![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Google doesn't support the name, are there any English language sources? Xx236 ( talk) 07:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
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.
Russian Spring → 2014 Pro-Russian protests in Ukraine – The term "Russian Spring" originates from Russian propaganda, [1] and has not been picked up by independent English media sources. The term "Russian Spring" has previously been used to describe a democratic revolution against Russian President Vladimir Putin. [2] The title should be changed to something more generic. Orser67 ( talk) 23:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The picture "Protesters in Lugansk" shows both Russian and Ukrainian flags. Xx236 ( talk) 11:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I've heard no use of this term in English language reliable sources. That would mean that the title should be changed to a more generic "2014 Pro-Russian protests in Ukraine", or some such thing like that. RGloucester — ☎ 03:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
It is not a crises any more since since yesterday the 3 Regional State Administration pro-Russian protesters held for only a few days are all in Government hands. 2014 Crimean crisis is still a crises but not a part of these protests. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 04:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
A merge of this article with 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations does not make sense... The 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations were part of Euromaidan and thus had totally different demands to be met and was done by totally different people for most part in different parts of the country then were the the 2014 Pro-Russian protests in Ukraine are being held now. (Close to all 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations were in Western Ukraine, these 2014 Pro-Russian protests in Ukraine are in Eastern Ukraine (traditionally there are not many pro-Russians in West Ukraine).) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The result is still the same: Regional State Administration occupations, in previous event by Euromaidan, now by pro-Russian side. This event is still continue as previous government is removed and the new government abolish the law that resulted eastren and southren Ukraina protest. This is still a same story. Xbypass ( talk) 03:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The timeline part of this article should be converted to prose. At present, it is entirely encumbering. RGloucester — ☎ 05:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The neutrality of this article is disputed. But what is exactly the problem? WP:UNDUE? WP:BALASPS? WP:IMPARTIAL? Or something else? We can not solve the problem when not told what the problem is.... (PS I myself did not add the "neutrality of article is disputed"-template to this article.) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Is it a correct phrase "one questioned asked"? Xx236 ( talk) 12:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
What constitutes a protest? There should be a cut off for what makes it into the map and is part of any mass demonstrations. Kherson had no big protests, but it's included, for example. If 200 people showed up that shouldn't be put on the same level as 5,000 in Odessa, or something similar - it creates an illusion of equally spread out protests. -- Львівське ( говорити) 07:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeahhh... But to make it look like they all were the same size is misleading. I like how the fixed this problem in a picture at Occupy movement#Background. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It should be color coded like how I did on the Euromaidan article. I'll do it in a bit. From what I see, Kherson got one 400 person protest before, and today got 300 Communist Party members out (while there were 3,000 pro-Ukrainian protesters there too). It's misleading to make it look like Kherson is pro-Russia when support is 90% against Russia.-- Львівське ( говорити) 18:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Ive started a table to document the protest sizes and made a new map that reflects the size. I removed the 'occupied RSA' part since this is a protest map and not an occupation map, and none are currently occupied anyway. -- Львівське ( говорити) 21:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your map is wrong, because "Where there is a person protesting against or for something, there is a protest. " (с) Cathry ( talk) 21:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Would a 1-499 color be a solution to your grievance? I still think there needs to be a cutoff, 1 person is not a protest, for example, and im sure you can find a dozen pro-russian people in any province. This article should be about mobilization and notable protests, not just small crowds.-- Львівське ( говорити) 16:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Example about rally in Lugansk. http://novosti.dn.ua/details/220854/ (Near 1000 separatists rallied) but as you can see photo in this article http://www.0642.ua/news/500277 http://s.citysites.ua/s/5/section/newsInText/upload/images/news/intext/532/d8ee2414a8/eeff9cf23bd472564a29c0e2f1532dee.jpg It is more than 1000 ?? Cathry ( talk) 11:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it is very unwise to use RT (TV network) as a sources in this wiki-article since it seem to be having a bias when it comes to reporting about these 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. For instance were international press sees "stealing of Ukrainian-language books and then set them alight in small bonfires in the street" RT reports "the burning of Ukrainian nationalist books and symbols in the shop". And in this article RT uses the words "The Ukrainian coup-imposed government", while BBC News calls the same people "authorities in Kiev" in an article about the same subject. And here RT seems to try to make us believe that a few thousand eastern Ukrainians represents all eastern Ukrainians. In this article RT tries to make us believe observer Tatjana Ždanoka is independent while she is a member of a pro-Russian party herself... (+ the article is too full of anti-Western statements and seems more designed to persuade then to inform). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Since Ukraine has more then 40 millions inhabitants 45% of Ukrainians is more then then "a few thousands western Ukrainians" (you above claim "a few thousands western Ukrainians changed government"). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
RT does not give us numbers (it does not quote polls) of how many actually people have a "rising discontent" in Eastern Ukraine. Claiming there is a "rising discontent of eastern Ukrainians" but then not telling how many people are discontented is classic WP:WEASEL. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I never head such a weird argument in my life. Is thee a media channel today which is not biased? Was RT ever caught making up stuff or lying?
RT, in my opinion, is a much better source than the CNN which showed a Russian military drill in Kaliningrad with the headlinee "Russian tank in the Ukraine". It's also much better than the BBC which ignored the phone called between the foreign ministers of the EU and Estonia where they said Yanukovich was not the one who sent the snipers to the Euromaidan.
You can't just choose to ignore channels just because they don't match your POV. 2.125.165.6 ( talk) 18:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
-RT is legit source much more than any western source whos russophobic in nature-- Crossswords ( talk) 13:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
This article needs a hefty dose of editing. The present "timeline" section is mostly inappropriate, and should be converted into prose form, per the essay WP:PROSELINE. I raised these concerns earlier, but they seem to have got worse. This is not a "timeline" article. If it were, perhaps such a timeline would be appropriate. But that's not what we need here. We need a properly described bit of prose details the events, not every little detail elucidated by date. RGloucester — ☎ 18:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
... so it might be handy to watch out for:
Not sure if #2 would involve pro-Russian protesters. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The separatists are going to slow down for now and elect a 'president' by the end of April (I guess to make up for the 'governors' all getting arrested). ref -- Львівське ( говорити) 20:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
not sure where to put this yet but it appears Donetsk workers are being forced to sign petitions on separatism link -- Львівське ( говорити) 21:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
This link claims that Baktiyarov is a resident of Kiev, it seems to be compatible with his article Oleg Bakhtiyarov. On the other hand in many recent articles regarding his arrest he is described as a Russian resident. Can somebody check Alex Bakharev ( talk) 05:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
In the above discussion, IP 2.125.165.6 mentioned twice that CNN put a Russian military drill in Kaliningrad under the headline "Russian tank(s) in the Ukraine" (sic). I did a careful search and there is not a single mention about this report, even Russian media did not "reveal" this alleged big CNN lie. So please, 2.125.165.6, which eye of you saw this CNN lie, and where? 128.189.191.222 ( talk) 16:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
With the declaration by various parties in Donetsk of 'independence', this article is going to need some shaping up. I suggest a potential move to Eastern Ukrainian crisis, or something like that. RGloucester — ☎ 17:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to sort content by city, and then possibly split those sections into their own articles if the content was big enough? It seems silly to have this plus RSA occupations article PLUS the donetsk republic article. I think one meaty section on the separatist and pro-russian movement in donetsk as a whole would be better than dividing the content on two articles. -- Львівське ( говорити) 16:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I still think this should be named 2014 Ukrainian crisis a-lot of reliable sources including BBC have been using it as these events are taking place in Ukraine. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I'd like to create a summary article to serve as a 'catch-all' round-up of the current crisis. As such, I've created a draft: Draft:2014 Ukrainian crisis. This article is meant to direct people to the appropriate pages, to give background and details on the whole crisis. I'd like to take this current article, 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine, and convert it to a timeline article, as it mostly functions that way anyway. I'd like it if people would help me in working on the draft article so that we can get it into shape, that'd be appreciated. It is currently in barebones shape, but I'll keep working on it. I really could use the help of the editors that have been contributing to this article. Thanks, RGloucester — ☎ 20:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
cite news |last= |first= |date= |title= |trans_title= |url= |language= |newspaper= |location= |publisher= |accessdate=
cite web |url= |title= |last1= |first1= |last2= |first2= |date= |website= |publisher= |accessdate= |language=
ProveIt a user script which can help fill out these templates in a much quicker fashion. Thanks, RGloucester — ☎ 15:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
What specific areas/issues are the 'multiple issues' boilerplate referring to? I can't address them if I don't know what they are, and if there are not any, the boilerplate should be removed. RGloucester — ☎ 19:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not going to start an edit war, but I definitely should warn other editors about Львівське's image in the article - File:UkraineProtests2014.gif. Firstly, it is absolutely unsourced. Secondly, it is obviously a POV image, just look at Crimea. As you can see on the picture - there were 10,000+ pro-Ukrainian protesters in Crimea and only 1,000+ pro-Russian protesters. It sounds biased. Also, I recommend not to use that blinking effect, it is really unconfortable to read the article. — 83.237.124.6 ( talk) 02:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Or something like that, which is more qualifiable than the numbers. I'm no good with Adobe Illustrator at the moment, but if someone would care to make a map to these specifications, that'd be appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 03:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
While the new image by RG is nice looking, Kharkiv and Luhansk do not have occupied RSA's, which the image implies. This should be addressed. --
Львівське (
говорити)
20:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It's freakin' huge. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Someone might want to create an article for this new organisation being created by Avakov. Also referred to in one translation as 'special forces corps MIA'.
