavel Gubarev." Three citations were given for this, (1) (2) (3). (1) and (2) state that Gubarev was the leader of the New Russia Party, not of confederal Novorossiya, and (3) doesn't say anything about Gubarev at all. The only leader of Novorossiya has been and remains Oleg Tsaryov, the Speaker of the Parliament of Novorossiya, which is also and has always been the only functioning body of Novorossiya. I have also removed the claim that "It claimed both Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts, and its goal was to expand into other regions in eastern and southern Ukraine", since again this idea originated on the Novorossiya article with a reference to the programme of the New Russia Party. —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If the problem

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine&oldid=646974674188.162.80.46 (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi—I can't speak for User:Volunteer Marek but I imagine he removed it because it's not relevant to the article topic. The question of whether there are Russian tanks in Ukraine is part of the ongoing 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, whereas this article is about the unrest in 2014. —Nizolan ^(talk) 10:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Also the text was incoherent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

The current infobox is ridiculous. It needs to be severely cut down.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of 4000 casualties citation

An editor removed a source for 4000 casualties with the edit summary "the first source doesn't say soldiers nor 4000 dead".

The source this edit deleted was: Norman Hermant (10 January 2015). "Russian teens among thousands 'lured to fight' in Ukraine say activists". abc.net.au. Retrieved 1 February 2015. This contained the statement: "But activist group Gruz 200 – named after the Russian military designation for soldiers killed in action – estimates more than 4,000 Russians have died or are missing in the fighting in eastern Ukraine."-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, it doesn't say soldiers or dead.There are plenty of Russians in that region who aren't soldiers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Also Gruz 200 directly supports Ukrainian Army by financial contributions on their web-page. I wouldn't name it as reliable source in this conflict.Update:it also made bogus reports about "mobile crematoriums" or "30 Russian combat planes being prepared to attack Ukraine" --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The source is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Wikipedia considers this a reliable source. They are quoting Gruz. It would be valid to put "(claimed)" or "(estimated)" after the 4,000 statement. It is not valid to delete the citation as not backing up the statement, or not being a reliable source.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Please could you show me the sentences in the source about "mobile crematoriums" or "30 Russian combat planes being prepared to attack Ukraine".-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The info was double checked by other sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources for Fascist Militias

An editor has added the fascist militias to the infobox with four citations:

• Edit 1
• Edit 2

The four sources cited are:

1. "How did Odessa's fire happen?". BBC News. 4 May 2014. Retrieved 11 May 2014.
2. "Dozens dead after Odessa building fire". The Guardian. 2 May 2014. Retrieved 11 May 2014.
3. "Profile: Ukraine's ultra-nationalist Right Sector". 28 April 2014. Retrieved 15 Feb 2015.]
4. Parfitt, Tom (11 Aug 2014). "Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian separatists". The Telegraph. Retrieved 15 Feb 2015.

Citation 4 is a very good citation, which really does back up the statements. Citation 3 is less good - mainly because it comes from a date when the fascist militias were only just starting to become active in Eastern Ukraine, so the situation was less clear. Citation 1 and 2 do not mention the fascist militias and should be deleted.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Citation 1 and 2 do not mention the fascist militias

They do,

From the source

BBC Some were veteran supporters of Kiev's Maidan protest movement - the Maidan Self Defence Forces - and/or part of the right-wing Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) Guardian said one pro-Ukrainian fighter, 20, who said he was a member of the extreme nationalist group Right Sector.

Btw the Telegraph mentions them as neo-Nazi not fascist. Should we alter the text to indicate this? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be based on what sources say. So if sources call people "neo_Nazi", then Wikipedia should, even if the subjects would prefer other euphamisms.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Citation 1 has one mention of Right Sector. This says:

• "The group gathered at about 14:00 in Cathedral Square. Some were veteran supporters of Kiev's Maidan protest movement - the Maidan Self Defence Forces - and/or part of the right-wing Pravy Sektor (Right Sector). But eyewitness accounts and videos suggest that many were just ordinary members of the public."

