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 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
Should we now create an article for the battle now that RS are calling it as such after the airport was taken?
Sources (To name a few):
(Euronews) (CNN) ("Battle at" used) (Reuters)
- Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Such an article could be created. What happening at the airport has a ton of media coverage now.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 22:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Airport battle needs or warrants its own article (moreso than others we've made for skirmishes). As for the name, no sources are calling anything the "Battle of Donetsk", just some saying they are in a battle "for Donetsk". I'm unsure what the neutral media accepted title would be. "2014 Donetsk Airport Battle"?
I think a good title would be "Battle of the Donetsk Airport"--ArbutustheTree 16:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbutus the tree ( talk • contribs)
Here's a short draft i made about the airport battle, but it needs to be updated. Feel free to edit this--ArbutustheTree 17:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Draft:Battle of Donetsk Airport
RGloucester, do you mind if you could start this draft and enventually transform it into an article. I can help along the way.--ArbutustheTree 19:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Draft I started is about 75% done. Just needs a little more editing.--ArbutustheTree 03:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Draft:Battle of Donetsk Airport
I will also help, but as far as I can see, the draft is fine for the most part. Only thing I would point out is that the upper (higher) estimate of rebel deaths was in fact 50+, not 100. The original rebel claim was that around 100 people overall were killed, half of them being civilians, not just rebels. EkoGraf ( talk) 15:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Allright. I'm going to transform the draft into an article soon.--ArbutustheTree 22:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Whoops. Looks like I copied the draft and created it into an article. However, i didn't see a "move" button. --ArbutustheTree 22:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
On May 29, a Ukrainian government helicopter was shot down, apparently by pro-Russia separatists, near Sloviansk, killing 14. [1] [2] Sca ( talk) 14:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC) The battle box state 12 killed but some sources put the number at 13 others at 14. What numbers should be used for the article?? 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 14:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
There are reports that the self appointed mayor of Sloviansk Vyacheslav Ponomariov decided to "evacuate" 200 children from Sloviansk to Artek, Crimea. Artek authorities reported that they know nothing about that idea, while the Ukrainian state authorities also have no such proposition made from Vyacheslav Ponomariov. The leadership of the anti-terrorist operation announced that is ready to create a corridor for refugees. ( ATO leadership is ready to create a corridor for refugees from the Sloviansk. Ukrayinska Pravda) The fact and its possible consequences were discussed at live broadcasting on the political show "Shuster LIVE" (May 29, 2014) between several politicians and journalists. ( Journalist Matvey Ganapolsky on Shuster LIVE provided information about the export in unknown direction 200 children from Sloviansk. Shuster LIVE). Also the director of the Development of Ukraine Fund of Rinat Akhmetov reported that the fund provided help to take away children from the region on petition of parents and already managed to export some 600 children from Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. ( Director of Rinat Akhmetov's Foundation "Development of Ukraine" Anatoliy Zabolotnyi stated that since May 23, the Fund exported 600 children from Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. If parents call the Foundation "Development of Ukraine", the child and the mother can take out of the zone ATO. Shuster LIVE). Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 02:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah this news is circulating now, seems they were snuck out of the city and somehow smuggled into Crimea -- Львівське ( говорити) 17:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, as you all can see the situation in Ukraine has grown up into a war, this ain't anymore just "unrest" and can't be categorized as one, this article should be called "2014 Civil War in Ukraine" or something similar. I think it's a good idea. Let's see who will support this. Adnan Hz 97 ( talk) 14:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Totally agree The number of victims on both sides is double-digit and the total amount of civillinas/armed groups/etc who lost their lives exceed 300. It is not a simple case of 'unrest' anymore. There even signs of full scale military conflict in the eastern part of the country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.172.113 ( talk) 14:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/26/new-ukraine-president-petro-poroshenko-vows-stop-war Even Poroshekno calls the war with its name...WAR This seems not to be sufficient for usual biased canadian editors like lvivske... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.242.254 ( talk) 17:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Reminding me a lot of the
Ukrainian–Soviet War. I guess that was the intention with the Ukrainian Front in Kharkiv, to start this there. The UKR-SOV war had Ukraine vs. Soviet Ukraine in a 'civil war' that was backed largely by Russian soldiers and white-Russian 'volunteers'. History repeats.--
Львівське (
говорити)
05:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
'My first decisive step will be aimed at ending the war, ending chaos, and bringing peace to a united and free Ukraine' http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27571612 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.242.254 ( talk) 17:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
In case of Syria not all participants recognize the nature of the war as Civil ,but still wiki named it as Syrian Civil War In the case of Ukraine all parts recognize that there is a war, a civil one taking place right now in Eastern Ukraine...but still a couple of editors persist on the idiotic termunrest'...it is OBVIOUS that a full scale military conflict is taking place. Helicopters are being shot down, artilery and bombing ius used, people are dying but stilll.lvivske insists ...NOT
A full-blown civil war it is not, at least not yet. However, a simple unrest it is not anymore, it has evolved into an event of a military nature. Many have called it a war in recent weeks. I think the appropriate name (compromise for now) would be something like
2014 Ukraine conflict (conflict being a term that has also been used a lot) or something like that. For further compromise, the lead paragraph (first sentence) should hold something like The Ukraine conflict, also known as the Ukraine unrest, is a... etc, etc. (with appropriate sources of course). And yes, it should include the Crimea front because its all connected.
EkoGraf (
talk) 15:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
*Moderate support, though it's too vague. A lot of English-speaking networks have described it as "Ukraine Conflict". I'd rather suggest "2014 Ukraine military conflict".
Mondolkiri1 (
talk) 21:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Mondolkiri1 (
talk)
21:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why some people just affix "the" before "Ukraine," it is unnecessary, and I'm not even sure it is correct. The word "the" doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the nation's name, so I don't see why it is being included. I may be wrong, but I thought the name of Ukraine was only "Ukraine". I believe a similar situation occurs with "Crimea;" I thought that when saying it's full name, you would say "the Crimean Peninsula," but when saying its short name, you would leave out the "the" and just say "Crimea". What's the issue here? This doesn't seem consistent with the Ukraine or Crimea articles. Dustin (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
According to this source [3] it could be so. -- Nug ( talk) 21:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
British journalist Graham Phillips has shared some of his videos using CC license (to illustrate topics on 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine).