http://mvs.gov.ua/mvs/control/main/uk/publish/article/1025072 (In Ukrainian)
83.70.224.136 ( talk) 18:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Say that 3 times fast! Concerning this: 1) The Donetsk Institute stats are already in the article, so repeating them twice over with different POVy language isn't needed. 2) The Guardian article incorrectly defines the poll, it wasn't conducted last week, it was released last week - because it's the same data. 3) The article states "27% supported the outright unification of either Donetsk or all of Ukraine with Russia." and the user turns this into "27% indicating that they supported secession", in this case the user changed source entirely, as unification of all of Ukraine with Russia is not secession. 4) This latter stat is from (again!) the previously cited Donetsk poll, which is 18.2% for joining Russia and 8.7% to stay in Ukraine but for Ukraine to join Russia like the USSR was (26.9%) - changing the meaning of the original stats is of course original research.
So that said, it should stay out of the article since all of this is already covered in correct detail.-- Львівське ( говорити) 04:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
When I look at this article I see both pro Russian and Pro Ukraine protests being mentioned, I feel that if we move the article then it would have more of a balanced coverage. Any ideas for new possible titles? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-supporters-in-eastern-ukraine-pose-challenges-to-pro-western-government/2014/03/14/be21eeec-ab77-11e3-b8ca-197ef3568958_story.html According to Washington post(a clearly antiRussian source) during 19/3/2014 the anti-Maydan(or pro-Russian) rally of Kharkiv had 5,000 locals.Could someone fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.209.232 ( talk) 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Given the recent moves by armed groups in Donetsk Oblast, I'm thinking this title should be changed to 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. 'Unrest' would better describe the scope of the situation, since protests are not the sole method being used by the opposition groups in this instance. RGloucester — ☎ 18:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Still imho the 'pro-Russian' term does not sound good to me
Some people protest because they want their region or even whole(?) Ukraine to be part of Russia, either as a federal part or a USSR style union
Some people protest in order to accomplish independence
Others aim at federalization but not DISINTEGRATION
Of course there are a lot of people who protest to show their concerns about the future of Russian language(and culture maybe which is strong in east,south and some central parts of Ukraine)
But i do not think that all these thousands who protest or even the more thousands who support the protests are necessarily in favor of split In the pre-Maydan era i think the only political porces which supported union with Russia where Russian Bloch and some other pure ethnic Russian political parties Of course there were many many political parties in favor of closer ties with Russia but not merger To sum up i think the term 'pro-Russian' is very narrow I would prefer something like -2014 post-Maydan unrest in Ukraine'
Do not forget that even the nationalists, or far-right, or simply pro-unity protests are...a sign of unrest Do not forget that the brutal attack on Tsarov or Dobkin are also sign of unrest...and needless to say these were NOT 'pro-Russian' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.240.16 ( talk) 00:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
'hit a few times'...wowwww you are joking right? This was a vandal attack that shows no freedom of speech in Ukraine right now From what the above text says you only feel that you should comment about the brutal beating of a presidential candidate and not about the proper name of tha article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.209.232 ( talk) 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Just want to point this out. User:HCPUNXKID removed the GRU involvement (claimed by Ukrainian foreign ministry) but added American Blackwater involvement (unfounded speculation by Russia's foreign ministry, ridiculed by mainstream media). Further, user removed the fact that Russian tourists are involved, despite it being in the article itself and heavily sourced. Can someone else help here? -- Львівське ( говорити) 22:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
So I put the sources in, not hard to find, just ctrl+f to see the refs from the article itself. The GRU op was arrested in Donetsk, so that's confirmed. The Blackwater fantasy allegations are speculation and unsubstantiated. They are Alpha Group Ukrainian spetznas. Blackwater has denied its there ("White House spokesperson Jay Carney told reporters the claim “seems bogus to us” and Geoffrey Pyatt, U.S. Ambassador to Russia, called it “rubbish.”). This content should be nuked immediately, Wikipedia is not a place for conspiracy junk or disseminating Russian propaganda as truth, otherwise we'd be calling the entire right column the fascist Judeo-American junta.-- Львівське ( говорити) 00:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed the Blackwater stuff, it's been debunked now, on top of Blackwater itself denying everything. Ukraine has actually arrested people and has name(s), Russia has hearsay, huge difference.
In short, the story follows the pattern we’ve seen so many times before with stories emanating from Russia — an uncheckable kernel of a story with an anonymous source, embellishment throughout the day, synapse jumps to the pro-Kremlin networks and tabloids, and pretty soon even credible outlets are covering it.
-- Львівське ( говорити) 03:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: - Funny to see the double standards of some editors above, Russian foreign ministry claiming Blackwater involvement? Propaganda & conspiracy, but at the same time....Ukrainian foreign ministry claiming GRU involvement? Very credible (even when Kiev acting government-appointed Donetsk governor Sergei Tartuta
denies Russia being behind the events), and moreover, if the U.S. government denies Blackwater involvement that is
word of god, we all know here that U.S. gov. never, never lie (and by the way, I didnt know that Blackwater belongs to the U.S. government, I thought that it was a private security services provider, and not a U.S. state agency, wich is what some here seem to suggest...), come on, try to be (or just look) a little more neutral, please...--
HC
PUNXKID
09:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please remove the Blackwater stuff? Beyond being debunked, they were never even claimed to be involved by Russia, just loading a truck or something. At least with the GRU claim, they arrested the guy for being involved. -- Львівське ( говорити) 15:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
This list should include every major wire service, major British newspaper, major American newspaper, and the leading Ukrainian English-language paper:
Wire Services:
Major British Papers:
Major American Papers:
Ukrainian English-Language paper:
173.79.251.253 ( talk) 13:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
To call it "pro-Russian" is POV. Not all "unrest" in Donetsk is only pro-Russian, the main point is mostly that it is anti-Yatsenyuk administration or anti-Kiev. So, call it pro-more-rights. Some only want more autonomy. ArmijaDonetsk ( talk) 17:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Referring to "A poll conducted by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS)" and "In an opinion poll conducted from 14–26 March by the International Republican Institute"
I want the prompt to delete this heel apply. Until to appear a neutral poll report by the OSCE
Reasons:
The cited survey results may have been maniupulatedt, as part of a conflict media manipulation! I can not see a reason, to use not independend polls in this article.
Reason why we should not trust in these Institues are:
The OSCE is the only organization to be submit capable of objective reports. In their last report of OSCE by April 17, although only a few adopted data have been supplied, but these deviations from the reporst cited allow the connection of a conscious manipulation to.
Therefore, these should not be used in wikipedia information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webslap ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
-- Webslap ( talk) 20:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
In the section called "Unrest by region", there is a subsection called "Crimea". Hello, Crimea is not a region of the Ukraine anymore. Even Yulia Timoshenko, in her leaked telephone call in which she called for the nuking of Russians, admitted that Crimea is gone from the Ukraine for good.
