![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
As far as I can tell, this article is the article that reviews all military conflicts in Ukraine since the apparent Russian seizure of strategic locations in Crimea, all the way to the conflict in the east today. These events include some confrontations in Crimea as the region held a referendum and effectively seceded, the anti-Kiev demonstrations and occupations throughout southern and eastern Ukraine, the counter-insurgency campaign from Kiev, the declaration of independence in some regions in the east, and what has been described as a civil war in publications on both sides. It also includes Russia's involvement in events, which this article focuses on while, perhaps due to the article's title, giving less attention to other aspects of the conflict.
I'd propose that this article either be renamed to "2014 Ukraine conflict," or that an article of that name be created to address the full scope of the events since Crimea, so that this article can specialize and focus only on the Russian military intervention. If this article really purports to be the history of the entire conflict, it is now systematically skewed to focus only on Russian intervention. - Darouet ( talk) 17:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that both of you, RGloucester and Drajay1976, are making some really good points. Drajay, while I agree that there's a civil war going on, the entirety of the conflict from Maidan and Crimea through to Donbass and the present is larger than the present civil war. For that reason, I really do believe that 2014 Ukraine conflict, or something similar, is a stronger title. RGloucester, I hear what you're saying about the coverage of articles such as 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, 2014 Crimean crisis and War in Donbass. However, just reviewing the structure of this article, we see:
Drajay is right that it would be silly to create a separate article for western involvement in the conflict, when this article really covers the whole conflict from Maidan to today and could easily incorporate other forms of involvement besides Russian. RGloucester, there are plenty of sources that use the term "civil war," but I don't see how a semantic debate over that term in a larger review article helps anyone.
If this article is really to focus only on Russian involvement, I think it'd be helpful to create the review article that puts this entire conflict together. - Darouet ( talk) 19:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Drajay1976: Before your response becomes even more convoluted, I understand that you are suggesting that "Ukrainian Civil War" be used as a WP:TITLE based on some confused articles (and possibly based on the Red Cross referred to it as a 'civil war' a few months ago: at which point a number of contributors decided that one source was adequate to jump-the-gun and rename the Donbass conflict to Ukrainian civil war) and a brief, sketchy couple of paragraphs in Time written by David Stout, and equally sketchy couple of paragraphs by a newbie contributor to Forbes, Kenneth Rapoza, (whose only other published article is this and who doesn't seem to have any other credentials) can be considered WP:RS. Incidentally, the BBC article, in citing the number of nationalities involved, is the perfect example of why it cannot possibly be considered a civil war... and, most tellingly, does not describe or imply that the conflict is a civil war.
Now, could you explain how this article, examining explicit or implicit Russian military intervention in Ukraine, could possibly be reinterpreted as being 'Ukrainian Civil War'? What this suggests to me is that you haven't done much in the way of comprehensive reading about what is going on and have concluded that it can be simplistically interpreted as Russophone Ukrainians (ipso facto, pro Russian) and Ukrainian speakers (ipso facto: pro Ukrainian government) fighting it out amongst themselves as to whether they want to stay a part of the Ukrainian nation-state or become federations dependent on the Russian Federation. If that's your reading of the situation, not only is it incorrect but straight up WP:OR. Ukrainian Civil War makes no sense in any context. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 05:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:LEAD:
...Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.
This article's lead is ten(!) paragraphs long, running well over a "screen" of text!
