Jump to content

Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Preamble should mention people's displeasure of unpopular Maidan consequences.

Possible addition: "Unpopular language law project,[1] appointments of new governors[2] and rise of far right views[3] caused protest in Eastern Ukraine where people organised pro-Russian manifestations."

  1. ^ "Watch Your Tongue: Language Controversy One Of Fundamental Conflicts In Ukraine". International Business Times. 2014-03-03. Retrieved 2016-06-04.
  2. ^ Kramer, Andrew E. (2014-03-02). "Ukraine Turns to Its Oligarchs for Political Help". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2016-06-02.
  3. ^ Ishchenko, Volodymyr (2014-11-13). "Ukraine has ignored the far right for too long – it must wake up to the danger | Volodymyr Ishchenko". the Guardian. Retrieved 2016-06-04.
This is already being discussed at Talk:Ukraine. The citations failed verification: i.e. they do not directly support the material being presented.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally I think we can do better sourcing. There are all of maybe 5 English speaking outlets that are cited should be more reputable. Afterall, google translate exists. UnemployedJournalist (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Disinformation

This page is targeted with Russian disinformation. 96.250.56.147 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Estonian support?

The info box says that the unrest ended in 2014 but the source for Estonian support is from 2016?Angele201002 (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed that. Not sure how that stuff got in here, but none of it was actually related to the unrest and was WP:UNDUE for the infobox anyway. Thank you for the notice. RGloucester — ☎ 14:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

shale gas protests in donbass in 2013-2014

Interesting that it isn't even mentioned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFd25YKnGqU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX-KExPSGn4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrnJn9LBpOg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGF41draOc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfL94Jpg1Rw Gendalv (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources for Polls

There's a large section under 'Public Opinion in Ukraine' that is unsourced 


A second poll conducted from 26 to 29 March showed that 77% of residents condemned the takeover of administrative buildings, while 16% supported such actions. Furthermore, 40.8% of Donetsk citizens supported rallies for Ukraine's unity, while 26.5% supported pro-Russian rallies.[68] In another research poll conducted 8–16 April by KIIS, a vast majority disapproved of the seizure of administrative buildings by protesters. Over 50% of those polled in southern and eastern Ukraine considered acting President Oleksandr Turchynov to be illegitimate. Most of those polled in southern and eastern Ukraine believed that the disarmament and disbandment of illegal radical groups is crucial to preserving national unity. 19.1% of those polled in southern and eastern Ukraine believed that Ukraine should be an independent state, 45.2% were for an independent state but with decentralization of the power to the regions, but most felt Russia and Ukraine should share open borders without visa restrictions; 8.4% were in favour of Ukraine and Russia uniting into a single state. 15.4% said they favoured secession of their region to join the Russian Federation, and 24.8% favoured Ukraine becoming a federation. Most of those polled said they found nothing attractive about Russia, but those who did, did so for economic, and not cultural reasons. Those polled in southern and eastern Ukraine were generally split on the legitimacy of the present government and parliament, but a majority in all regions agreed that deposed president Viktor Yanukovych was not the legal president of the country. In all regions but the Donbas, pro-Euromaidan oligarch Petro Poroshenko dominated preliminary election polls.


The KIIS claim needs a source; I think it's referring to the source directly before it, which already brought up those figures


The rest all needs a source as well, that's a big block of unsourced info. I believe most of it comes from https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2014/0429/Why-Ukraine-is-dialing-back-its-military-offensive-in-anarchic-east - this is the linked source for similar claims in the Revolution of Dignity page, but doesn't have everything


Additionally, the last source in the paragraph is no longer valid; the same one is 'cached' for the Revolution of Dignity page, which provides: https://web.archive.org/web/20140305065533/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-04/russia-calls-ukraine-intervention-legal-citing-yanukovych-letter.html

However, I see no reference to Poroshenko in there, or these polls, if it was intended to refer to them. Considering it is supposed to be titled 'Southeast Statistics', I don't think this cache is what it's supposed to be


And then a small nitpick and I'm not sure of the standard, but... favour vs favor?