Keeping this subsection in the article makes Wikipedia look like a pathetic farce. Wikipedia is not a propaganda outlet of the US government. As McClatchy reported:
Wikipedia should reflect facts on the ground, not US government propaganda. Keeping the subsection on Crimea in this article serves no useful purpose and is just going to confuse people. Wikipedia should follow the AP here. – Herzen ( talk) 23:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Crimea is internationally recognized as occupied territory, so I think it's a part of Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 ( talk) 13:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts in recording the statistics about the counter-protests, however I think that the numbers about the pro-Russian protests need a little work. I mean, only 2000 in Kharkiv? There were a lot more than that, and there are two Lugansks. Also, the 2000-15000 number about Donetsk should be adjusted, because it is quite clear that the peak protests were a lot higher than 2000. Please work on those statistics a bit more, I will do some of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 ( talk) 13:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I looked at the Luhansk mention and you're right that there are two. The issue is the 1,000 one is cited, but the 10,000 one is from an unreliable source (pro russian blog?). We need a better source or else we're still in limbo on what to trust. Finding a larger one for Luhansk shouldnt be hard...-- Львівське ( говорити) 14:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Well here is a video of a massive pro-Russian protest in Sevastopol, there are clearly tens of thousands, but I am having difficulty finding a reliable source that says the amount http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2FunKG-9Rk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 ( talk) 15:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, about Donetsk, this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine has a lot of dates talking about 10,000 pro-Russian protesters in Donetsk (March 1, March 9, March 15) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 ( talk) 15:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
While I was looking for the Sevastopol amount I found that 10000 attended a pro-Ukrainian rally in Mykolaiv, http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/02/23/7016002/, maybe the "5000-" should be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 ( talk) 16:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Given that there are sources, whose independence is open to discussion, that alledgedly state that GRU operatives are involved in the unrest, while the Russian government denies their involvement, I ask anyone if an independent source (neither Ukrainian nor Russian) can be used to support their involvement. I also ask if the involvement of some GRU operatives justify the mention of GRU itself in the infobox, since it doesn't prove they are not acting by their own, as individuals. Mondolkiri1( Mondolkiri1) 23:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Mondolkiri1( Mondolkiri1) 23:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
way too much clutter in this thing. -- Львівське ( говорити) 15:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Let this be a fair warning: I intend to start removing any assertion which is supported by only a Russian or Ukrainian language source as unverifiable. For example, I just removed the assertion that RT journalists were attacked by Pro-Russian activists because the only source was a Russian-language article in Pravda. I checked the article but I could not verify the assertion because it is in Russian and not English.
This is an ENGLISH LANGUAGE Page and we need ENGLISH LANGUAGE Sources so that we can actually verify that the ENGLISH LANGUAGE Assertions are actually supported. Any sources which cannot be verified by ENGLISH LANGUAGE Users need to be tossed. I will wait approximately 24 hours before making further changes to give any other users a chance to respond. 173.79.251.253 ( talk) 17:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Casualties section in infobox does not correspond neither to the references given not to the real life statistics. The references also are not checked and are placed randomly. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 04:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
User Gogo212121 President of Ukraine this what's his problem with pro Russian separatists -- Gogo212121 ( talk) 12:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit? You are okay with saying 30000 attended a pro-Ukrainian Kharkiv rally but you are not okay with saying 30000 attended a pro-Russian Sevastopol rally. This is not RT, stop distorting facts. Even by looking at the pictures on that article it is absurd to describe that as "2000+". When an article says "thousands" you don't write "2000+", you find another article that gives the exact amount. Usually when two thousand attend a rally it says two thousand, not "thousands". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 ( talk) 10:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The basic guideline for "reliable" vs "non-reliable" is that 1) it's got some kind of editorial oversight - which means that sources where anyone can post anything they like without the material being vetted by some verified expert in the topic are excluded (Wikipedia itself is excluded under this criteria since it's all just a bunch of us volunteer users here - that's why we don't use Wikipedia as a source for itself) and 2) that it's got a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That one is a bit circular in that the way you establish reputation is by looking for other sources which say it has reputation which themselves have the reputation. But that's reputation for you. If you approach it with common sense it's a perfectly reasonable guideline/policy. Most reputations really are built on actual performance and reliability rather than self-referential circular back scratching (though there are some topic areas - like Race and Intelligence - where this can be a problem). Unless I'm missing something "Sevastopolnews" very clearly fails the second criteria and it's not even clear it satisfies the first one. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Update — Kharkiv Mayor Hennadiy Kernes, shot in the back April 28, undergoes surgery but his life remains in danger. [3] [4] Sca ( talk) 13:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
For those interested, there is a deletion discussion for an article relating to these events taking place. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
“Should the article say in the lead that the group (or that some of its subgroups’ members) are neofascist or neo-Nazi, without citing a minimum of 3 top-quality sources?” -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 06:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
In this edit, I added a rs tag to the claim "Ukraine arrested a Russian GRU operative." My comment to that edit was: "English language sources required on arrest of 'GRU operative'." Львівське responded by removing the tag, with the comment, "nothing wrong with source". Львівське thus ignored my point that English sources are required for such a dubious claim.
The GRU is a highly professional military foreign-intelligence service. Therefore, any capture of one of its agents is an extremely newsworthy event. That no Wikipedia editor has been able to find an English language or Russian source reporting the capture of this "operative" should make one extremely suspicious of the one report cited by the article. I believe that in this case, because of the sensational nature of the claim, the rule that two reliable sources should be provided applies. And no, Ukrainian Pravda is not a reliable source in this case, since it regularly makes unsubstantiated claims against Russia.
If this story had any validity to it, the Western press would be all over it. When the Donetsk anti-fascist resistance caught three Ukrainian special ops officers who were trying to kidnap a resistance leader, this was reported in the Western press, and the resistance released a video showing a public interrogation of the spies from Kiev on YouTube. No similar confirmation has been provided for the case of this alleged capture by the Kiev regime of a "GRU operative". Therefore, if two reliable sources, at least one of which must be non-Ukrainian, cannot be provided for this dubious claim, the claim must be deleted from the article. – Herzen ( talk) 07:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I've added the russian response to the allegations of GRU operatives. Perhaps rather than argue over whether it should or shouldn't be included, let's just put the claims of both sides next to eachother. B01010100 ( talk) 01:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I've added "alleged" to the other GRU operative claims by the same token as above, only source for claims is Ukrainian intelligence and denied by Russia. When there is independent verification, or russia admits as they did about the Crimea ones, we can assert it in WP's voice. Until then it seems to be contentious whether these people really are GRU operatives. B01010100 ( talk) 15:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I am watching this event closely I must say there is much exaggeration and sources are often biased, this is includes this article as well. It's hard to find neutral sources as many have taken a side in this confrontation. Overall I find articles on the subject on Wiki at the current moment completely non-neutral and POV.Minor rant:in Poland most mass media just republish information from Euromaidan twitter and sources as truth(even blatant false ones as supposed take over of APC by Kiev forces from protesters). Recent Guardian article in UK seemed slightly more objective as it noted that the protests enjoy wide support in the East including Law Enforcement services [6]. Perhaps it can be used as source. I am also concerned about heavy use of politically engaged Ukrainian sources across articles on this event-it seems to me that if they can be used, so can be Russia Today(which frankly has some objective reporting from the field like Graham Philips). Overall this is just food for a thought, the articles are heavily edited, and I don't think that at the moment it is worthwhile engaging in edits which would be turned back by one side or the other. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I think, that number of protesters are extremely highly biased towards the Ukrainian side.
To be honest, i don't know, how to solve this. Absolutely all ukrainian mass media are higly biased towards one or another side. So the authors just put to this article the numbers from the most pro-ukrainian articles. The numbers from the pro-russian media could differ up to 10 times, and of course the same way biased toward the pro-russian side.
Is there any way to solve this situation?
Барон Суббота ( talk) 03:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Isn't the usual way this is handled to provide the range rather than pick one estimate? So for example something like "between 15000[ref] and 20000[ref] protesters...". B01010100 ( talk) 15:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I reverted the removal of a link [7]. All factions mentioned in the infobox can have a link. Why remove a link with the claim "red" and "COI". Stick to NPOV and follow process. ArmijaDonetsk ( talk) 18:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Turchynov says "many" pro-Russia separatists killed or injured in Sloviansk, and "all" pro-Russia checkpoints around the city captured by Ukrainian forces. [8] Sca ( talk) 15:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Ixfd64 ( talk) 19:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine → Ukraine Crisis – Overwhelming use in English Language media sources. 173.79.251.253 ( talk) 17:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Over the past few weeks the English language media has settled on two terms for these events: Ukraine Crisis is by far the most common title with only a minority using Unrest in Ukraine. The current title includes the phrase 'pro-Russian' which violates both NPOV and CONCISE. I move that we use the most common title, widely establish in the media, of Ukraine Crisis.
Reposted from above, this list should include every major wire service, major British newspaper, major American newspaper, and the leading Ukrainian English-language paper:
Wire Services:
Major British Papers:
Major American Papers:
Ukrainian English-Language paper:
In a few places, this article refers to "pro-junta" protesters. Initially I didn't know what this term meant. After a bit of research, it seems some Russian news sources are using this term to refer to the current Kiev government formed after the overthrow of Yanukovych. This term is confusing to uninformed readers (such as myself), and seems rather propagandistic. Perhaps a more neutral term could be used instead? 138.16.18.24 ( talk) 16:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
also RT calls what we refer to as "pro-Russian separatists" as "pro-autonomy activists"
[10] --
Львівське (
говорити)
18:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Here is one describing the use of 'Junta' and 'fascist':
These seem to imply that there is coverage in sources of the use of these terms by Russian media. RGloucester — ☎ 18:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
"2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" is POV, since it chooses the misleading "pro-Russian" as the descriptive adjective for protesters who we all agree, even in the first sentence of this article, have various goals. Most want federalism and greater autonomy. They may 'like' Russia, just as pro-Kiev folks may like the 'EU', but those feelings are irrelevant to the issue at hand, a federalist or unitary state. The best solution in 'contentious description' situations is to avoid making a POV choice. Haberstr ( talk) 22:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Ukranian Interior Ministry disprove the information about the russians in Trade Union Building, and also says that they were unarmed.