Citation 2 has two mentions of Right Sector:

• '"At first we broke through the side, and then we came through the main entrance," said one pro-Ukrainian fighter, 20, who said he was a member of the extreme nationalist group Right Sector. "They had guns and they were shooting … Some people jumped from the roof, they died obviously," he said.'
• '"The aim is to completely clear Odessa [of pro-Russians]," said Dmitry Rogovsky, another activist from Right Sector whose hand had been injured during the fighting. "They are all paid Russian separatists."'

The statement the citations appeared for said "Right Sector and other far right nationalist volunteer militias". Wikipedia:No original research says "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Citations 1 and 2 do not directly support the statement they are provided as a source for.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and is happening is beyond games with wikipedia policies. I'd do that, if I was a North Korean... That's the kind of stuff they do there....217.129.114.37 (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Poll on status of Ukraine

It was translated a long time ago, the figure of 18.2% apparently is not for joining Russia. [21] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

18.2% refers to people who would like to live in "the Donetsk region that has detached itself from Ukraine and become a part of Russia". --Phil070707 (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

18.6% - "united unitary Ukraine with no changes in its structure."

31.6% - "unitary Ukraine, where regions are offered wide economic and taxation competences."

15.5% - "Ukraine that is composed of a number of federal districts-regions"

8.7% - "In Ukraine that is part of Russia (or a state union on the basis of the former republics of the USSR)

4.7% - "In Donetsk region that has detached itself from Ukraine and acts as a separate state"

2.7% - found it difficult say, which option they prefer.

Phil070707 (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

International response (of countries)

Since NATO is not country - nor are they likely to make helpful comments about Russia - what are doing within the International response section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.49.184 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The section is clearly described as reactions from 'international entities', including the UN, the EU and NATO. Also, reactions in this section are not limited to those that are "likely to make helpful comments about Russia". Lklundin (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

As for the Color style unrest in Ukraine

Given the indications that the US are involved in causing anti-Russian trouble in the Ukraine, should not the loaded "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" title be changed to something more neutral?

(Wonder how long before this comment is deleted?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.129.243 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Which indications exactly? Could you provide a source from a trusted news organization? 24.87.21.55 (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Name Change

The name should be changed to "Ukraine Civil War". The two sides are Ukrainians, and therefore the name "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" isn't clear enough. Even if you dis-agree, "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" should be changed to "2014-2015 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine".Guy1286 (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No, "Ukraine Civil War" would be misleading due to the 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Lklundin (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree, due to multiple sources describing it as such http://time.com/3893066/chechens-ukraine-war/ http://www.rt.com/op-edge/273799-ukraine-civil-war-russia/ http://www.newsweek.com/how-putin-ignited-civil-war-ukraine-349954 The current title is politically charged. --74.57.221.101 (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no small irony in the fact that one of the sources you're referencing is entitled "How Putin Ignited a Civil War in Ukraine" (an op-ed piece, incidentally). RT is not a reliable source, and the predominant terminology remains "pro-Russian" in reliable sources. Three instances does not make for 'multiple sources' by a long shot. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a Civil War, the reason of this Civil War is the disunity of the Ukrainian people, an Ukrainian Nation exists only formally. Sure Russia is involved in this war but the same is with USA. Its not only an Ukrainian Civil War its a power-political and geo-political Proxy war between the USA and Russia too.--Andrew E. Rodger (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Andrew E. Rodger: "...Ukrainian Nation exists only formally."?!! You appear to have overlooked the fact of an ethnic group known as Ukrainians. That aside, this is an article talk page, not a forum for discussing your personal theories about Ukraine. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Crimea

The section on Crimea does not refer to any "pro-Russian unrest in Crimea". Which is ostensibly the topic of the article. It is entirely about the Russian invasion. It should either be deleted or moved to another article.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)