I would suggest that this is not good, and I'd encourage regular editors of this page to figure out a way to cut the lead's text down to no more than four paragraphs (while moving any left-over, unused text elsewhere in the article, where applicable). Because, right now, I suspect this article's lead is scaring readers away. -- IJBall ( talk) 20:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
At this point, a new article should be made titled "Russian Invasion of the Ukraine." Russia has even admitted it, of course they are saying vacationing Russian soldiers are the ones fighting. Being a soldier myself once, I was never allowed to take a tank with me when I took a vacation. However, it appears that Ukraine has called this a direct invasion, and it appears NATO and the UN will say so soon. Panzertank ( talk) 14:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Russia intervened in Ukraine on several fronts following the events of the February 2014 Ukrainian revolution and Euromaidan movement which led to the flight and subsequent disputed impeachment of President Viktor Yanukovych.[48][49][50][51][52][53] Following the ouster of Yanukovych government, a secession crisis erupted in the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. In late February, unmarked soldiers gradually took control of Crimea. U.S. officials and analysts said they were likely Russian special forces.[55] Russia then annexed Crimea following a disputed status referendum.[56] Several months later, as Russian-backed separatist insurgents fought a war against Ukrainian forces in the Donbass region of Ukraine, unmarked troops and military vehicles from Russia crossed into Ukraine, reinforced the insurgents.[57] Video evidence of captured soldiers has been used to claim that Russia is involved in the conflict[59]. The Russian government maintains that the soldiers either entered Ukraine by mistake or were there of their own volition. [60][61]
Thoughts? Hollth ( talk) 05:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Trimmed the lead as per WP:BRD. Please discuss. The citations in the lead need to be altogether removed or drastically reduced. Please discuss. I tried to remove quoted comments (which belong in the body of the article and not the lead) and some material which should be there in the body of the article alone. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 16:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Look, even your "trimming", POV issues aside, wasn't very good. For example, originally the text said "Videos of captured Russian soldiers have directly challenged Vladimir Putin’s longstanding claim that Russia has nothing to do with the conflict in eastern Ukraine, while the Russian government maintained that the soldiers had entered Ukraine territory accidentally." (and this is someone else's version to which several editors agreed) then you changed it to...
"Videos of Russian soldiers captured in Ukraine, while the Russian government maintained that the soldiers had entered Ukraine territory accidentally."
This doesn't even make sense. Basically in your attempt to remove anything that doesn't agree with the official Russian/RT line you left in your wake of "trimming" completely garbled sentences. Volunteer Marek 00:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek , the intended sentence was this. "Videos of Russian soldiers captured in Ukraine,[62] comments by rebel leaders such as Zakharchenko [63][64] and statements such as that of Valentina Melnikova, head of the Russian Union of Committees of Soldiers’ Mothers[65] establish that Russian service personnel are fighting in Ukraine." The profusion of inline citations in the lead was the cause of the confused outcome. The portion "while the Russian government maintained that the soldiers had entered Ukraine territory accidentally" should also have been removed, but was accidentally left in. I agree that the incomplete edit led to some garbling. But is there any problem with the bold portion above? Is it acceptable to you? It retains all the ideas and removes the quotes of Zakharchenko and Valentina Melnikova which belong in the body of the article, not the lead. You will surely agree that this was not deliberate POV pushing, but a genuine mistake.