Please, correct the article.
http://www.unn.com.ua/ru/news/1337991-v-militsiyi-nazivayut-domislami-informatsiyu-pro-nibito-zagiblikh-v-odesi-rosiyan-i-pridnistrovtsiv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Барон Суббота ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
the split article is Sobornaya Square clashes here
Just a heads up, Template:Campaignbox 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine was created. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 03:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I am amazed at how one sided the media has become of this outbreak, sources like RT [11] use the kind of language in support of the rebels saying that the protesters from Kiev are armed while western sources are saying it is the rebels who were armed. Seeing that Russia does have their point of view I feel that maybe we should include a section in this article similar to the disputed Senkaku Islands dispute article. Each side has a position as reported by reliable sources on both sides and I feel they should be expressed here. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: Can we figure out who keeps adding in that crap? I've kept removing it and it keeps reappearing. RGloucester — ☎ 19:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I think giving equal weight to Russian propaganda is a slippery slope and a bad idea. We need to go by mainstream, independent sources. There's obviously a conflict of interest when Russia foments these conflicts and then reports on it with what have been widely criticized as outright lies. -- Львівське ( говорити) 20:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
There is something seriously wrong with this article. I would fix it if I knew how. One of the subheadings is "Other Popes named Stephen" and it looks like some sort of style guide to editing Wikipedia? Swollibgah ( talk) 00:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2ac179c0-d46b-11e3-bf4e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz30rxBRM8U Even FT(a definitely prowestern media) describes the murder of civilians in Eastern Ukraine Perhaps a new subsection or even article should be made I provide the first source form FT about a nurse murdered etc. More civilians of course were murdered in Odessa,Slovyansk ...Perhaps someone could add this subsection — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.231.211 ( talk) 19:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Reuters describes "mob rule" in Donetsk, Mariupol, [12] reports Kiev sending (paramilitary?) force composed of "civil activists" to Odessa. [13] Sca ( talk) 14:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The name Ukrainian civil war currently leads to Ukrainian War of Independence. Do you think we should create a disamb page for the redirect to avoid possible future hassle? At the very least sources are starting to use the term [15]. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd wait on any disambiguation page until it is commonly described as a civil war. RGloucester — ☎ 04:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I think we should adress the dispute in the casualties, as there are no 56 confirmed dead militants, as in the Sloviansk siege there is the number 19-42 militants dead based on the dispute of the sources and the number of dead civilians should be also adressed, as the dead civilians in Sloviansk were not activists, i think there should be written that 40 pro-russian demonstrators died in the clashes in Odessa and 10-22 civilians in the actual insurgency, as named in the separate articles about the Kramtorsk standoff and Siege of Sloviansk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.144.50 ( talk) 19:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Russian news agencies reported, citing senior officials in Kiev security apparatus, that John Brennan, director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, was on April 12 and 13 incognito on a secret mission in Kiev and also met with Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and his vice Vitaly Yarema. ( [16]) Oleg Tsarov, Ukrainian presidential candidate in the 2014 Ukrainian presidential election, discloseed that at the headquarters of the Ukrainian intelligence service Security Service of Ukraine in Kiev various U.S. intelligence agencies would have received an entire floor and that was off limits for Ukrainian officers. ( [17]) The SBU and the CIA would already work closely together, claimed the deputy of the Verkhovna Rada Vladimir Golub ( [18]) and by now the lawmakers were talking about the visit openly and opined that the Ukrainian Security Service had become a unit of the CIA.( [19]) The secret consultations were confirmed by Jay Carney, the White House spokesman. Shortly after Brennan's secret visit Arsen Avakov, the Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs, ordered in the ″National Security Council″ the "anti-terror special operation" with military helicopters and tanks against rebellious eastUkrainians, the focus should thereby be the city Sloviansk. In Kiev the faction leader of the Party of Regions in the parliament, Oleksandr Yefremov, turned categorically down the "special operation", the "use of the army against citizens" was "unacceptable". - Please, correct and add. -- 79.223.22.233 ( talk) 18:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The sentence that is in this section right now states: Bild reported that FBI and CIA agents advise Ukrainian government on ending the insurgency in the east, building the security structure and fighting organized crime.. Now, my German is crappy, but it looks to me like the source is using future tense, not present tense. In other words, there are plans that FBI and CIA will advise Ukrainian government, not that they have or are. But I could very well be wrong. Can anyone help?
More generally I think the sentence should be reworded. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
As a side note, RGloucester, the title of a battlebox type infobox does not need to match the title, as such box types can be used in articles for actions that are included in the scope of an article but not the whole basis for an article. See for instace the Battles of Narvik or 1961 Indian Annexation of Goa. XavierGreen ( talk) 21:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
With the amount of dead and military equipment destruction accross a large portion of Ukraine, if this is not a civil war, I wonder what does it take to make it a civil war. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 19:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Wording like "SBU arrested a %SOMENUMBER% Russian extremists" or "SBU arrested a Russian intelligence agent" is biased. It presents dubious and unproven SBU claims appearing in the (often unofficial) media as hard facts. Oh, and besides, the "Black Hundreds" monarchist groups technically couldn't be called "neo-Nazis" (being always more focused on the religious denomination rather than blood).
With hysterical pieces like this (as just one example), the VoR just simply isn't a reliable source. Even with the politics aside it probably wouldn't be. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The funny part is how VOR there calls him a 'so called Russian militant' but in the TIME piece he admits he's Russian, a militant, and ex-military. -- Львівське ( говорити) 18:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a good source for the 'attacks on journalists' section. I don't have time to add it in right now, so I thought I'd put it here for others to use. RGloucester — ☎ 19:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Personal attacks
|
---|
RGloucester is pushing his right wing POV. No chance for NPOV, where he touches anything. ArmijaDonetsk ( talk) 19:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
|
I have a few things to add to discussion. I think Mariupol should get its own section in the Donetsk region.
Image- http://instagram.com/p/nxj5eGKL1y/ source: http://alexeyfurman.tumblr.com/post/85209325204/mariupol-just-now-police-department-on-fire-a Source2- http://31.media.tumblr.com/654e52e46abc27033cd3721cca2e6217/tumblr_n5b1z3LYpu1riizp3o2_r1_1280.jpg
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Td6cdhhK8 BloodofIndependence ( talk) 12:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27351621 BBC report about the massacre in Mariupol Even in a Western media like BBC...it is clearly stated that there was shooting against civilians and that country is almost at a civil war http://rt.com/news/157884-shooting-mariupol-eastern-ukraine/ This is the RT reportage about the Massacre in Mariupol A greek-speaking media (capital.gr is thought to be a centre-right-at least not left wing- media close to the Greek government) http://www.capital.gr/NewsTheme.asp?id=2012110 Another Greek-speaking media(a moderate left-wing one) about the massacre in Mariupol and the incidents of Konstantinovka and Lviv http://www.alfavita.gr/arthron/ektakto-%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B6%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE-%CF%83%CF%86%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%AE-%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BD-%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CE%AD%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%88%CE%B1%CE%BD-43-%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B8%CF%81%CF%8E%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%82-%CE%B6%CF%89%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%8D%CF%82-60-%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%AF-%CE%AD%CF%89%CF%82-%CF%84%CF%8E%CF%81%CE%B1-%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF-%CF%86%CF%89%CF%82 Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/09/police-station-burned-in-ukraine-southeastern-port-mariupol-at-least-7-dead-in/ presents people's view who witnessed the massacre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.146.4 ( talk) 22:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Would Mr Grigoryev like to clarify his 'update' [27], that is, his placement of a disputed template without justifying it? I'd like it if I knew what the problem was, so I could address it. RGloucester — ☎ 20:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester, Putin himself acknowledged the fact that those were the Russian troops in Crimea who western media refused to acknowledged as such even after his revelation. The Russian MOD even released honorary medal on that operation which according to the ministry started on 'February 20 (Few days before the Yanukovych's escape). Did you know about it? Where is neutrality? Denial is not only the river in Egypt, you know. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 21:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester, again, let's look at the infobox. Does it not have Crimea mentioned as the location of unrest? According to infobox it is all relevant and, of course, it is. Or are you denying it? Are you really prepared to argue with me that Crimea occupation has nothing to do with the unrest? Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 21:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Google doesn't support the name, are there any English language sources? Xx236 ( talk) 07:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
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.