I'd add the source myself, but I don't know enough about wikipedia to be touching a hot page like this Dimencia (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

None of this is unsourced. Citations are clearly present. The source for the KIIS data was there, it was just a dead link at the end of the paragraph. I have added in an archive-url now. RGloucester — ☎ 18:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Perfect, I had just found a link to it and came to share, but you got it. Thanks, I think that has all of it in there Dimencia (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Unverified: Russian instigation

In the first paragraph of the article, we have:

This unrest, fomented by Russia as part of a co-ordinated political and military campaign against Ukraine,[1]

Is this a valid source for that claim? It contains no proof for these claims, only speculation, and is sponsored by the US Military - the only nation making these claims. It has references, but the references are all once more just lots of speculation without proof, such as this article: https://www.fpri.org/article/2014/04/geopolitical-implications-of-the-ukraine-crisis/

Though of course, I didn't check them all; there may be something hiding in there. But the only supposed evidence is a wiretap conversation, mentioned in the US International Response:

On 30 April, John Kerry stated that phone tap evidence proved that the Kremlin was directing pro-Russian protests in the region.[2]

But this is not a valid link, and I can find no sources that support it. Also, judging by the title of the article, it doesn't sound as if the phone tap conversation was ever released, it was only 'John Kerry says'. Which is fine for the International Response section, but doesn't really go into the first paragraph

Digging further to make sure I didn't miss anything, I notice in the sub-article for Pro-Russian Unrest in the [Russo-Ukrainian War], the opposite claim is made from the same apparent source, that the protests were initially natural and not fomented by Russia:

The initial protests across southern and eastern Ukraine were largely native expressions of discontent with the new Ukrainian government.[1] Russian involvement at this stage was limited to voicing support for the demonstrations, and the emergence of the separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk began as a small fringe group of protesters, independent of Russian control.[1][3]