Sayerslle, as per WP:BRD, the way I did it is also an acceptable way of doing things in wikipedia. It is an accepted fact that the lead of the article is too long and contains too many citations which goes against WP:LEADCITE. So I made a bold edit. Volunteer Marek reverted it. Now we can discuss it here. In this process, those who find that the "bold edits" were wrong needs to point out the specific problems in the discussion (like Marek did above)-- Drajay1976 ( talk) 02:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@Sayerslle The Malaysian Flight is not important enough for the lede. There is barely anything on the article dealing with the plane. In an article this large, the lede should only contain points that are expanded upon in the body. There are about three sentences in this article dealing with the downing of the Malaysian flight. That is not enough to warrant its place. Hollth ( talk) 02:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Sayerslle, I agree that it is a quite important material. It definitely belongs in the body of the article in detail. In my version of the lead, a) the presence of Russian troops, b) the presence of Russian Buk system in Ukraine which was used to shoot down the malaysia plane c) the commanders of rebels being Russian agents, d) NATO photos of sophisticated Russian weaponry within Ukraine were retained. I left out this portion because this was repeating the same information (Russian soldiers and armour in Ukraine on the side of the Rebels fighting against the government forces). But a specific part of the sentence seems to convey a unique statement now that I look at it again - that the presence of Russian soldiers was important in the reversal of fortune for Ukrainian government. That part of the sentence should definitely find a mention in the lead. But I do feel that the portion needs to be completely rewritten. Anyway, that edit was not a POV pushing on my part - because I dont hold the point of view that Russian troops are/were not there in Ukraine. I only hold the view that the lead could be pruned a lot more, is not a summary of the article now, it has a lot of citations (against the gist of the policy on lead) which need to be removed, and that it has some material which is not there in the body of the article which needs to be tossed from the lead to the body. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 18:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Another point for discussion. An exhaustive list of the countries which oppose or support Russia's role in the crisis need not be there in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the contents in the article, it is not a place where you give information which is not there in the body of the article. The list of the countries along with the citations needs to be taken to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#International diplomatic and economic responses. A summary of the information only need to be retained in the lead. For example, Several members of the international community and organizations such as Amnesty International have criticized Russia for its actions in post-revolutionary Ukraine, and condemned Russia, accusing it of breaking international law and violating Ukrainian sovereignty. Many countries implemented economic sanctions against Russia or Russian individuals or companies, to which Russia responded in kind. The comments made by Amnesty International and quotes from its statement should be taken to the body of the article. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 18:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Sayerslle, what is the "substantial infromation" which I proposed to be removed? I find this confusing when you make allegations and dont specify which part is it that you are referring to? I want a SUMMARY of all substantial information to be retained in the Lead as per policy. The substantial information, if it is there in the lead only, should be transferred to the body of the article. Do you want unique information in the lead (which is not there in the body of the article?)-- Drajay1976 ( talk) 18:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I still disagree with the Malaysian flight being in there, I think it is too specific for the lead of this article, but you both seem to believe it is justified so I won't remove it. Now other points. Since I'll be accused of POV I'll put my justification for my edit here.
Regardless it doesn't need an most of a paragraph in the lede. I'm cleaning it up and moving most of it to the body. Hollth ( talk) 13:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
This info about protests in Russia against Russian involvement in the war in Ukraine should be added. Volunteer Marek 18:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Concur with original poster. Wikipedia is not censored. If these protests are occurring, at least some summary mention of them is appropriate in this article, since they are definitely relevant to the Response to the military intervention. It is, of course, okay to have most of the detail reserved to another Wikipedia article such as 2014 anti-war protests in Russia. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 10:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a military map! That would be like adding the demonstrations in London, Paris or Germany in a map about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Add that information in another image, if you wish, not in this one! If you have good sources, that is welcome (in my opinion), but not in this map.
Mondolkiri1 (
talk)
04:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I was in the Talk Page of the map itself. Yes, it's welcome and informative, since it comes from reliable sources and complies with the WP rules! Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 04:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
If they are Pro-Russian Forces, does that make the troops of the Kiev coup d'etat Pro-American or Pro-NATO or Pro-EU forces?
Just a little thought on the nomenclature being used here.
Solntsa90 ( talk) 20:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking a question. Should we use the phrase *Pro-EU forces* to describe the forces of the Kiev Regime? Solntsa90 ( talk) 12:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
You spend too much time on this page. I most certainly wasn't addressing the question to you.
Solntsa90 ( talk) 00:36, 24 September 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
As far as I can tell, this article is the article that reviews all military conflicts in Ukraine since the apparent Russian seizure of strategic locations in Crimea, all the way to the conflict in the east today. These events include some confrontations in Crimea as the region held a referendum and effectively seceded, the anti-Kiev demonstrations and occupations throughout southern and eastern Ukraine, the counter-insurgency campaign from Kiev, the declaration of independence in some regions in the east, and what has been described as a civil war in publications on both sides. It also includes Russia's involvement in events, which this article focuses on while, perhaps due to the article's title, giving less attention to other aspects of the conflict.
