Template talk:Campaignbox Russo-Ukrainian War

Not appropriate

A campaign box isn't appropriate for this conflict, which isn't really a military one in the conventional sense. Please convert it to a sidebar, or I will nominate it for deletion. RGloucester — ☎ 03:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I can remove Odessa from the box because I agree there's nothing militaristic about it yet. So instead of threatening to prematurely nominate everything created on Ukraine's events for deletion, try to work on it. I will not convert it to a sidebar because this is certainly an armed conflict and tonnes of sources call it an insurgency. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There is an insurgency in Donetsk. There is no insurgency elsewhere, at yet. Lumping it all together as a 'military campaign' is misleading to the reader, and promotes various POVs. RGloucester — ☎ 03:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

A more appropriate thread to discuss that can be found here. Campaignboxes can include raids, operations, massacres as well as clashes with armed elements and they don't necessarily involve a country's national armed forces. As for what you believe it promotes, I can simply say that we're not obliged to give any kind of consideration to POV pushers from either side of the events. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Campaignboxes do not include just events of a military nature. Like you said, they also include massacres as well as clashes between armed elements and they don't necessarily involve a country's armed force. Looking at these two categories, the Odessa clashes qualify to be in the campaignbox, in the sense that bullets were flying yesterday in Odessa (armed clash) and 38 people were burned alive in that building (massacre). Also, you should look at the Syrian civil war campaignbox which includes links to individual protests/massacres that occurred there in 2011, where you had demonstrations that turned violent and led to dozens of deaths. This is similar to that. So, the link to the Odessa clashes, considering how notable it is at this point within the pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, should be put in the campaignbox. EkoGraf (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources calling this a massacre? Because in that case I might support its inclusion. If not, I will have to agree with RGloucester on this one, because protests can turn violent sometimes and become riots, but in most cases it's usually the "civil" kind that doesn't make it to a campaignbox. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No sources have described it as a 'massacre'. RGloucester — ☎ 15:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:EkoGraf is a controversial user who devotes their time on Wikipedia to inserting hysterical and polemical statements into articles using dubious sources, and creating bias spin-off articles or templates that push a Kremlinist POV. So expect a link to a Russia Today article describing the events as a massacre any second now.

We don't tolerate personal attacks here. RGloucester — ☎ 17:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't calling it a massacre, I was making a comparison to other articles. And since when did I become a controversial and hysterical Kremlinist POV pusher when I started editing the Ukrainian-related articles only this morning? I have devoted all of my time on Wikipedia for the last three years to the Syrian civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

So what's happening? At this point its not understandable to not include the Odessa events in the box considering how notable the events were. Like Fitzcarmalan says, campaignboxes don't include just military engagements. EkoGraf (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A campaignbox, by definition, only includes events within a military campaign, or events that pertain to a military campaign. Odessa is neither. If this were a normal sidebar, it could be included. However, it is not. It is a campaignbox. To include Odessa is misleading. RGloucester — ☎ 04:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A campaignbox, by definition, only includes events within a military campaign, or events that pertain to a military campaign. Not true. For examples look at the 2001 Afghan war campaignbox which includes a link to the 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests, than we got the Syrian civil war campaignbox which includes links to articles about the 2011 protests and clashes. Or the Libyan civil war campaignbox which includes links to Libya's initial protests in 2011. I can go on. That alone gives a basis for including Odessa in the campaignbox. But if that weren't enough, I would remind you that both sides during the clashes used live fire-arms and fire-bombs, in a civil war-like situation (admitted by the Interior Minister) that we have in Ukraine that makes the Odessa event military in nature, albeit a small one. EkoGraf (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Those events pertained to a military campaign. These do not. You are blowing it out of proportion. RGloucester — ☎ 22:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • ????? In what way are the 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests a military campaign? Or, I have another example for you, in what way are the Black July riots, that are included in the Sri Lankan civil war campaignbox, a military campaign? EkoGraf (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