Of course, it's somewhat obvious to suggest Russia played some part here, but they deny involvement in the early protests, and without evidence, I don't think it's the first thing that should be on the page, unless we have an independently verified source that isn't just, 'because the US said so' It's also a bit of an important point - if the protestors were truly unhappy with their government and these were indeed protests of the people, not instigated by Russia, it paints a very different picture vs what Ukraine and the US claim Dimencia (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources. It isn't our job to conduct our own analysis (WP:OR). RAND is a perfectly reliable source. If you are claiming that RAND is not reliable, you will need to go to WP:RS/N and make your case. If you need another source for Russian involvement in the early stages, you can look at Wilson's article, which is available without a subscription. Wilson cites Mitrokhin as follows 'The first phase began in April 2014, when special forces (spetsnaz) troops and secret service officials supported criminals from the Donbas region and Russian nationalists who had travelled in from Russia with the aim of seizing power in several cities in the Donbas region, as part of a Russian special operation aimed at destabilising Ukraine'. Mitrokhin's article itself is also available. Mitrokhin's article divides Russian involvement in three phases, starting with the March-April phase, the same way the RAND article does. There is no evidence to suggest that RAND has deviated from the academic consensus on this matter. Taras Kuzio is also cited in the article, and reached the same conclusion. RGloucester — ☎ 14:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
We discussed most of this elsewhere and IDK if I should just delete it or what...?
Though even if we're not questioning the sources that do exist, the John Kerry phone tap statement still just, doesn't have one at all, and I can't find anything about it as much as I dig
Do old edits with bad sources automatically get a pass, under the assumption that previous editors probably verified it? Dimencia (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
No, if a source is determined to be 'bad', the content gets removed. In this case, there is no evidence that the source is bad. Wikipedia editors do not verify primary source information (WP:OR), as I have said before, they verify that the secondary source doing the primary source analysis is reliable. RGloucester — ☎ 18:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
It's literally a dead link Dimencia (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with dead links, when they appear in reliable secondary sources. The secondary source analysed the link at the time it was live, and as long as the secondary source itself is considered reliable, there is no problem. In any case, you can easily use web archival services to verify whatever is said for your own purposes, if you are so inclined. RGloucester — ☎ 19:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
It's not in a secondary source, it's just a direct reference in the wikipedia page that links to a 404
"John Kerry stated that phone tap evidence proved that the Kremlin was directing pro-Russian protests in the region." cited with https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/phone-taps-show-kremlin-directed-prorussian-thugs-in-ukraine-john-kerry-says/story-fnb64oi6-1226900573929
But after digging hard enough, I did find a single other source for it which is still active, if still also behind a paywall: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/phone-taps-prove-russian-thugs-took-kremlin-orders-pqv57xjwrps
There is also a new link for The Austrailian that kind of works if you prefer that one, but The Times is a little less annoying:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/phone-taps-show-kremlin-directed-prorussian-thugs-in-ukraine-john-kerry-says/news-story/7b51d843bf9e0fdf964f0e51997ea31e
And wayback did have it as well, I just wasn't looking through the snapshots, which is cool that they have that Dimencia (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Given Rand are on record with a highly anti-Russia bias, and have been funded by the US government/military to find ways to "extend Russia" economically and militarily https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR3000/RR3063/RAND_RR3063.pdf it's highly debatable if Rand are actually a reliable source in this specific context. Amiablestray (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the book Lessons from Russia's Operations in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine would support the claim that "demonstrations by pro-Russian and anti-government groups [taking place] in the aftermath of the Euromaidan movement and the Revolution of Dignity [were] fomented by Russia as part of a co-ordinated political and military campaign against Ukraine". The book argues the opposite! There might be a serious misunderstanding here.
  • A couple of verbatim quotations from the book help: "The Ukrainian government dismissed the outbreak of protests as provocations organized by pro-Russian agitators and intelligence operators. Russian intelligence may have played a role in fomenting discontent, but the public agitation and outcry appeared genuine and not disconnected from the country’s political divisions"; "Russia’s information campaign was more successful at agitating the West than at delivering tangible results in Ukraine. Studies using survey data and technical analysis of the penetration of Russian broadcasting signals found that the impact of the campaign was grossly overestimated."
  • What the book demonstrates is that a first period of "federalist" political mobilization, which was spontaneous and "home-grown", was followed by a second period of "secessionist" political and military mobilization, in Crimea and Easter-Ukraine, which has been heavily backed by the Russian Federation: "The period of political mobilization to demand for federalization and greater regional autonomy was short-lived. Regional law enforcement cracked down on these people’s governors and, by removing them, inadvertently paved the way for a different set of leadership to take over the movements".
  • I'm afraid here we are misquoting the book. They are not arguing that the demonstrations by pro-Russian and anti-government groups taking place in the aftermath of the Euromaidan movement were fomented by Russia, they are arguing that the take-over of Crimea and the beginning of the war in Donbas were the result of a political-warfare campaign by Russia aimed at destabilizing Ukraine: it's not the same thing!--Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with dimencia but I think the accusations should stay but be labeled as accusations otherwise they’re misrepresenting their sources Bobisland (talk)

Everyone here has really good points I think the best compromise would be to call the accusations as accusations instead of stating them as facts Bobisland (talk)

References

  1. ^ a b c Kofman, Michael; Migacheva, Katya; Nichiporuk, Brian; Radin, Andrew; Tkacheva, Olesya; Oberholtzer, Jenny (2017). Lessons from Russia's Operations in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine (PDF) (Report). Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. pp. 33–34. Cite error: The named reference "de" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ Hoyle, Ben (30 April 2014). "Phone taps show Kremlin directed pro-Russian thugs in Ukraine, John Kerry says". The Australian. Retrieved 30 April 2014.
  3. ^ Wilson, Andrew (20 April 2016). "The Donbas in 2014: Explaining Civil Conflict Perhaps, but not Civil War". Europe-Asia Studies. 68 (4): 631–652. doi:10.1080/09668136.2016.1176994. ISSN 0966-8136. S2CID 148334453.