I've started commons:Category:Photos by Graham Phillips and commons:Category:Videos by Graham Phillips in Commons. First three videos are uploaded already. Ready to use.-- Fastboy ( talk) 16:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Ukraine ordered military operations in the east. It officially war. Lugnuthemvar ( talk) 00:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree, all categorization should be based on sources when possible. Zkbt ( talk) 16:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Timeline needs to be moved too. I don't know if you forgot, but... Dustin (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The categories for the unrest needs to be moved. However, it is kind of difficult to move categories... I made a nomination here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Category:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. If I made an obvious mistake in the nomination, please correct it. Thank you. Dustin (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not completely sure about this, but should the text "2014 Pro-Russian Unrest in Ukraine" in the infobox map be changed to read "2014 Pro-Russian Conflict in Ukraine"? I'm not completely sure about this, so I thought I would bring it up here. Dustin (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Which is in fact mis-quote. BBC wrote that "Putin supports the initiative", but does not say he supports talks. What is more, the BBC article says that Putin insists on Participation of rebels in n talks. Wikipedia context speaks about talks without rebels. Hence the quote as was given conveys a provably false impression that Punit supports talks without rebels. -No.Altenmann >t 04:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The "OSCE initiative" consisted of the talks. The article says:
The talks in Kiev are part of an initiative put forward by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and veteran German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger was brought in to moderate. Those present included interim President Olexander Turchynov, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and several former Ukrainian leaders. The OSCE said Russian President Vladimir Putin supported its initiative.
You are referring to a different statement that does not having anything to do with Putin, but in fact was uttered by Lavrov:
But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov questioned whether presidential elections on May 25 should take place because Ukraine was on "the brink of civil war." In an interview with Bloomberg Television, Mr Lavrov said in the east and south of Ukraine "there is a war, a real war." He also called for the inclusion of rebels in the crisis talks, saying they would only succeed if there was "equal participation of all regions".
So, no, it was not a "misquote". Putin supported the talks, according to the OSCE. That has no bearing on his position about whether they'd succeed or not, which wasn't even his position, but Lavrov's. RGloucester — ☎ 04:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, I hope the dust is settled. That's the problem with rendering of hearsay delivered by a hearsay ("BBC said that OSCE said that Putin said..." :-): one may never be too careful, especially in quickly changing political situation. -No.Altenmann >t 04:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Have I assessed the importance correctly? (Per the respective project's guidelines.) I have set it 'top' for Ukraine project, 'high' for Russia and 'mid' for Politics. Dmatteng ( talk) 10:49, 2 June 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.
Support Reaper7 ( talk) 11:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester — ☎ 15:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious
Sources:
Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 03:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Support ether of the two. It has evolved from a simple unrest into a conflict of a military nature. EkoGraf ( talk) 04:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Support Unrest indicates a low level event with strikes, protests. This is now a military conflict and has grown beyond the unrest level— MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Favourable, positive, supportive; favourably disposed.
RGloucester — ☎ 19:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Support It describes better the situation. "Unrest" is an euphemism. Is it necessary a couple of hundreds of people dead to describe as a conflict, let alone a "civil war"? Mondolkiri1 ( talk). 03:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see, no-one has opposed idea of using the word "conflict" instead of "unrest". If there is consensus that this one-word change would be an improvement, why not do it now? Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 05:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose by LeVivsky (Lvivske), PatriotDonbassa (RGloucester) and Nug Moderate view by ArbutustheTree. Until now, 4 in favour, 3 against, 1 neutral. I quote Galileo ("E pur si muove")... Whatever I say, it doesn't change the facts!... And in my opinion, this is, if less than the Bosnian war, so far, it's not less than the Croatian war at all! (a country where there has been an ethnic cleansing against the Serbs, by the way... maybe it's more difficult to clean 5 million Russian speaking Russians or Ukrainians from the Donbass, as the Svoboda would dream... sorry for this POV, I'm left POV, I support Tsipras) Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 07:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
@Mondolkiri1 Tsipras and in general Left in Europe strongly condemns tha current Ukrainian authorities for its violent actions and murders against civillians in Donbas. Also, far-right parties in Europe tend to share this view.After the recent elections in EU...there is a respectable faction in EU parliament that opposes the bloodbath in E.Ukraine. As for this article...because of some stubborn canadian...wiki presents tha fact as if there is no military conflict between Ukrainians of different origins and political views...someone would believe there are only protests and demonstrations...A completely misleading name of the article.Btw i did not know Tsipras has supporters in Portugal ouside of Left Bloc :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.223.2 ( talk) 17:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Just one (late) remark : "pro-Russian" does not match with "conflict". "Pro-Russian" refers to one side, while "conflict" implies two sides or refers to a region. One does not speak of an "Armenian conflict in Azerbaijan" for example. It would have been more logical to choose "pro-Russian rebellion", "pro-Russian insurgency" or "East Ukraine conflict". Ec.Domnowall ( talk) 14:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The article looks like militants are just "offencing" and ukrainian government has nothing to do with that. Some information punitive operation must be added. Should it be done in a new section or in "Response"? 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:184F:AB9C:7766:8E09 ( talk) 17:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Two pesrons - Yulia Romero and Львівське are keep working on this article. As we can see in their profiles they both are pro-ukrainian, which means they are unable to stay neutral. Because of it article full of intentional false and inaccurate information covered by most untrusted pro-goverment ukraianian media which were seen many times on lies. I suggest we should have someone who could edit from most objective point of view, considering all sources and trying to represent a real background of event without bias. I am asking to puy attention on this issue
Just because I'm Ukrainian doesn't mean I am "unable to stay neutral", further your accusations of inserting false and inaccurate information...and untrustworthy media...oh hell, these are bad faith accusations - enough. This is all baseless garbage, if you have a problem with a source, point it out. Yulia is a great editor and very neutral and hard working. I'm just editing as I see it in the news and media that I read during the day. If you have a problem, be direct, don't start on conspiracy theories or accuse others of being dishonest simply because of their user pages.-- Львівське ( говорити) 04:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
for other users, this is what i removed, can someone else weigh in of its its relevant to the timeline? --
Львівське (
говорити)
06:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called on the Kiev authorities to take urgent measures to build a national dialogue with all political forces and regions in Ukraine. He wrote in Theguardian: " Russia is doing all it can to promote early stabilisation in Ukraine. We are firmly convinced that this can be achieved through, among other steps: real constitutional reform, which would ensure the legitimate rights of all Ukrainian regions and respond to demands from its south-eastern region to make Russian the state's second official language; firm guarantees on Ukraine's non-aligned status to be enshrined in its laws, thus ensuring its role as a connecting link in an indivisible European security architecture; and urgent measures to halt activity by illegal armed formations of the Right Sector and other ultra-nationalist groups. De-escalation should begin with rhetoric. Belligerent statements such as those heard at the Nato foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on 1 April do not match demands for a de-escalation. It is time to stop the groundless whipping-up of tension, and to return to serious common work." [206]