They pertained to a military campaign, meaning that they were RELATED. RGloucester — ☎ 22:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What military campaign??? They were riots instigated and conducted by civilians, just like Odessa. If you are referring when saying military campaign to the conflicts/wars themselves than I have to remind you that the Odessa event is part of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, and a highly notable one at that, that makes the events pertained and RELATED to the unrest. Not to mention the NAME of this box is 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. So where is the logic to exclude from the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine box the most notable of its events? EkoGraf (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:OSE. The fact that events like the Quran burning protests exist in campaignboxes doesn't necessarily mean it is accurate. I myself believe it should be removed from there as well. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:OSE is not a guideline that strictly absolves your resistance to the introduction of this highly notable event based on your personal POV. WP:OSE is mostly related to article creation or deletion. As for content inclusion or exclusion (as is the case here), I would point you to the following stated in WP:OSE - When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Also, I would refer you to section Precedent in usage, where previous precedents are looked at for coherency. And they conclude with While not a strict OSE reasoning, the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Wikipedia project. Which means you calling up WP:OSE is a double-edged sword if there is consistency with other established templates (Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria). EkoGraf (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing militaristic about the Quran burning protests among different similar cases all over Wikipedia. And please note that it is listed under a section called "Other" in Template:Campaignbox Afghan War. Can you provide sources portraying the events in Odessa as armed riots, not civil ones? Maybe it will be reconsidered in that case. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

With both sides using pistols during the fighting I would say yes this constitutes as an armed riot. Source for armed pro-Russians [1], source for armed pro-Ukrainians [2] (check 07:05 min). If this still isn't enough, would you than compromise for Odessa being separated in the box with the term Other like in the case of Afghanistan? EkoGraf (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Just sayin, but this is somewhat a military conflict. There have been armed clashes, gun battles, police station seizures, and other armed incidents. It might not be fully a military conflict but there have been incidents. —Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with POV. The conflict in Odessa was not a military conflict. It was a conflict between civilians. There was no military campaign. It was a civil conflict. If people want a link to Odessa, they can go to Template:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which will direct them there. We already have a template for that very purpose, and it predates this one. This one is a MILITARY CAMPAIGNBOX for MILITARY CAMPAIGNS. RGloucester — ☎ 00:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It was a civil conflict. You just proved my point. What is the current unrest in the rest of Ukraine if not a civil conflict aka civil war? The head of the Ukrainian anti-terrorist center just yesterday called it a civil war. [3] Not to mention that those involved in the Odessa clashes included militants from the Right Sector and militants from the pro-Russian camp, not just civilians/regular protesters, and as sources that I provided show both sides were ARMED and engaged in gun fights. Problem here is that you regard a military conflict only when two military armed forces clash, well if this were a regular war between two countries that would be ok, but this is not that kind of war, its a civil conflict/war with Ukrainian vs Ukrainian. EkoGraf (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)w

It isn't defined by reliable sources as a civil war, yet. That would be WP:CRYSTAL. RGloucester — ☎ 05:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think its a full-fledged civil war ether, but that's not the topic. My point is, and I repeat, military campaignboxes are not reserved for military campaigns exclusively. The example of the Afghan protests and the Black July riots (which were civilians conflicts in your terms) being in its respective conflicts campaignboxes because they were related and notable presents a consistency which Wikipedia requires from us. If it will make you feel better, we can compromise by separating Odessa in the campaignbox and marking the other events in the box as military operations while Odessa under civilian unrest or some-such. EkoGraf (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

They are reserved for events that pertain to a military campaign, even if the events are not military. However, the events in Odessa do not pertain. If you want to clarify that it was 'Unrelated civil unrest', that's fine. But do not connect Odessa to the military campaign in Donetsk. They are no where near each other, and have nothing to do with each other. RGloucester — ☎ 13:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, I see what is going on. Isn't there an infobox that is a civil conflict?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)