Split of Kharkiv Peopleś Republic to new article

Split 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine#Failed proposals where the Kharkiv Peopleś Republic is located to new article. It was actually a de facto country for 2 days.SavageBWiki (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I am in favor of creating a separate article about the Kharkiv People's Republic. The Spanish wikipedia has an article about it for example, as well as the wikipedia in Aragonese, Japanese, Chinese, Magyar and Dutch Dmoroe6 (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I am also in favour of a new article for the page. This is notable and worth mentioning. Creating a new article would be favourable among the community. Xurum Shatou (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The removal of sources and info

I don’t think sources and info that misrepresents their sourced links, breaks verification rules and some having no source whatsoever should stay up, I also think additional sources that use CNN should stay up as I think they’re reliable Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Removing casualties number

If this page only covers the pro-russian protests in ukraine, then why does the casualties toll from the Donbas war appear? Obviously, 7000 people wouldn’t die in a protest. TankDude2000 (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, TankDude2000, for pointing this out. I think you're right and self-reverted. I suggest to avoid similar misunderstandings in the future by using edit summaries. I removed even more stuff from the infobox that seems to relate to the subsequent war in Donbas rather than to our article. At least, MOS:INFOBOX says the purpose of an infobox is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article, and a complete (or, maybe arbitrarily selected) list of belligerents is certainly not "key facts". Rsk6400 (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I think the casualties toll number remained since 2015 until these days, because the page was used at first to reffer to the War in Donbas. We should probably add at belligerents only the Government and protesters, but not the DPR and LPR. TankDude2000 (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Armed insurgency

@TankDude2000: You removed the term "armed insurgency" from the "method" list twice. The subject of our article was by no means peaceful, hence I don't understand why this should be removed. BTW: Using edit summaries really helps to save time and avoid misunderstandings, see the last discussion we had. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The insurgency happened after the protests… TankDude2000 (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Among the results in the infobox we list the establishment of the Luhansk and Donetsk "People's Republics" - and that was hardly the result of peaceful protests. Also: I don't think that there are sources for two different phases - one called "protests", one called "insurgency". Rsk6400 (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This page seems similar to the Anti-Maidan Page

A lot of overlap from this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Maidan and there are not other chronological years.

Do any of the editors remember the history of this page and how it is supposed to differentiate? Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Change the word Ouster

mellk how do you feel about changing the word Ouster? I feel like it has a connotation of a Coup.

(note edited to reflect mistake in naming Rada)

Given the vote was 328-0 in the Rada supporting removal I think we shoudl change.

What do you think about "democratically removed" or a variation thereof Jgmac1106 (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

What sources use "democratically removed"? "Ousted" does not mean illegally overthrown and is widely used.[1][2][3][4] Also, the Ukrainian parliament is not called a duma. Mellk (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
My apologies on getting the name wrong I'll go back and replace it with Rada. I will revise the talk comment and record my edit.
I am saying the word ousted towards a negative connotation towards coup and a more neutral word choice should be used given that people try to say Maidan was a coup.
I don't want to use this as primary source, but election results are usually acceptable, [5]
I don't know why I need a bunch of citations to try change a word that carries extra meaning given how people try to frame Maidan as a Coup.
[6] uses ouster in the headline.
If you like the word we can keep it (and h/t on almost 30k edits. That is awesome) Jgmac1106 (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
That's fine, no need to apologize. I guess "ousting" is used because he was not impeached (which was not possible) and he did not resign, so his removal came from a vote which happened after he fled (due to the revolution). The article on the revolution also uses "ousting" so I don't think many people consider the term to have such connotations. I guess if we simply just say "removed" then it downplays the role of the revolution (also thanks, I probably need a break at some point). Mellk (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

@Jgmac1106: In this edit you wrote that the protests "involved large scale efforts by Russian media to shape propaganda about protests" using this as a source about the 2 May 2014 deaths in Odesa. The only somewhat relevant sentences I could find was: "The Russian channels characterised the Odesa events as 'the 21st century’s Khatyn'... Overall, Russian television painted a picture of an aggressive post-Maidan Kyiv 'junta' trying violently to put down 'supporters of federalism' and Russian-speakers more generally... Russian television also highlighted the inaction and possible collusion of the police with the perpetrators of violence, but characterised the activists with red armbands attacking pro-Maidan march participants from behind police lines as pro-Maidan agents-provocateurs, not anti-Maidan activists... The Russian coverage neglected instances of pro-Maidan activists aiding those trapped in the burning building to escape and instead emphasised pro-Maidaners attacking those who tried to escape the inferno". I do not see anything that explicitly supports the statement you added, especially considering it is about Odesa only.