Russian Spring → 2014 Pro-Russian protests in Ukraine – The term "Russian Spring" originates from Russian propaganda, [1] and has not been picked up by independent English media sources. The term "Russian Spring" has previously been used to describe a democratic revolution against Russian President Vladimir Putin. [2] The title should be changed to something more generic. Orser67 ( talk) 23:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The picture "Protesters in Lugansk" shows both Russian and Ukrainian flags. Xx236 ( talk) 11:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I've heard no use of this term in English language reliable sources. That would mean that the title should be changed to a more generic "2014 Pro-Russian protests in Ukraine", or some such thing like that. RGloucester — ☎ 03:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
It is not a crises any more since since yesterday the 3 Regional State Administration pro-Russian protesters held for only a few days are all in Government hands. 2014 Crimean crisis is still a crises but not a part of these protests. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 04:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
A merge of this article with 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations does not make sense... The 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations were part of Euromaidan and thus had totally different demands to be met and was done by totally different people for most part in different parts of the country then were the the 2014 Pro-Russian protests in Ukraine are being held now. (Close to all 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations were in Western Ukraine, these 2014 Pro-Russian protests in Ukraine are in Eastern Ukraine (traditionally there are not many pro-Russians in West Ukraine).) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The result is still the same: Regional State Administration occupations, in previous event by Euromaidan, now by pro-Russian side. This event is still continue as previous government is removed and the new government abolish the law that resulted eastren and southren Ukraina protest. This is still a same story. Xbypass ( talk) 03:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The timeline part of this article should be converted to prose. At present, it is entirely encumbering. RGloucester — ☎ 05:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The neutrality of this article is disputed. But what is exactly the problem? WP:UNDUE? WP:BALASPS? WP:IMPARTIAL? Or something else? We can not solve the problem when not told what the problem is.... (PS I myself did not add the "neutrality of article is disputed"-template to this article.) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Is it a correct phrase "one questioned asked"? Xx236 ( talk) 12:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
What constitutes a protest? There should be a cut off for what makes it into the map and is part of any mass demonstrations. Kherson had no big protests, but it's included, for example. If 200 people showed up that shouldn't be put on the same level as 5,000 in Odessa, or something similar - it creates an illusion of equally spread out protests. -- Львівське ( говорити) 07:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeahhh... But to make it look like they all were the same size is misleading. I like how the fixed this problem in a picture at Occupy movement#Background. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It should be color coded like how I did on the Euromaidan article. I'll do it in a bit. From what I see, Kherson got one 400 person protest before, and today got 300 Communist Party members out (while there were 3,000 pro-Ukrainian protesters there too). It's misleading to make it look like Kherson is pro-Russia when support is 90% against Russia.-- Львівське ( говорити) 18:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Ive started a table to document the protest sizes and made a new map that reflects the size. I removed the 'occupied RSA' part since this is a protest map and not an occupation map, and none are currently occupied anyway. -- Львівське ( говорити) 21:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your map is wrong, because "Where there is a person protesting against or for something, there is a protest. " (с) Cathry ( talk) 21:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Would a 1-499 color be a solution to your grievance? I still think there needs to be a cutoff, 1 person is not a protest, for example, and im sure you can find a dozen pro-russian people in any province. This article should be about mobilization and notable protests, not just small crowds.-- Львівське ( говорити) 16:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Example about rally in Lugansk. http://novosti.dn.ua/details/220854/ (Near 1000 separatists rallied) but as you can see photo in this article http://www.0642.ua/news/500277 http://s.citysites.ua/s/5/section/newsInText/upload/images/news/intext/532/d8ee2414a8/eeff9cf23bd472564a29c0e2f1532dee.jpg It is more than 1000 ?? Cathry ( talk) 11:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it is very unwise to use RT (TV network) as a sources in this wiki-article since it seem to be having a bias when it comes to reporting about these 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. For instance were international press sees "stealing of Ukrainian-language books and then set them alight in small bonfires in the street" RT reports "the burning of Ukrainian nationalist books and symbols in the shop". And in this article RT uses the words "The Ukrainian coup-imposed government", while BBC News calls the same people "authorities in Kiev" in an article about the same subject. And here RT seems to try to make us believe that a few thousand eastern Ukrainians represents all eastern Ukrainians. In this article RT tries to make us believe observer Tatjana Ždanoka is independent while she is a member of a pro-Russian party herself... (+ the article is too full of anti-Western statements and seems more designed to persuade then to inform). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Since Ukraine has more then 40 millions inhabitants 45% of Ukrainians is more then then "a few thousands western Ukrainians" (you above claim "a few thousands western Ukrainians changed government"). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
RT does not give us numbers (it does not quote polls) of how many actually people have a "rising discontent" in Eastern Ukraine. Claiming there is a "rising discontent of eastern Ukrainians" but then not telling how many people are discontented is classic WP:WEASEL. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I never head such a weird argument in my life. Is thee a media channel today which is not biased? Was RT ever caught making up stuff or lying?
RT, in my opinion, is a much better source than the CNN which showed a Russian military drill in Kaliningrad with the headlinee "Russian tank in the Ukraine". It's also much better than the BBC which ignored the phone called between the foreign ministers of the EU and Estonia where they said Yanukovich was not the one who sent the snipers to the Euromaidan.
You can't just choose to ignore channels just because they don't match your POV. 2.125.165.6 ( talk) 18:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
-RT is legit source much more than any western source whos russophobic in nature-- Crossswords ( talk) 13:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
This article needs a hefty dose of editing. The present "timeline" section is mostly inappropriate, and should be converted into prose form, per the essay WP:PROSELINE. I raised these concerns earlier, but they seem to have got worse. This is not a "timeline" article. If it were, perhaps such a timeline would be appropriate. But that's not what we need here. We need a properly described bit of prose details the events, not every little detail elucidated by date. RGloucester — ☎ 18:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
... so it might be handy to watch out for:
Not sure if #2 would involve pro-Russian protesters. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The separatists are going to slow down for now and elect a 'president' by the end of April (I guess to make up for the 'governors' all getting arrested). ref -- Львівське ( говорити) 20:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
not sure where to put this yet but it appears Donetsk workers are being forced to sign petitions on separatism link -- Львівське ( говорити) 21:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
This link claims that Baktiyarov is a resident of Kiev, it seems to be compatible with his article Oleg Bakhtiyarov. On the other hand in many recent articles regarding his arrest he is described as a Russian resident. Can somebody check Alex Bakharev ( talk) 05:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
In the above discussion, IP 2.125.165.6 mentioned twice that CNN put a Russian military drill in Kaliningrad under the headline "Russian tank(s) in the Ukraine" (sic). I did a careful search and there is not a single mention about this report, even Russian media did not "reveal" this alleged big CNN lie. So please, 2.125.165.6, which eye of you saw this CNN lie, and where? 128.189.191.222 ( talk) 16:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
With the declaration by various parties in Donetsk of 'independence', this article is going to need some shaping up. I suggest a potential move to Eastern Ukrainian crisis, or something like that. RGloucester — ☎ 17:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to sort content by city, and then possibly split those sections into their own articles if the content was big enough? It seems silly to have this plus RSA occupations article PLUS the donetsk republic article. I think one meaty section on the separatist and pro-russian movement in donetsk as a whole would be better than dividing the content on two articles. -- Львівське ( говорити) 16:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I still think this should be named 2014 Ukrainian crisis a-lot of reliable sources including BBC have been using it as these events are taking place in Ukraine. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I'd like to create a summary article to serve as a 'catch-all' round-up of the current crisis. As such, I've created a draft: Draft:2014 Ukrainian crisis. This article is meant to direct people to the appropriate pages, to give background and details on the whole crisis. I'd like to take this current article, 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine, and convert it to a timeline article, as it mostly functions that way anyway. I'd like it if people would help me in working on the draft article so that we can get it into shape, that'd be appreciated. It is currently in barebones shape, but I'll keep working on it. I really could use the help of the editors that have been contributing to this article. Thanks, RGloucester — ☎ 20:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
cite news |last= |first= |date= |title= |trans_title= |url= |language= |newspaper= |location= |publisher= |accessdate=
cite web |url= |title= |last1= |first1= |last2= |first2= |date= |website= |publisher= |accessdate= |language=
ProveIt a user script which can help fill out these templates in a much quicker fashion. Thanks, RGloucester — ☎ 15:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
What specific areas/issues are the 'multiple issues' boilerplate referring to? I can't address them if I don't know what they are, and if there are not any, the boilerplate should be removed. RGloucester — ☎ 19:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not going to start an edit war, but I definitely should warn other editors about Львівське's image in the article - File:UkraineProtests2014.gif. Firstly, it is absolutely unsourced. Secondly, it is obviously a POV image, just look at Crimea. As you can see on the picture - there were 10,000+ pro-Ukrainian protesters in Crimea and only 1,000+ pro-Russian protesters. It sounds biased. Also, I recommend not to use that blinking effect, it is really unconfortable to read the article. — 83.237.124.6 ( talk) 02:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Or something like that, which is more qualifiable than the numbers. I'm no good with Adobe Illustrator at the moment, but if someone would care to make a map to these specifications, that'd be appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 03:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
While the new image by RG is nice looking, Kharkiv and Luhansk do not have occupied RSA's, which the image implies. This should be addressed. --
Львівське (
говорити)
20:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It's freakin' huge. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Someone might want to create an article for this new organisation being created by Avakov. Also referred to in one translation as 'special forces corps MIA'.