Can Yrisska please give us examples of my alleged (by him) wrongdoing in this article? Claiming "being pro-ukrainian, which means they are unable to stay neutral", does that also mean that pro-russians should not edit this article also??? I used the BBC a lot... Since when is the BBC "untrusted pro-goverment ukraianian media"... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Doing changes as adding Russia to the belligerents with no sources or removing other sourced belligerents from the infobox is a clear example of POV-pushing and politically-driven editing, wich cannot be allowed.-- HC PUNXKID 22:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This article is a cesspool of hate. Fortunately, the virulently nationalistic émigré editors of these articles are completely out of touch with the real Ukrainian people. Nationalism has no deep roots in the Ukraine, so Ukrainian soldiers are unwilling to kill fellow Ukrainians to prop up the illegal putsch regime in Kiev. – Herzen ( talk) 19:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
This article is so biased, it is not even funny. Also, quoting fabricated polls is irresponsible. If those polls were accurate, Crimea wouldn't be taken as it was and people's militia in South-West would not be supported by the local population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.235.72 ( talk) 03:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Yulia Romero and Lvivske, it is funny to see two being accused of being not neutral in your edits. I guess those editors do not check profiles of other participants such as me. I think it is kind of prejudice and maybe even racist to assume something about another editor just reading his or her profile. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 21:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Ukrainina jets bombed the Luhansk RSA and border clashes are happening. Also, rebels tried to storm a base in Lugansk.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 19:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
At present the page doesn't go into much detail about what the movement has been advocating, or about what it says it is opposing, or what terminology and imagery it has used... Some issues are already mentioned in the infobox, but it needs to be fleshed out in the body text of the article. Perhaps a new section with a title like "Slogans, symbols, demands, policies"? Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 05:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester asked what we've left out? Iryna asked what we've said that needs to be balanced? OK. What do we say right now about the motives of the separatist/federalist protesters and militants? What is their casus belli?
Well, we do have a section about allegations that protesters were paid, which is certainly one possible motive. Allegations about paid protests are a staple of political debate in many countries... true or not, they come from a movement's critics rather than its supporters... has anyone ever held up a placard saying: "I'm only here for the money" ?? If we give information only about this criticism of the motives of separatist/federalist protesters, are we presenting an NPOV? Not when there are other motives, mentioned in mainstream news reports, which we don't now mention.
Some of the other reasons people have been protesting and taking up arms are mentioned in a report from Donetsk by Luke Harding in the Observer which explores viewpoints of separatists and federalists there:
A further factor, identified for instance in a report from Horlivka by Noah Sneider in Aljazeera America is that deaths from Kiev's military actions have been increasing the anger and resolve in the east. Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 00:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
2nd of June airstrike video(non-Graphic one), shows moment the fighter attacked from the air, [16].Most likely unguided rockets S-8KOM were used.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 20:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Second video(Warning Graphic later), shows the fighter releasing missiles against the city(first 10 seconds) [17] -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 20:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Third video showing air fighter releasing rockets on the city [18] -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 21:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is a video of the missiles exploding. And these are the people that Kyiv kills with its "anti-terrorist operation" (WARNING: very graphic). How Wikipedia editors can continue editing articles to hide from English readers the nature of the regime is beyond me. – Herzen ( talk) 02:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Pravda has a good article on it with lots of video and analysis. I'm not even going to respond to the above IP who likened "extermination" of journalists to US censorship, or the other pathetic whitewashing of Russia's actions. -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 14:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM - if you people want to discuss youtube videos (that are not RS), then there are various internet forums suitable for that, wikipedia talk pages are not such forum.-- Staberinde ( talk) 15:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
OSCE report. "Based on the SMM’s limited observation these strikes were the result of non-guided rockets shot from an aircraft. The number of casualties is unknown.". I guess, it's a reliable source. Seryo93 ( talk) 18:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Can someone at least change "Donetsk" to "Luhansk" in the article? This explosion did not happen in Donetsk. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Not suggesting a name change or anything like that, but wanted to document that the Luhansk militia leader does consider it a proxy war, not a civil war.
“Everyone understands that this is a war between Russia and America, and we must be for one side or for the other,” Mr. Khodakovsky said in a confident, flowing monologue.
[20] -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 03:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The Syrian civil war is also called a proxy war by both sides but we still call it a civil war. Same goes for the Afghan civil war of the eighties. The terms proxy war and civil war are not mutually exclusive. But, its a moot point since per Wikipedia procedure we go with the common name, and for now we have settled on conflict. EkoGraf ( talk) 05:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
[21] Key points:
I think this settles the discussion about what caused the deaths of the civilians.Basic information can be added to this article and others about the conflict. I will add details about this attack on civilians by Ukrainian air force to an article I am writing.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe there should be a part in the pro-Russian conflict article called "attacks on civilians", or maybe it already has that.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 00:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering if anyone is actually monitoring the WP:CALC for casualties in the infobox. I've been watching the figures jump back and forth at inordinate rates citing various sources for the figures, but haven't been able to establish any consistency in the calculation process. Is there anyone monitoring these calculations in case of double-ups, etc. If so, what system have they implemented and are minimum or maximum casualties being used? -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Also to mention that two more helicopters were downed on 03 June here is the source(confirmed by the government) [23] . Daki122 ( talk) 13:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, two helicopters where shot down according to a rebels spokesman on June 02 but a Kiev Official denied it the same day, now another official acknoledge the loss. The number of killed and wounded have risen dramatially, but there is a problem with the number of wounded there is no information of combatants wounded in the battle box. Another Issue an Antonov and a Mi 8 are considered damaged in the Siege of Sloviansk page and lost at this page, is there any concenssus???? 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 22:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
RT is reporting that 181 people have been killed of which 59 are Ukrainian troops Actually, RT is not the primary source. The figure (181 dead of which 59 soldiers) was reported by a pro-government Ukrainian official. I'm personally monitoring the numbers of casualties on both sides as they are reported and/or updated and updating the infobox accordingly. The number of wounded was tracked by me and other editors for some time but it simply became something that wasn't able to be properly tracked anymore. EkoGraf ( talk) 22:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Eko, the number of dead of the May 22 Ambush its at 18 dead right now. Check! 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 15:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Done just now. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
OSCE mission is now confirming that Kiev forces bombed Luhansk in an airstrike [33]-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 18:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
On Tuesday, the OSCE's monitoring mission to Ukraine said the building was hit by rockets. It added that - based on the mission's limited observation - "these strikes were the result of non-guided rockets shot from an aircraft".
-- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 19:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I should also stress that this is based on "limited observation" (looking at the same videos as us?)
The SMM has not re-established contact with the 4 monitors from the Donetsk team and 4 monitors from the Luhansk team with whom it lost contact on 26 May and 29 May respectively.
The Luhansk team is missing/kidnapped, meaning the OSCE isn't even there to observe on anything.— LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 19:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
This happens over and over. Russian media tell one story; pro-junta Ukrainian media tell a completely different story. When the smoke clears, it turns out that the Russian media were right all along, whereas the Ukrainian media were spinning lies out of thin air. Maintaining articles on the Ukrainian crisis would be much easier if some editors did not repeat ad nauseum pro-junta lies. Please stop the endless pro-junta advocacy. It makes things difficult for editors who want to maintain Wikipedia as an objective source of information. – Herzen ( talk) 20:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the people have risen up against the separatists here driving them out. [34]. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to create a draft that will be about the developments in Luhansk, such as the seige of the Border Guard Base. Allthough it has signifacant media coverage, I am not going to publish it due to wikipedia's notnews policy. It will remain a draft for the time being.
Here's the draft: Draft: Ukrainian Border Base Seige
It needs editing, however, so feel free to edit this.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 16:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
[37] Since Spiegel and "Bild am Sonntag" are reliable sources I believe this can be added to article. They also mention this was reported by German intelligence service to German officials. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, The left in Portugal (the real left) acctually supports both the Ukrainian people who are a large portion (one of the 4 largest immigrant communities), mainly from the Western Ukraine (the others being the Brazilians, the Capeverdians and the Romanians) and the right for self-determination, which Portugal supported not only in 1974 and 1975 for the former colonies, but also during 1980s and 1990s for East Timor... Unfortunately, not for Macau, which was delivered to China without any self-determination. I've worked mainly with people from Western Ukraine. But also with people from Eastern Ukraine. But even from people from Western Ukraine I've got the sense that they think that Ukraine has been going in a wrong direction. Maybe they're not so naif, having worked for so many years in a country belonging to the EU under austerity measures. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 21:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
What do we know about the participation of English speaking foreigners in Ukraine? Shall we mention them in the article? According to Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin: "He rounded on Kiev and its Western allies, accusing the United States of “blatant” double standards and claiming that English-speaking foreigners were interfering on the ground." [38] [39] Fakirbakir ( talk) 13:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Several German-speaking media ,Bild,Spiegel,Die Welt reveal the presence of 400 US mercenaries of Blackwater(Securiti Academy). http://www.standartnews.com/english/read/bild_am_sonntag_400_elite_us_commandos_help_kiev_in_ukraine-3612.html http://www.naftemporiki.gr/story/807351/oukrania-kai-amerikanoi-misthoforoi-stis-maxes-enantia-stous-filorosous (Greek speaking media covering the same story ) The infobox should change to show the presence of US foreigners actively engaged in the war at the eastern part of the country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.172.110 ( talk) 14:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The German sources and Russian media are fake. My understanding now that I've gone over this ad nauseam is that there was a German security press conference, Bild reported on it (and questions were asked about what RIA / Russian media was saying about Blackwater involvement, which were rebuked by Germany) and then DW/DS reported that Bild reported on it (Bild has no record of this article on their website). Russian news them picked up on it citing that it's in the German press. Really ugly game of telephone. Even if we had this original Bild report, would a tabloid like Bild pass the reliable source sniff test? -- Львівське ( говорити) 15:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's a copy-paste of a convo we recently had, more appropriate having it on this article's talk:
Does this source check out?
[40] --
Львівське (
говорити)
19:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to retrosearch for the Die Welt article that the original sites, I found this [ http://www.welt.de/newsticker/dpa_nt/infoline_nt/thema_nt/article127870199/US-Sicherheitsfirma-Academi-bestreitet-Einsatz-in-Ukraine.html - Academi denies and they deny the report from the "Bild am Sonntag" tabloid. -- Львівське ( говорити) 19:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
This was released yesterday so now we have something to work with [46]: "Since the release of the videos is speculated time and again that mercenary support the pro-Western Ukrainian government." Bild seems to only discuss their previous article [47] from March where they speculate on internet rumors and a video. -- Львівське ( говорити) 15:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
This has now been addressed [48]
This is categorically false. We have been able to trace this rumor to a series of Kremlin-sponsored websites that put out a photograph that is indeed either of police or private security contractors. The Internet is a wonderful thing, and eventually people can find out where photographs come from; so it didn't take long for somebody to produce the original photograph, which was actually taken in New Orleans, Louisiana, and had been doctored to remove the fast-food signs and make it look like it might be in the street in an unnamed place. But the allegations that there are somehow "U.S. mercenaries" operating in Ukraine are false.
-- Львівське ( говорити) 04:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
more on the mercs [49]
So now, the propagandists are trying to clean the story up — they’ve decided to go with “400″ — 150 or 300 probably sounded too meager (although the more they inflate the number, the more we’re going to ask why ordinary townspeople haven’t noticed these Americans). They also decided to give the story a more “credible” source than the Russian Foreign Ministry, which is likely to be biased on this subject — and have made the source be a German newspaper quoting German intelligence — although of course, no such claim has been made by the real German authorities:
So what’s the source for the story in Bild am Sonntag? Oh, it’s a story in the German version of RIA Novosti that takes us back to the same 7 April story we started with last month. It’s illustrated with a photo with the caption, “Kiev sends Blackwater mercenaries to suppress the protests in eastern Ukraine. But multiple other sources identify the fighters in battered old helmets as separatists in Slavyansk. Back to the drawing board.
Circular regurgitation. Case closed. -- Львівське ( говорити) 15:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
On May 17, 2014 the office of General Prosecutor of Ukraine recognized the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic as terrorist organizations.
Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 12:45, 21 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 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
Should we now create an article for the battle now that RS are calling it as such after the airport was taken?
Sources (To name a few):
(Euronews) (CNN) ("Battle at" used) (Reuters)
- Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Such an article could be created. What happening at the airport has a ton of media coverage now.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 22:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Airport battle needs or warrants its own article (moreso than others we've made for skirmishes). As for the name, no sources are calling anything the "Battle of Donetsk", just some saying they are in a battle "for Donetsk". I'm unsure what the neutral media accepted title would be. "2014 Donetsk Airport Battle"?
I think a good title would be "Battle of the Donetsk Airport"--ArbutustheTree 16:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbutus the tree ( talk • contribs)
Here's a short draft i made about the airport battle, but it needs to be updated. Feel free to edit this--ArbutustheTree 17:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Draft:Battle of Donetsk Airport
RGloucester, do you mind if you could start this draft and enventually transform it into an article. I can help along the way.--ArbutustheTree 19:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Draft I started is about 75% done. Just needs a little more editing.--ArbutustheTree 03:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Draft:Battle of Donetsk Airport
I will also help, but as far as I can see, the draft is fine for the most part. Only thing I would point out is that the upper (higher) estimate of rebel deaths was in fact 50+, not 100. The original rebel claim was that around 100 people overall were killed, half of them being civilians, not just rebels. EkoGraf ( talk) 15:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Allright. I'm going to transform the draft into an article soon.--ArbutustheTree 22:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Whoops. Looks like I copied the draft and created it into an article. However, i didn't see a "move" button. --ArbutustheTree 22:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
On May 29, a Ukrainian government helicopter was shot down, apparently by pro-Russia separatists, near Sloviansk, killing 14. [1] [2] Sca ( talk) 14:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC) The battle box state 12 killed but some sources put the number at 13 others at 14. What numbers should be used for the article?? 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 14:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
There are reports that the self appointed mayor of Sloviansk Vyacheslav Ponomariov decided to "evacuate" 200 children from Sloviansk to Artek, Crimea. Artek authorities reported that they know nothing about that idea, while the Ukrainian state authorities also have no such proposition made from Vyacheslav Ponomariov. The leadership of the anti-terrorist operation announced that is ready to create a corridor for refugees. ( ATO leadership is ready to create a corridor for refugees from the Sloviansk. Ukrayinska Pravda) The fact and its possible consequences were discussed at live broadcasting on the political show "Shuster LIVE" (May 29, 2014) between several politicians and journalists. ( Journalist Matvey Ganapolsky on Shuster LIVE provided information about the export in unknown direction 200 children from Sloviansk. Shuster LIVE). Also the director of the Development of Ukraine Fund of Rinat Akhmetov reported that the fund provided help to take away children from the region on petition of parents and already managed to export some 600 children from Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. ( Director of Rinat Akhmetov's Foundation "Development of Ukraine" Anatoliy Zabolotnyi stated that since May 23, the Fund exported 600 children from Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. If parents call the Foundation "Development of Ukraine", the child and the mother can take out of the zone ATO. Shuster LIVE). Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 02:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah this news is circulating now, seems they were snuck out of the city and somehow smuggled into Crimea -- Львівське ( говорити) 17:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, as you all can see the situation in Ukraine has grown up into a war, this ain't anymore just "unrest" and can't be categorized as one, this article should be called "2014 Civil War in Ukraine" or something similar. I think it's a good idea. Let's see who will support this. Adnan Hz 97 ( talk) 14:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Totally agree The number of victims on both sides is double-digit and the total amount of civillinas/armed groups/etc who lost their lives exceed 300. It is not a simple case of 'unrest' anymore. There even signs of full scale military conflict in the eastern part of the country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.172.113 ( talk) 14:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/26/new-ukraine-president-petro-poroshenko-vows-stop-war Even Poroshekno calls the war with its name...WAR This seems not to be sufficient for usual biased canadian editors like lvivske... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.242.254 ( talk) 17:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Reminding me a lot of the
Ukrainian–Soviet War. I guess that was the intention with the Ukrainian Front in Kharkiv, to start this there. The UKR-SOV war had Ukraine vs. Soviet Ukraine in a 'civil war' that was backed largely by Russian soldiers and white-Russian 'volunteers'. History repeats.--
Львівське (
говорити)
05:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
'My first decisive step will be aimed at ending the war, ending chaos, and bringing peace to a united and free Ukraine' http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27571612 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.242.254 ( talk) 17:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
In case of Syria not all participants recognize the nature of the war as Civil ,but still wiki named it as Syrian Civil War In the case of Ukraine all parts recognize that there is a war, a civil one taking place right now in Eastern Ukraine...but still a couple of editors persist on the idiotic termunrest'...it is OBVIOUS that a full scale military conflict is taking place. Helicopters are being shot down, artilery and bombing ius used, people are dying but stilll.lvivske insists ...NOT
A full-blown civil war it is not, at least not yet. However, a simple unrest it is not anymore, it has evolved into an event of a military nature. Many have called it a war in recent weeks. I think the appropriate name (compromise for now) would be something like
2014 Ukraine conflict (conflict being a term that has also been used a lot) or something like that. For further compromise, the lead paragraph (first sentence) should hold something like The Ukraine conflict, also known as the Ukraine unrest, is a... etc, etc. (with appropriate sources of course). And yes, it should include the Crimea front because its all connected.
EkoGraf (
talk) 15:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
*Moderate support, though it's too vague. A lot of English-speaking networks have described it as "Ukraine Conflict". I'd rather suggest "2014 Ukraine military conflict".
Mondolkiri1 (
talk) 21:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Mondolkiri1 (
talk)
21:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why some people just affix "the" before "Ukraine," it is unnecessary, and I'm not even sure it is correct. The word "the" doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the nation's name, so I don't see why it is being included. I may be wrong, but I thought the name of Ukraine was only "Ukraine". I believe a similar situation occurs with "Crimea;" I thought that when saying it's full name, you would say "the Crimean Peninsula," but when saying its short name, you would leave out the "the" and just say "Crimea". What's the issue here? This doesn't seem consistent with the Ukraine or Crimea articles. Dustin (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
According to this source [3] it could be so. -- Nug ( talk) 21:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
British journalist Graham Phillips has shared some of his videos using CC license (to illustrate topics on 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine).