I'd propose that this article either be renamed to "2014 Ukraine conflict," or that an article of that name be created to address the full scope of the events since Crimea, so that this article can specialize and focus only on the Russian military intervention. If this article really purports to be the history of the entire conflict, it is now systematically skewed to focus only on Russian intervention. - Darouet ( talk) 17:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that both of you, RGloucester and Drajay1976, are making some really good points. Drajay, while I agree that there's a civil war going on, the entirety of the conflict from Maidan and Crimea through to Donbass and the present is larger than the present civil war. For that reason, I really do believe that 2014 Ukraine conflict, or something similar, is a stronger title. RGloucester, I hear what you're saying about the coverage of articles such as 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, 2014 Crimean crisis and War in Donbass. However, just reviewing the structure of this article, we see:
Drajay is right that it would be silly to create a separate article for western involvement in the conflict, when this article really covers the whole conflict from Maidan to today and could easily incorporate other forms of involvement besides Russian. RGloucester, there are plenty of sources that use the term "civil war," but I don't see how a semantic debate over that term in a larger review article helps anyone.
If this article is really to focus only on Russian involvement, I think it'd be helpful to create the review article that puts this entire conflict together. - Darouet ( talk) 19:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Drajay1976: Before your response becomes even more convoluted, I understand that you are suggesting that "Ukrainian Civil War" be used as a WP:TITLE based on some confused articles (and possibly based on the Red Cross referred to it as a 'civil war' a few months ago: at which point a number of contributors decided that one source was adequate to jump-the-gun and rename the Donbass conflict to Ukrainian civil war) and a brief, sketchy couple of paragraphs in Time written by David Stout, and equally sketchy couple of paragraphs by a newbie contributor to Forbes, Kenneth Rapoza, (whose only other published article is this and who doesn't seem to have any other credentials) can be considered WP:RS. Incidentally, the BBC article, in citing the number of nationalities involved, is the perfect example of why it cannot possibly be considered a civil war... and, most tellingly, does not describe or imply that the conflict is a civil war.
Now, could you explain how this article, examining explicit or implicit Russian military intervention in Ukraine, could possibly be reinterpreted as being 'Ukrainian Civil War'? What this suggests to me is that you haven't done much in the way of comprehensive reading about what is going on and have concluded that it can be simplistically interpreted as Russophone Ukrainians (ipso facto, pro Russian) and Ukrainian speakers (ipso facto: pro Ukrainian government) fighting it out amongst themselves as to whether they want to stay a part of the Ukrainian nation-state or become federations dependent on the Russian Federation. If that's your reading of the situation, not only is it incorrect but straight up WP:OR. Ukrainian Civil War makes no sense in any context. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 05:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:LEAD:
...Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.
This article's lead is ten(!) paragraphs long, running well over a "screen" of text!