http://mvs.gov.ua/mvs/control/main/uk/publish/article/1025072 (In Ukrainian)
83.70.224.136 ( talk) 18:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Say that 3 times fast! Concerning this: 1) The Donetsk Institute stats are already in the article, so repeating them twice over with different POVy language isn't needed. 2) The Guardian article incorrectly defines the poll, it wasn't conducted last week, it was released last week - because it's the same data. 3) The article states "27% supported the outright unification of either Donetsk or all of Ukraine with Russia." and the user turns this into "27% indicating that they supported secession", in this case the user changed source entirely, as unification of all of Ukraine with Russia is not secession. 4) This latter stat is from (again!) the previously cited Donetsk poll, which is 18.2% for joining Russia and 8.7% to stay in Ukraine but for Ukraine to join Russia like the USSR was (26.9%) - changing the meaning of the original stats is of course original research.
So that said, it should stay out of the article since all of this is already covered in correct detail.-- Львівське ( говорити) 04:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
When I look at this article I see both pro Russian and Pro Ukraine protests being mentioned, I feel that if we move the article then it would have more of a balanced coverage. Any ideas for new possible titles? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-supporters-in-eastern-ukraine-pose-challenges-to-pro-western-government/2014/03/14/be21eeec-ab77-11e3-b8ca-197ef3568958_story.html According to Washington post(a clearly antiRussian source) during 19/3/2014 the anti-Maydan(or pro-Russian) rally of Kharkiv had 5,000 locals.Could someone fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.209.232 ( talk) 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Given the recent moves by armed groups in Donetsk Oblast, I'm thinking this title should be changed to 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. 'Unrest' would better describe the scope of the situation, since protests are not the sole method being used by the opposition groups in this instance. RGloucester — ☎ 18:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Still imho the 'pro-Russian' term does not sound good to me
Some people protest because they want their region or even whole(?) Ukraine to be part of Russia, either as a federal part or a USSR style union
Some people protest in order to accomplish independence
Others aim at federalization but not DISINTEGRATION
Of course there are a lot of people who protest to show their concerns about the future of Russian language(and culture maybe which is strong in east,south and some central parts of Ukraine)
But i do not think that all these thousands who protest or even the more thousands who support the protests are necessarily in favor of split In the pre-Maydan era i think the only political porces which supported union with Russia where Russian Bloch and some other pure ethnic Russian political parties Of course there were many many political parties in favor of closer ties with Russia but not merger To sum up i think the term 'pro-Russian' is very narrow I would prefer something like -2014 post-Maydan unrest in Ukraine'
Do not forget that even the nationalists, or far-right, or simply pro-unity protests are...a sign of unrest Do not forget that the brutal attack on Tsarov or Dobkin are also sign of unrest...and needless to say these were NOT 'pro-Russian' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.240.16 ( talk) 00:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
'hit a few times'...wowwww you are joking right? This was a vandal attack that shows no freedom of speech in Ukraine right now From what the above text says you only feel that you should comment about the brutal beating of a presidential candidate and not about the proper name of tha article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.209.232 ( talk) 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Just want to point this out. User:HCPUNXKID removed the GRU involvement (claimed by Ukrainian foreign ministry) but added American Blackwater involvement (unfounded speculation by Russia's foreign ministry, ridiculed by mainstream media). Further, user removed the fact that Russian tourists are involved, despite it being in the article itself and heavily sourced. Can someone else help here? -- Львівське ( говорити) 22:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
So I put the sources in, not hard to find, just ctrl+f to see the refs from the article itself. The GRU op was arrested in Donetsk, so that's confirmed. The Blackwater fantasy allegations are speculation and unsubstantiated. They are Alpha Group Ukrainian spetznas. Blackwater has denied its there ("White House spokesperson Jay Carney told reporters the claim “seems bogus to us” and Geoffrey Pyatt, U.S. Ambassador to Russia, called it “rubbish.”). This content should be nuked immediately, Wikipedia is not a place for conspiracy junk or disseminating Russian propaganda as truth, otherwise we'd be calling the entire right column the fascist Judeo-American junta.-- Львівське ( говорити) 00:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed the Blackwater stuff, it's been debunked now, on top of Blackwater itself denying everything. Ukraine has actually arrested people and has name(s), Russia has hearsay, huge difference.
In short, the story follows the pattern we’ve seen so many times before with stories emanating from Russia — an uncheckable kernel of a story with an anonymous source, embellishment throughout the day, synapse jumps to the pro-Kremlin networks and tabloids, and pretty soon even credible outlets are covering it.
-- Львівське ( говорити) 03:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: - Funny to see the double standards of some editors above, Russian foreign ministry claiming Blackwater involvement? Propaganda & conspiracy, but at the same time....Ukrainian foreign ministry claiming GRU involvement? Very credible (even when Kiev acting government-appointed Donetsk governor Sergei Tartuta
denies Russia being behind the events), and moreover, if the U.S. government denies Blackwater involvement that is
word of god, we all know here that U.S. gov. never, never lie (and by the way, I didnt know that Blackwater belongs to the U.S. government, I thought that it was a private security services provider, and not a U.S. state agency, wich is what some here seem to suggest...), come on, try to be (or just look) a little more neutral, please...--
HC
PUNXKID
09:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please remove the Blackwater stuff? Beyond being debunked, they were never even claimed to be involved by Russia, just loading a truck or something. At least with the GRU claim, they arrested the guy for being involved. -- Львівське ( говорити) 15:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
This list should include every major wire service, major British newspaper, major American newspaper, and the leading Ukrainian English-language paper:
Wire Services:
Major British Papers:
Major American Papers:
Ukrainian English-Language paper:
173.79.251.253 ( talk) 13:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
To call it "pro-Russian" is POV. Not all "unrest" in Donetsk is only pro-Russian, the main point is mostly that it is anti-Yatsenyuk administration or anti-Kiev. So, call it pro-more-rights. Some only want more autonomy. ArmijaDonetsk ( talk) 17:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Referring to "A poll conducted by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS)" and "In an opinion poll conducted from 14–26 March by the International Republican Institute"
I want the prompt to delete this heel apply. Until to appear a neutral poll report by the OSCE
Reasons:
The cited survey results may have been maniupulatedt, as part of a conflict media manipulation! I can not see a reason, to use not independend polls in this article.
Reason why we should not trust in these Institues are:
The OSCE is the only organization to be submit capable of objective reports. In their last report of OSCE by April 17, although only a few adopted data have been supplied, but these deviations from the reporst cited allow the connection of a conscious manipulation to.
Therefore, these should not be used in wikipedia information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webslap ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
-- Webslap ( talk) 20:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
In the section called "Unrest by region", there is a subsection called "Crimea". Hello, Crimea is not a region of the Ukraine anymore. Even Yulia Timoshenko, in her leaked telephone call in which she called for the nuking of Russians, admitted that Crimea is gone from the Ukraine for good.