I've started commons:Category:Photos by Graham Phillips and commons:Category:Videos by Graham Phillips in Commons. First three videos are uploaded already. Ready to use.-- Fastboy ( talk) 16:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Ukraine ordered military operations in the east. It officially war. Lugnuthemvar ( talk) 00:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree, all categorization should be based on sources when possible. Zkbt ( talk) 16:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Timeline needs to be moved too. I don't know if you forgot, but... Dustin (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The categories for the unrest needs to be moved. However, it is kind of difficult to move categories... I made a nomination here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Category:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. If I made an obvious mistake in the nomination, please correct it. Thank you. Dustin (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not completely sure about this, but should the text "2014 Pro-Russian Unrest in Ukraine" in the infobox map be changed to read "2014 Pro-Russian Conflict in Ukraine"? I'm not completely sure about this, so I thought I would bring it up here. Dustin (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Which is in fact mis-quote. BBC wrote that "Putin supports the initiative", but does not say he supports talks. What is more, the BBC article says that Putin insists on Participation of rebels in n talks. Wikipedia context speaks about talks without rebels. Hence the quote as was given conveys a provably false impression that Punit supports talks without rebels. -No.Altenmann >t 04:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The "OSCE initiative" consisted of the talks. The article says:
The talks in Kiev are part of an initiative put forward by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and veteran German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger was brought in to moderate. Those present included interim President Olexander Turchynov, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and several former Ukrainian leaders. The OSCE said Russian President Vladimir Putin supported its initiative.
You are referring to a different statement that does not having anything to do with Putin, but in fact was uttered by Lavrov:
But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov questioned whether presidential elections on May 25 should take place because Ukraine was on "the brink of civil war." In an interview with Bloomberg Television, Mr Lavrov said in the east and south of Ukraine "there is a war, a real war." He also called for the inclusion of rebels in the crisis talks, saying they would only succeed if there was "equal participation of all regions".
So, no, it was not a "misquote". Putin supported the talks, according to the OSCE. That has no bearing on his position about whether they'd succeed or not, which wasn't even his position, but Lavrov's. RGloucester — ☎ 04:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, I hope the dust is settled. That's the problem with rendering of hearsay delivered by a hearsay ("BBC said that OSCE said that Putin said..." :-): one may never be too careful, especially in quickly changing political situation. -No.Altenmann >t 04:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Have I assessed the importance correctly? (Per the respective project's guidelines.) I have set it 'top' for Ukraine project, 'high' for Russia and 'mid' for Politics. Dmatteng ( talk) 10:49, 2 June 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.
Support Reaper7 ( talk) 11:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester — ☎ 15:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious
Sources:
Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 03:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Support ether of the two. It has evolved from a simple unrest into a conflict of a military nature. EkoGraf ( talk) 04:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Support Unrest indicates a low level event with strikes, protests. This is now a military conflict and has grown beyond the unrest level— MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Favourable, positive, supportive; favourably disposed.
RGloucester — ☎ 19:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Support It describes better the situation. "Unrest" is an euphemism. Is it necessary a couple of hundreds of people dead to describe as a conflict, let alone a "civil war"? Mondolkiri1 ( talk). 03:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see, no-one has opposed idea of using the word "conflict" instead of "unrest". If there is consensus that this one-word change would be an improvement, why not do it now? Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 05:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose by LeVivsky (Lvivske), PatriotDonbassa (RGloucester) and Nug Moderate view by ArbutustheTree. Until now, 4 in favour, 3 against, 1 neutral. I quote Galileo ("E pur si muove")... Whatever I say, it doesn't change the facts!... And in my opinion, this is, if less than the Bosnian war, so far, it's not less than the Croatian war at all! (a country where there has been an ethnic cleansing against the Serbs, by the way... maybe it's more difficult to clean 5 million Russian speaking Russians or Ukrainians from the Donbass, as the Svoboda would dream... sorry for this POV, I'm left POV, I support Tsipras) Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 07:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
@Mondolkiri1 Tsipras and in general Left in Europe strongly condemns tha current Ukrainian authorities for its violent actions and murders against civillians in Donbas. Also, far-right parties in Europe tend to share this view.After the recent elections in EU...there is a respectable faction in EU parliament that opposes the bloodbath in E.Ukraine. As for this article...because of some stubborn canadian...wiki presents tha fact as if there is no military conflict between Ukrainians of different origins and political views...someone would believe there are only protests and demonstrations...A completely misleading name of the article.Btw i did not know Tsipras has supporters in Portugal ouside of Left Bloc :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.223.2 ( talk) 17:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Just one (late) remark : "pro-Russian" does not match with "conflict". "Pro-Russian" refers to one side, while "conflict" implies two sides or refers to a region. One does not speak of an "Armenian conflict in Azerbaijan" for example. It would have been more logical to choose "pro-Russian rebellion", "pro-Russian insurgency" or "East Ukraine conflict". Ec.Domnowall ( talk) 14:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The article looks like militants are just "offencing" and ukrainian government has nothing to do with that. Some information punitive operation must be added. Should it be done in a new section or in "Response"? 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:184F:AB9C:7766:8E09 ( talk) 17:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Two pesrons - Yulia Romero and Львівське are keep working on this article. As we can see in their profiles they both are pro-ukrainian, which means they are unable to stay neutral. Because of it article full of intentional false and inaccurate information covered by most untrusted pro-goverment ukraianian media which were seen many times on lies. I suggest we should have someone who could edit from most objective point of view, considering all sources and trying to represent a real background of event without bias. I am asking to puy attention on this issue
Just because I'm Ukrainian doesn't mean I am "unable to stay neutral", further your accusations of inserting false and inaccurate information...and untrustworthy media...oh hell, these are bad faith accusations - enough. This is all baseless garbage, if you have a problem with a source, point it out. Yulia is a great editor and very neutral and hard working. I'm just editing as I see it in the news and media that I read during the day. If you have a problem, be direct, don't start on conspiracy theories or accuse others of being dishonest simply because of their user pages.-- Львівське ( говорити) 04:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
for other users, this is what i removed, can someone else weigh in of its its relevant to the timeline? --
Львівське (
говорити)
06:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called on the Kiev authorities to take urgent measures to build a national dialogue with all political forces and regions in Ukraine. He wrote in Theguardian: " Russia is doing all it can to promote early stabilisation in Ukraine. We are firmly convinced that this can be achieved through, among other steps: real constitutional reform, which would ensure the legitimate rights of all Ukrainian regions and respond to demands from its south-eastern region to make Russian the state's second official language; firm guarantees on Ukraine's non-aligned status to be enshrined in its laws, thus ensuring its role as a connecting link in an indivisible European security architecture; and urgent measures to halt activity by illegal armed formations of the Right Sector and other ultra-nationalist groups. De-escalation should begin with rhetoric. Belligerent statements such as those heard at the Nato foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on 1 April do not match demands for a de-escalation. It is time to stop the groundless whipping-up of tension, and to return to serious common work." [206]