In addition you wrote "the portayal of protests often used crisis actors" using this as a source which again is about the Odesa deaths but I do not see anything about "crisis actors". It mentions the atrocity narratives on TV e.g. photo of the supposedly strangled woman from that day. The only mention of acting is by the talk show guests. Even in your edit summary you only mention "crisis Actors in the Odesa Union Hall coverage". I am not sure where you got "crisis actors" from. You also mention disinformation techniques but this is vague and the source used here only focuses on media after these events (i.e. during the war in eastern Ukraine). In that edit you also changed that the unrest was in the "early stages" to "throughout" the war (i.e. from 2014 to present) rather than early 2014, I think you have misunderstood what this article is about.

Also for some reason you are introducing this information in the lead and not in the body. The lead is supposed to summarize the information in the body and not include unnecessary details. There is also a separate article for media portrayal and disinformation. Mellk (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the revision. I will add some more examples, I think describing how Russian media lied about the protests is important in the lede given that Russia was defining protests they created. These efforts were especially notable after the Odesa Union Hall file Jgmac1106 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
You revised a few more claims, and reverted. Further why did you delete that these were Russian backed protests in the fist sentence. That is important context in the DFN.
Do you take issues with the source I used? Jgmac1106 (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. Media coverage was more important for shaping public opinion in Russia. The opening already mentions that Russia supported the unrest and mentions the involvement of the security services, so "Russian-backed" is just unnecessary repetition.
The issue here is not the sources but that it looks like original research and not following what they say. For example, where did you see "crisis actors"? And how does the source support the statement about there being crisis actors used for the entire unrest (when it is just about the 2 May 2014 clashes)? Also per MOS:LEAD you should not add new information to the lead. There is already a section called Media portrayal. Though since some of the sources you used were about the Odesa clashes specifically, it might make more sense to mention media coverage in that article instead. Mellk (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I tried to fix the redundancy issue. I think it is important to have Russian backed in the first sentence. So I added specificity in the second use.
I did not include the role of Russian media coverage of the protests. I will give time for other editors to reply.
I do think it is critical to the definition of the Russian back protests given that Russia would stoke Russian backed anti-maidan protests to have wall to wall coverage of fascist uprisings on Russian state media to justify intervention in Ukraine. Jgmac1106 (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Again, where in the source does it the support the statement that "the portayal of protests often used crisis actors", for example? Mellk (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I guess my issue with trying to represent Russian Media in the lead is because it already is
"The unrest, which was supported by Russia, in the early stages of the Russo-Ukrainian War, has been referred to as "Russian Spring" in Russian Media domestically and abroad(Russian: Русская весна, romanized: Russkaya vesna, Ukrainian: Російська весна, romanized: Rosiiska vesna)."
Only Russia calls it Russia Spring. Nobody else, and to use Pomerantsev as a way to back up this sentence is a misrepresentation of source.
Here is the full quote:
"These counterprotests were called “the Russian Spring,” co-opting the language of the 1968 Czechoslovak uprising against the Kremlin, and so when Moscow then launched its covert war in Ukraine, it worked as a piece of negative storytelling: pro-democracy protests, the Kremlin seemed to be saying, lead not to prosperity but to instability, blood and death. Russian media regularly reinforce this link, with videos that mix what they claim to be American-engineered protests in Europe and the Middle East with scenes of carnage in Ukraine and Syria. The message is that protests and chaos are intrinsically linked."