Keeping this subsection in the article makes Wikipedia look like a pathetic farce. Wikipedia is not a propaganda outlet of the US government. As McClatchy reported:
Wikipedia should reflect facts on the ground, not US government propaganda. Keeping the subsection on Crimea in this article serves no useful purpose and is just going to confuse people. Wikipedia should follow the AP here. – Herzen ( talk) 23:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Crimea is internationally recognized as occupied territory, so I think it's a part of Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 ( talk) 13:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts in recording the statistics about the counter-protests, however I think that the numbers about the pro-Russian protests need a little work. I mean, only 2000 in Kharkiv? There were a lot more than that, and there are two Lugansks. Also, the 2000-15000 number about Donetsk should be adjusted, because it is quite clear that the peak protests were a lot higher than 2000. Please work on those statistics a bit more, I will do some of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 ( talk) 13:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I looked at the Luhansk mention and you're right that there are two. The issue is the 1,000 one is cited, but the 10,000 one is from an unreliable source (pro russian blog?). We need a better source or else we're still in limbo on what to trust. Finding a larger one for Luhansk shouldnt be hard...-- Львівське ( говорити) 14:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Well here is a video of a massive pro-Russian protest in Sevastopol, there are clearly tens of thousands, but I am having difficulty finding a reliable source that says the amount http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2FunKG-9Rk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 ( talk) 15:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, about Donetsk, this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine has a lot of dates talking about 10,000 pro-Russian protesters in Donetsk (March 1, March 9, March 15) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 ( talk) 15:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
While I was looking for the Sevastopol amount I found that 10000 attended a pro-Ukrainian rally in Mykolaiv, http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/02/23/7016002/, maybe the "5000-" should be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 ( talk) 16:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Given that there are sources, whose independence is open to discussion, that alledgedly state that GRU operatives are involved in the unrest, while the Russian government denies their involvement, I ask anyone if an independent source (neither Ukrainian nor Russian) can be used to support their involvement. I also ask if the involvement of some GRU operatives justify the mention of GRU itself in the infobox, since it doesn't prove they are not acting by their own, as individuals. Mondolkiri1( Mondolkiri1) 23:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Mondolkiri1( Mondolkiri1) 23:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
way too much clutter in this thing. -- Львівське ( говорити) 15:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Let this be a fair warning: I intend to start removing any assertion which is supported by only a Russian or Ukrainian language source as unverifiable. For example, I just removed the assertion that RT journalists were attacked by Pro-Russian activists because the only source was a Russian-language article in Pravda. I checked the article but I could not verify the assertion because it is in Russian and not English.
This is an ENGLISH LANGUAGE Page and we need ENGLISH LANGUAGE Sources so that we can actually verify that the ENGLISH LANGUAGE Assertions are actually supported. Any sources which cannot be verified by ENGLISH LANGUAGE Users need to be tossed. I will wait approximately 24 hours before making further changes to give any other users a chance to respond. 173.79.251.253 ( talk) 17:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Casualties section in infobox does not correspond neither to the references given not to the real life statistics. The references also are not checked and are placed randomly. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 04:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
User Gogo212121 President of Ukraine this what's his problem with pro Russian separatists -- Gogo212121 ( talk) 12:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit? You are okay with saying 30000 attended a pro-Ukrainian Kharkiv rally but you are not okay with saying 30000 attended a pro-Russian Sevastopol rally. This is not RT, stop distorting facts. Even by looking at the pictures on that article it is absurd to describe that as "2000+". When an article says "thousands" you don't write "2000+", you find another article that gives the exact amount. Usually when two thousand attend a rally it says two thousand, not "thousands". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 ( talk) 10:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The basic guideline for "reliable" vs "non-reliable" is that 1) it's got some kind of editorial oversight - which means that sources where anyone can post anything they like without the material being vetted by some verified expert in the topic are excluded (Wikipedia itself is excluded under this criteria since it's all just a bunch of us volunteer users here - that's why we don't use Wikipedia as a source for itself) and 2) that it's got a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That one is a bit circular in that the way you establish reputation is by looking for other sources which say it has reputation which themselves have the reputation. But that's reputation for you. If you approach it with common sense it's a perfectly reasonable guideline/policy. Most reputations really are built on actual performance and reliability rather than self-referential circular back scratching (though there are some topic areas - like Race and Intelligence - where this can be a problem). Unless I'm missing something "Sevastopolnews" very clearly fails the second criteria and it's not even clear it satisfies the first one. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Update — Kharkiv Mayor Hennadiy Kernes, shot in the back April 28, undergoes surgery but his life remains in danger. [3] [4] Sca ( talk) 13:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
For those interested, there is a deletion discussion for an article relating to these events taking place. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
“Should the article say in the lead that the group (or that some of its subgroups’ members) are neofascist or neo-Nazi, without citing a minimum of 3 top-quality sources?” -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 06:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
In this edit, I added a rs tag to the claim "Ukraine arrested a Russian GRU operative." My comment to that edit was: "English language sources required on arrest of 'GRU operative'." Львівське responded by removing the tag, with the comment, "nothing wrong with source". Львівське thus ignored my point that English sources are required for such a dubious claim.
The GRU is a highly professional military foreign-intelligence service. Therefore, any capture of one of its agents is an extremely newsworthy event. That no Wikipedia editor has been able to find an English language or Russian source reporting the capture of this "operative" should make one extremely suspicious of the one report cited by the article. I believe that in this case, because of the sensational nature of the claim, the rule that two reliable sources should be provided applies. And no, Ukrainian Pravda is not a reliable source in this case, since it regularly makes unsubstantiated claims against Russia.
If this story had any validity to it, the Western press would be all over it. When the Donetsk anti-fascist resistance caught three Ukrainian special ops officers who were trying to kidnap a resistance leader, this was reported in the Western press, and the resistance released a video showing a public interrogation of the spies from Kiev on YouTube. No similar confirmation has been provided for the case of this alleged capture by the Kiev regime of a "GRU operative". Therefore, if two reliable sources, at least one of which must be non-Ukrainian, cannot be provided for this dubious claim, the claim must be deleted from the article. – Herzen ( talk) 07:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I've added the russian response to the allegations of GRU operatives. Perhaps rather than argue over whether it should or shouldn't be included, let's just put the claims of both sides next to eachother. B01010100 ( talk) 01:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I've added "alleged" to the other GRU operative claims by the same token as above, only source for claims is Ukrainian intelligence and denied by Russia. When there is independent verification, or russia admits as they did about the Crimea ones, we can assert it in WP's voice. Until then it seems to be contentious whether these people really are GRU operatives. B01010100 ( talk) 15:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I am watching this event closely I must say there is much exaggeration and sources are often biased, this is includes this article as well. It's hard to find neutral sources as many have taken a side in this confrontation. Overall I find articles on the subject on Wiki at the current moment completely non-neutral and POV.Minor rant:in Poland most mass media just republish information from Euromaidan twitter and sources as truth(even blatant false ones as supposed take over of APC by Kiev forces from protesters). Recent Guardian article in UK seemed slightly more objective as it noted that the protests enjoy wide support in the East including Law Enforcement services [6]. Perhaps it can be used as source. I am also concerned about heavy use of politically engaged Ukrainian sources across articles on this event-it seems to me that if they can be used, so can be Russia Today(which frankly has some objective reporting from the field like Graham Philips). Overall this is just food for a thought, the articles are heavily edited, and I don't think that at the moment it is worthwhile engaging in edits which would be turned back by one side or the other. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I think, that number of protesters are extremely highly biased towards the Ukrainian side.
To be honest, i don't know, how to solve this. Absolutely all ukrainian mass media are higly biased towards one or another side. So the authors just put to this article the numbers from the most pro-ukrainian articles. The numbers from the pro-russian media could differ up to 10 times, and of course the same way biased toward the pro-russian side.
Is there any way to solve this situation?
Барон Суббота ( talk) 03:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Isn't the usual way this is handled to provide the range rather than pick one estimate? So for example something like "between 15000[ref] and 20000[ref] protesters...". B01010100 ( talk) 15:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I reverted the removal of a link [7]. All factions mentioned in the infobox can have a link. Why remove a link with the claim "red" and "COI". Stick to NPOV and follow process. ArmijaDonetsk ( talk) 18:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Turchynov says "many" pro-Russia separatists killed or injured in Sloviansk, and "all" pro-Russia checkpoints around the city captured by Ukrainian forces. [8] Sca ( talk) 15:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Ixfd64 ( talk) 19:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine → Ukraine Crisis – Overwhelming use in English Language media sources. 173.79.251.253 ( talk) 17:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Over the past few weeks the English language media has settled on two terms for these events: Ukraine Crisis is by far the most common title with only a minority using Unrest in Ukraine. The current title includes the phrase 'pro-Russian' which violates both NPOV and CONCISE. I move that we use the most common title, widely establish in the media, of Ukraine Crisis.
Reposted from above, this list should include every major wire service, major British newspaper, major American newspaper, and the leading Ukrainian English-language paper:
Wire Services:
Major British Papers:
Major American Papers:
Ukrainian English-Language paper:
In a few places, this article refers to "pro-junta" protesters. Initially I didn't know what this term meant. After a bit of research, it seems some Russian news sources are using this term to refer to the current Kiev government formed after the overthrow of Yanukovych. This term is confusing to uninformed readers (such as myself), and seems rather propagandistic. Perhaps a more neutral term could be used instead? 138.16.18.24 ( talk) 16:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
also RT calls what we refer to as "pro-Russian separatists" as "pro-autonomy activists"
[10] --
Львівське (
говорити)
18:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Here is one describing the use of 'Junta' and 'fascist':
These seem to imply that there is coverage in sources of the use of these terms by Russian media. RGloucester — ☎ 18:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
"2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" is POV, since it chooses the misleading "pro-Russian" as the descriptive adjective for protesters who we all agree, even in the first sentence of this article, have various goals. Most want federalism and greater autonomy. They may 'like' Russia, just as pro-Kiev folks may like the 'EU', but those feelings are irrelevant to the issue at hand, a federalist or unitary state. The best solution in 'contentious description' situations is to avoid making a POV choice. Haberstr ( talk) 22:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Ukranian Interior Ministry disprove the information about the russians in Trade Union Building, and also says that they were unarmed.