Can Yrisska please give us examples of my alleged (by him) wrongdoing in this article? Claiming "being pro-ukrainian, which means they are unable to stay neutral", does that also mean that pro-russians should not edit this article also??? I used the BBC a lot... Since when is the BBC "untrusted pro-goverment ukraianian media"... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Doing changes as adding Russia to the belligerents with no sources or removing other sourced belligerents from the infobox is a clear example of POV-pushing and politically-driven editing, wich cannot be allowed.-- HC PUNXKID 22:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This article is a cesspool of hate. Fortunately, the virulently nationalistic émigré editors of these articles are completely out of touch with the real Ukrainian people. Nationalism has no deep roots in the Ukraine, so Ukrainian soldiers are unwilling to kill fellow Ukrainians to prop up the illegal putsch regime in Kiev. – Herzen ( talk) 19:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
This article is so biased, it is not even funny. Also, quoting fabricated polls is irresponsible. If those polls were accurate, Crimea wouldn't be taken as it was and people's militia in South-West would not be supported by the local population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.235.72 ( talk) 03:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Yulia Romero and Lvivske, it is funny to see two being accused of being not neutral in your edits. I guess those editors do not check profiles of other participants such as me. I think it is kind of prejudice and maybe even racist to assume something about another editor just reading his or her profile. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 21:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Ukrainina jets bombed the Luhansk RSA and border clashes are happening. Also, rebels tried to storm a base in Lugansk.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 19:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
At present the page doesn't go into much detail about what the movement has been advocating, or about what it says it is opposing, or what terminology and imagery it has used... Some issues are already mentioned in the infobox, but it needs to be fleshed out in the body text of the article. Perhaps a new section with a title like "Slogans, symbols, demands, policies"? Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 05:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester asked what we've left out? Iryna asked what we've said that needs to be balanced? OK. What do we say right now about the motives of the separatist/federalist protesters and militants? What is their casus belli?
Well, we do have a section about allegations that protesters were paid, which is certainly one possible motive. Allegations about paid protests are a staple of political debate in many countries... true or not, they come from a movement's critics rather than its supporters... has anyone ever held up a placard saying: "I'm only here for the money" ?? If we give information only about this criticism of the motives of separatist/federalist protesters, are we presenting an NPOV? Not when there are other motives, mentioned in mainstream news reports, which we don't now mention.
Some of the other reasons people have been protesting and taking up arms are mentioned in a report from Donetsk by Luke Harding in the Observer which explores viewpoints of separatists and federalists there:
A further factor, identified for instance in a report from Horlivka by Noah Sneider in Aljazeera America is that deaths from Kiev's military actions have been increasing the anger and resolve in the east. Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 00:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
2nd of June airstrike video(non-Graphic one), shows moment the fighter attacked from the air, [16].Most likely unguided rockets S-8KOM were used.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 20:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Second video(Warning Graphic later), shows the fighter releasing missiles against the city(first 10 seconds) [17] -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 20:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Third video showing air fighter releasing rockets on the city [18] -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 21:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is a video of the missiles exploding. And these are the people that Kyiv kills with its "anti-terrorist operation" (WARNING: very graphic). How Wikipedia editors can continue editing articles to hide from English readers the nature of the regime is beyond me. – Herzen ( talk) 02:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Pravda has a good article on it with lots of video and analysis. I'm not even going to respond to the above IP who likened "extermination" of journalists to US censorship, or the other pathetic whitewashing of Russia's actions. -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 14:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM - if you people want to discuss youtube videos (that are not RS), then there are various internet forums suitable for that, wikipedia talk pages are not such forum.-- Staberinde ( talk) 15:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
OSCE report. "Based on the SMM’s limited observation these strikes were the result of non-guided rockets shot from an aircraft. The number of casualties is unknown.". I guess, it's a reliable source. Seryo93 ( talk) 18:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Can someone at least change "Donetsk" to "Luhansk" in the article? This explosion did not happen in Donetsk. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Not suggesting a name change or anything like that, but wanted to document that the Luhansk militia leader does consider it a proxy war, not a civil war.
“Everyone understands that this is a war between Russia and America, and we must be for one side or for the other,” Mr. Khodakovsky said in a confident, flowing monologue.
[20] -- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 03:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The Syrian civil war is also called a proxy war by both sides but we still call it a civil war. Same goes for the Afghan civil war of the eighties. The terms proxy war and civil war are not mutually exclusive. But, its a moot point since per Wikipedia procedure we go with the common name, and for now we have settled on conflict. EkoGraf ( talk) 05:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
[21] Key points:
I think this settles the discussion about what caused the deaths of the civilians.Basic information can be added to this article and others about the conflict. I will add details about this attack on civilians by Ukrainian air force to an article I am writing.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe there should be a part in the pro-Russian conflict article called "attacks on civilians", or maybe it already has that.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 00:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering if anyone is actually monitoring the WP:CALC for casualties in the infobox. I've been watching the figures jump back and forth at inordinate rates citing various sources for the figures, but haven't been able to establish any consistency in the calculation process. Is there anyone monitoring these calculations in case of double-ups, etc. If so, what system have they implemented and are minimum or maximum casualties being used? -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Also to mention that two more helicopters were downed on 03 June here is the source(confirmed by the government) [23] . Daki122 ( talk) 13:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, two helicopters where shot down according to a rebels spokesman on June 02 but a Kiev Official denied it the same day, now another official acknoledge the loss. The number of killed and wounded have risen dramatially, but there is a problem with the number of wounded there is no information of combatants wounded in the battle box. Another Issue an Antonov and a Mi 8 are considered damaged in the Siege of Sloviansk page and lost at this page, is there any concenssus???? 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 22:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
RT is reporting that 181 people have been killed of which 59 are Ukrainian troops Actually, RT is not the primary source. The figure (181 dead of which 59 soldiers) was reported by a pro-government Ukrainian official. I'm personally monitoring the numbers of casualties on both sides as they are reported and/or updated and updating the infobox accordingly. The number of wounded was tracked by me and other editors for some time but it simply became something that wasn't able to be properly tracked anymore. EkoGraf ( talk) 22:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Eko, the number of dead of the May 22 Ambush its at 18 dead right now. Check! 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 15:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Done just now. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
OSCE mission is now confirming that Kiev forces bombed Luhansk in an airstrike [33]-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 18:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
On Tuesday, the OSCE's monitoring mission to Ukraine said the building was hit by rockets. It added that - based on the mission's limited observation - "these strikes were the result of non-guided rockets shot from an aircraft".
-- LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 19:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I should also stress that this is based on "limited observation" (looking at the same videos as us?)
The SMM has not re-established contact with the 4 monitors from the Donetsk team and 4 monitors from the Luhansk team with whom it lost contact on 26 May and 29 May respectively.
The Luhansk team is missing/kidnapped, meaning the OSCE isn't even there to observe on anything.— LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ) 19:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
This happens over and over. Russian media tell one story; pro-junta Ukrainian media tell a completely different story. When the smoke clears, it turns out that the Russian media were right all along, whereas the Ukrainian media were spinning lies out of thin air. Maintaining articles on the Ukrainian crisis would be much easier if some editors did not repeat ad nauseum pro-junta lies. Please stop the endless pro-junta advocacy. It makes things difficult for editors who want to maintain Wikipedia as an objective source of information. – Herzen ( talk) 20:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the people have risen up against the separatists here driving them out. [34]. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to create a draft that will be about the developments in Luhansk, such as the seige of the Border Guard Base. Allthough it has signifacant media coverage, I am not going to publish it due to wikipedia's notnews policy. It will remain a draft for the time being.
Here's the draft: Draft: Ukrainian Border Base Seige
It needs editing, however, so feel free to edit this.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 16:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
[37] Since Spiegel and "Bild am Sonntag" are reliable sources I believe this can be added to article. They also mention this was reported by German intelligence service to German officials. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, The left in Portugal (the real left) acctually supports both the Ukrainian people who are a large portion (one of the 4 largest immigrant communities), mainly from the Western Ukraine (the others being the Brazilians, the Capeverdians and the Romanians) and the right for self-determination, which Portugal supported not only in 1974 and 1975 for the former colonies, but also during 1980s and 1990s for East Timor... Unfortunately, not for Macau, which was delivered to China without any self-determination. I've worked mainly with people from Western Ukraine. But also with people from Eastern Ukraine. But even from people from Western Ukraine I've got the sense that they think that Ukraine has been going in a wrong direction. Maybe they're not so naif, having worked for so many years in a country belonging to the EU under austerity measures. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 21:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
What do we know about the participation of English speaking foreigners in Ukraine? Shall we mention them in the article? According to Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin: "He rounded on Kiev and its Western allies, accusing the United States of “blatant” double standards and claiming that English-speaking foreigners were interfering on the ground." [38] [39] Fakirbakir ( talk) 13:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Several German-speaking media ,Bild,Spiegel,Die Welt reveal the presence of 400 US mercenaries of Blackwater(Securiti Academy). http://www.standartnews.com/english/read/bild_am_sonntag_400_elite_us_commandos_help_kiev_in_ukraine-3612.html http://www.naftemporiki.gr/story/807351/oukrania-kai-amerikanoi-misthoforoi-stis-maxes-enantia-stous-filorosous (Greek speaking media covering the same story ) The infobox should change to show the presence of US foreigners actively engaged in the war at the eastern part of the country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.172.110 ( talk) 14:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The German sources and Russian media are fake. My understanding now that I've gone over this ad nauseam is that there was a German security press conference, Bild reported on it (and questions were asked about what RIA / Russian media was saying about Blackwater involvement, which were rebuked by Germany) and then DW/DS reported that Bild reported on it (Bild has no record of this article on their website). Russian news them picked up on it citing that it's in the German press. Really ugly game of telephone. Even if we had this original Bild report, would a tabloid like Bild pass the reliable source sniff test? -- Львівське ( говорити) 15:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's a copy-paste of a convo we recently had, more appropriate having it on this article's talk:
Does this source check out?
[40] --
Львівське (
говорити)
19:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to retrosearch for the Die Welt article that the original sites, I found this [ http://www.welt.de/newsticker/dpa_nt/infoline_nt/thema_nt/article127870199/US-Sicherheitsfirma-Academi-bestreitet-Einsatz-in-Ukraine.html - Academi denies and they deny the report from the "Bild am Sonntag" tabloid. -- Львівське ( говорити) 19:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
This was released yesterday so now we have something to work with [46]: "Since the release of the videos is speculated time and again that mercenary support the pro-Western Ukrainian government." Bild seems to only discuss their previous article [47] from March where they speculate on internet rumors and a video. -- Львівське ( говорити) 15:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
This has now been addressed [48]
This is categorically false. We have been able to trace this rumor to a series of Kremlin-sponsored websites that put out a photograph that is indeed either of police or private security contractors. The Internet is a wonderful thing, and eventually people can find out where photographs come from; so it didn't take long for somebody to produce the original photograph, which was actually taken in New Orleans, Louisiana, and had been doctored to remove the fast-food signs and make it look like it might be in the street in an unnamed place. But the allegations that there are somehow "U.S. mercenaries" operating in Ukraine are false.
-- Львівське ( говорити) 04:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
more on the mercs [49]
So now, the propagandists are trying to clean the story up — they’ve decided to go with “400″ — 150 or 300 probably sounded too meager (although the more they inflate the number, the more we’re going to ask why ordinary townspeople haven’t noticed these Americans). They also decided to give the story a more “credible” source than the Russian Foreign Ministry, which is likely to be biased on this subject — and have made the source be a German newspaper quoting German intelligence — although of course, no such claim has been made by the real German authorities:
So what’s the source for the story in Bild am Sonntag? Oh, it’s a story in the German version of RIA Novosti that takes us back to the same 7 April story we started with last month. It’s illustrated with a photo with the caption, “Kiev sends Blackwater mercenaries to suppress the protests in eastern Ukraine. But multiple other sources identify the fighters in battered old helmets as separatists in Slavyansk. Back to the drawing board.
Circular regurgitation. Case closed. -- Львівське ( говорити) 15:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
On May 17, 2014 the office of General Prosecutor of Ukraine recognized the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic as terrorist organizations.
Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 12:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)