Pomerantsev himself said the protests and state media are linked.

So we either need to fully describe the roll of Russian media in the lead or remove reference to "Russian Spring"
I will wait and give other editors a chance to comment but I agree, with the original editoes intent with including "Russian Spring."
We should include Russian media and the anti-maidan protests in the lead. The two can not be separated. Jgmac1106 (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, I suppose this can first be elaborated on in the media portrayal section. Mellk (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
You also used this source for "Russian-backed demonstrations" but the source only mentions "Russian-backed separatists" during the phase of the war in 2015 while it also says: "In April–May 2014, armed pro-Russian protesters, aided by Russian military members, seized local government buildings and police departments in many Eastern Ukraine cities". But this article is about unrest from February. Mellk (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Again, here, the Reuters source (from 3 March 2014) only says: "Kiev says pro-Russian demonstrations have been organized by Moscow as a pretext to invade". The KHPG source (from 10 March 2014) only mentions Gubarev as a "hero" on Russian TV while it calls the unrest a "pro-Russian rebellion" and the third source you included 25 pages in the ref. In future, can you include quotes so that the information can be verified? Otherwise there is no point including refs if they are not used to support the statement. In this case it looks like it might be WP:SYNTH. Mellk (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Sure I tried to revise again. I do not like direct quotes in the lead. I do not think anyone at this time doubts Girkin and Gubarev were involved in protests in Donetsk and Luhansk
"One of the organizers of the action is the "People's Militia of Donbas" movement. Its leader, Pavlo Gubarev, at the session of the city council the day before, demanded from the local authorities to stop transferring taxes to the state budget and not to follow instructions from Kyiv."\
https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/politics/2014/03/140301_donetsk_rallies_hk
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pro-russian-protests-in-eastern-ukraines-donetsk-region-diminish/2014/04/03/f1bd1fe0-db2e-4e23-9ceb-cc2f645ae7c5_story.html
"Pavel Gubarev, the Russian sympathizer who brought the crowd to fever pitch and declared himself the "people's governor," has been arrested and sent to Kiev, Ukraine's capital, for investigation."
I don't think it is controversial to say the protests were Russian backed in the first sentence, but I would rather cite in the body then overload the lede with citations Jgmac1106 (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
It is not controversial but the policy is WP:V, which means the source must directly support the statement (and without WP:OR). In the above case it does not look like it. Quotes can also be included in the quote parameter in the citation template. Mellk (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Okay I will start working on revising the citations and including the relevant quotes Jgmac1106 (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
In this edit you again introduce new information in the lead (MOS:LEAD). The source says: "The event was instantly converted into a psychological weapon in the political and military conflict between Russia and Ukraine, backed up by an unprecedented propaganda campaign launched by public Russian TV." Yes the wording here is close to the source but the source refers to the 2 May 2014 events only while you use this to refer to the entire unrest ("media coverage of the Anti-Maidan demonstrations"). There are other sources you used here that also refer to the 2 May deaths specifically e.g. [7] (if anything this should be mentioned in the coverage section of the 2014 Odesa clashes article, not the lead of this article). In fact all of this looks like original research. Please read the policy carefully. Can you answer any concerns on the talk page before making such edits? Mellk (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
There's also a section in 2014 Odesa clashes about conspiracy theories which would be a better place, some of the sources give specific details about this. Mellk (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is an original research soup

I scrolled through the article. I saw a collection of news sources of various reliability discussing some 2014 events. Poll results, protests, events somehow supposedly related to the article subject. Where is the secondary reliable source describing the article subject in depth? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of the articles about events that happened after Wikipedia became popular are like this. We definitely should use more scholarly sources. Alaexis¿question? 19:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Russia's Road to War with Ukraine: Invasion amidst the ashes of empires

What's wrong with this source? Alaexis¿question? 19:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

At least it touches the article subject barely.
Barely is better then most of article sources. Barely means a few sentences, still not enough. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I thought for some reason that you removed it. My bad. Alaexis¿question? 20:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine/Archive_8&oldid=1248490994"