Please, correct the article.
http://www.unn.com.ua/ru/news/1337991-v-militsiyi-nazivayut-domislami-informatsiyu-pro-nibito-zagiblikh-v-odesi-rosiyan-i-pridnistrovtsiv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Барон Суббота ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
the split article is Sobornaya Square clashes here
Just a heads up, Template:Campaignbox 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine was created. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 03:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I am amazed at how one sided the media has become of this outbreak, sources like RT [11] use the kind of language in support of the rebels saying that the protesters from Kiev are armed while western sources are saying it is the rebels who were armed. Seeing that Russia does have their point of view I feel that maybe we should include a section in this article similar to the disputed Senkaku Islands dispute article. Each side has a position as reported by reliable sources on both sides and I feel they should be expressed here. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: Can we figure out who keeps adding in that crap? I've kept removing it and it keeps reappearing. RGloucester — ☎ 19:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I think giving equal weight to Russian propaganda is a slippery slope and a bad idea. We need to go by mainstream, independent sources. There's obviously a conflict of interest when Russia foments these conflicts and then reports on it with what have been widely criticized as outright lies. -- Львівське ( говорити) 20:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
There is something seriously wrong with this article. I would fix it if I knew how. One of the subheadings is "Other Popes named Stephen" and it looks like some sort of style guide to editing Wikipedia? Swollibgah ( talk) 00:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2ac179c0-d46b-11e3-bf4e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz30rxBRM8U Even FT(a definitely prowestern media) describes the murder of civilians in Eastern Ukraine Perhaps a new subsection or even article should be made I provide the first source form FT about a nurse murdered etc. More civilians of course were murdered in Odessa,Slovyansk ...Perhaps someone could add this subsection — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.231.211 ( talk) 19:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Reuters describes "mob rule" in Donetsk, Mariupol, [12] reports Kiev sending (paramilitary?) force composed of "civil activists" to Odessa. [13] Sca ( talk) 14:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The name Ukrainian civil war currently leads to Ukrainian War of Independence. Do you think we should create a disamb page for the redirect to avoid possible future hassle? At the very least sources are starting to use the term [15]. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd wait on any disambiguation page until it is commonly described as a civil war. RGloucester — ☎ 04:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I think we should adress the dispute in the casualties, as there are no 56 confirmed dead militants, as in the Sloviansk siege there is the number 19-42 militants dead based on the dispute of the sources and the number of dead civilians should be also adressed, as the dead civilians in Sloviansk were not activists, i think there should be written that 40 pro-russian demonstrators died in the clashes in Odessa and 10-22 civilians in the actual insurgency, as named in the separate articles about the Kramtorsk standoff and Siege of Sloviansk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.144.50 ( talk) 19:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Russian news agencies reported, citing senior officials in Kiev security apparatus, that John Brennan, director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, was on April 12 and 13 incognito on a secret mission in Kiev and also met with Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and his vice Vitaly Yarema. ( [16]) Oleg Tsarov, Ukrainian presidential candidate in the 2014 Ukrainian presidential election, discloseed that at the headquarters of the Ukrainian intelligence service Security Service of Ukraine in Kiev various U.S. intelligence agencies would have received an entire floor and that was off limits for Ukrainian officers. ( [17]) The SBU and the CIA would already work closely together, claimed the deputy of the Verkhovna Rada Vladimir Golub ( [18]) and by now the lawmakers were talking about the visit openly and opined that the Ukrainian Security Service had become a unit of the CIA.( [19]) The secret consultations were confirmed by Jay Carney, the White House spokesman. Shortly after Brennan's secret visit Arsen Avakov, the Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs, ordered in the ″National Security Council″ the "anti-terror special operation" with military helicopters and tanks against rebellious eastUkrainians, the focus should thereby be the city Sloviansk. In Kiev the faction leader of the Party of Regions in the parliament, Oleksandr Yefremov, turned categorically down the "special operation", the "use of the army against citizens" was "unacceptable". - Please, correct and add. -- 79.223.22.233 ( talk) 18:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The sentence that is in this section right now states: Bild reported that FBI and CIA agents advise Ukrainian government on ending the insurgency in the east, building the security structure and fighting organized crime.. Now, my German is crappy, but it looks to me like the source is using future tense, not present tense. In other words, there are plans that FBI and CIA will advise Ukrainian government, not that they have or are. But I could very well be wrong. Can anyone help?
More generally I think the sentence should be reworded. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
As a side note, RGloucester, the title of a battlebox type infobox does not need to match the title, as such box types can be used in articles for actions that are included in the scope of an article but not the whole basis for an article. See for instace the Battles of Narvik or 1961 Indian Annexation of Goa. XavierGreen ( talk) 21:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
With the amount of dead and military equipment destruction accross a large portion of Ukraine, if this is not a civil war, I wonder what does it take to make it a civil war. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 19:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Wording like "SBU arrested a %SOMENUMBER% Russian extremists" or "SBU arrested a Russian intelligence agent" is biased. It presents dubious and unproven SBU claims appearing in the (often unofficial) media as hard facts. Oh, and besides, the "Black Hundreds" monarchist groups technically couldn't be called "neo-Nazis" (being always more focused on the religious denomination rather than blood).
With hysterical pieces like this (as just one example), the VoR just simply isn't a reliable source. Even with the politics aside it probably wouldn't be. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The funny part is how VOR there calls him a 'so called Russian militant' but in the TIME piece he admits he's Russian, a militant, and ex-military. -- Львівське ( говорити) 18:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a good source for the 'attacks on journalists' section. I don't have time to add it in right now, so I thought I'd put it here for others to use. RGloucester — ☎ 19:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Personal attacks
|
---|
RGloucester is pushing his right wing POV. No chance for NPOV, where he touches anything. ArmijaDonetsk ( talk) 19:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
|
I have a few things to add to discussion. I think Mariupol should get its own section in the Donetsk region.
Image- http://instagram.com/p/nxj5eGKL1y/ source: http://alexeyfurman.tumblr.com/post/85209325204/mariupol-just-now-police-department-on-fire-a Source2- http://31.media.tumblr.com/654e52e46abc27033cd3721cca2e6217/tumblr_n5b1z3LYpu1riizp3o2_r1_1280.jpg
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Td6cdhhK8 BloodofIndependence ( talk) 12:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27351621 BBC report about the massacre in Mariupol Even in a Western media like BBC...it is clearly stated that there was shooting against civilians and that country is almost at a civil war http://rt.com/news/157884-shooting-mariupol-eastern-ukraine/ This is the RT reportage about the Massacre in Mariupol A greek-speaking media (capital.gr is thought to be a centre-right-at least not left wing- media close to the Greek government) http://www.capital.gr/NewsTheme.asp?id=2012110 Another Greek-speaking media(a moderate left-wing one) about the massacre in Mariupol and the incidents of Konstantinovka and Lviv http://www.alfavita.gr/arthron/ektakto-%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B6%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE-%CF%83%CF%86%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%AE-%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BD-%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CE%AD%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%88%CE%B1%CE%BD-43-%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B8%CF%81%CF%8E%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%82-%CE%B6%CF%89%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%8D%CF%82-60-%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%AF-%CE%AD%CF%89%CF%82-%CF%84%CF%8E%CF%81%CE%B1-%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF-%CF%86%CF%89%CF%82 Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/09/police-station-burned-in-ukraine-southeastern-port-mariupol-at-least-7-dead-in/ presents people's view who witnessed the massacre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.146.4 ( talk) 22:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Would Mr Grigoryev like to clarify his 'update' [27], that is, his placement of a disputed template without justifying it? I'd like it if I knew what the problem was, so I could address it. RGloucester — ☎ 20:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester, Putin himself acknowledged the fact that those were the Russian troops in Crimea who western media refused to acknowledged as such even after his revelation. The Russian MOD even released honorary medal on that operation which according to the ministry started on 'February 20 (Few days before the Yanukovych's escape). Did you know about it? Where is neutrality? Denial is not only the river in Egypt, you know. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 21:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester, again, let's look at the infobox. Does it not have Crimea mentioned as the location of unrest? According to infobox it is all relevant and, of course, it is. Or are you denying it? Are you really prepared to argue with me that Crimea occupation has nothing to do with the unrest? Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 21:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)