I would suggest that this is not good, and I'd encourage regular editors of this page to figure out a way to cut the lead's text down to no more than four paragraphs (while moving any left-over, unused text elsewhere in the article, where applicable). Because, right now, I suspect this article's lead is scaring readers away. -- IJBall ( talk) 20:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
At this point, a new article should be made titled "Russian Invasion of the Ukraine." Russia has even admitted it, of course they are saying vacationing Russian soldiers are the ones fighting. Being a soldier myself once, I was never allowed to take a tank with me when I took a vacation. However, it appears that Ukraine has called this a direct invasion, and it appears NATO and the UN will say so soon. Panzertank ( talk) 14:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Russia intervened in Ukraine on several fronts following the events of the February 2014 Ukrainian revolution and Euromaidan movement which led to the flight and subsequent disputed impeachment of President Viktor Yanukovych.[48][49][50][51][52][53] Following the ouster of Yanukovych government, a secession crisis erupted in the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. In late February, unmarked soldiers gradually took control of Crimea. U.S. officials and analysts said they were likely Russian special forces.[55] Russia then annexed Crimea following a disputed status referendum.[56] Several months later, as Russian-backed separatist insurgents fought a war against Ukrainian forces in the Donbass region of Ukraine, unmarked troops and military vehicles from Russia crossed into Ukraine, reinforced the insurgents.[57] Video evidence of captured soldiers has been used to claim that Russia is involved in the conflict[59]. The Russian government maintains that the soldiers either entered Ukraine by mistake or were there of their own volition. [60][61]
Thoughts? Hollth ( talk) 05:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Trimmed the lead as per WP:BRD. Please discuss. The citations in the lead need to be altogether removed or drastically reduced. Please discuss. I tried to remove quoted comments (which belong in the body of the article and not the lead) and some material which should be there in the body of the article alone. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 16:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Look, even your "trimming", POV issues aside, wasn't very good. For example, originally the text said "Videos of captured Russian soldiers have directly challenged Vladimir Putin’s longstanding claim that Russia has nothing to do with the conflict in eastern Ukraine, while the Russian government maintained that the soldiers had entered Ukraine territory accidentally." (and this is someone else's version to which several editors agreed) then you changed it to...
"Videos of Russian soldiers captured in Ukraine, while the Russian government maintained that the soldiers had entered Ukraine territory accidentally."
This doesn't even make sense. Basically in your attempt to remove anything that doesn't agree with the official Russian/RT line you left in your wake of "trimming" completely garbled sentences. Volunteer Marek 00:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek , the intended sentence was this. "Videos of Russian soldiers captured in Ukraine,[62] comments by rebel leaders such as Zakharchenko [63][64] and statements such as that of Valentina Melnikova, head of the Russian Union of Committees of Soldiers’ Mothers[65] establish that Russian service personnel are fighting in Ukraine." The profusion of inline citations in the lead was the cause of the confused outcome. The portion "while the Russian government maintained that the soldiers had entered Ukraine territory accidentally" should also have been removed, but was accidentally left in. I agree that the incomplete edit led to some garbling. But is there any problem with the bold portion above? Is it acceptable to you? It retains all the ideas and removes the quotes of Zakharchenko and Valentina Melnikova which belong in the body of the article, not the lead. You will surely agree that this was not deliberate POV pushing, but a genuine mistake.
Sayerslle, as per WP:BRD, the way I did it is also an acceptable way of doing things in wikipedia. It is an accepted fact that the lead of the article is too long and contains too many citations which goes against WP:LEADCITE. So I made a bold edit. Volunteer Marek reverted it. Now we can discuss it here. In this process, those who find that the "bold edits" were wrong needs to point out the specific problems in the discussion (like Marek did above)-- Drajay1976 ( talk) 02:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@Sayerslle The Malaysian Flight is not important enough for the lede. There is barely anything on the article dealing with the plane. In an article this large, the lede should only contain points that are expanded upon in the body. There are about three sentences in this article dealing with the downing of the Malaysian flight. That is not enough to warrant its place. Hollth ( talk) 02:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Sayerslle, I agree that it is a quite important material. It definitely belongs in the body of the article in detail. In my version of the lead, a) the presence of Russian troops, b) the presence of Russian Buk system in Ukraine which was used to shoot down the malaysia plane c) the commanders of rebels being Russian agents, d) NATO photos of sophisticated Russian weaponry within Ukraine were retained. I left out this portion because this was repeating the same information (Russian soldiers and armour in Ukraine on the side of the Rebels fighting against the government forces). But a specific part of the sentence seems to convey a unique statement now that I look at it again - that the presence of Russian soldiers was important in the reversal of fortune for Ukrainian government. That part of the sentence should definitely find a mention in the lead. But I do feel that the portion needs to be completely rewritten. Anyway, that edit was not a POV pushing on my part - because I dont hold the point of view that Russian troops are/were not there in Ukraine. I only hold the view that the lead could be pruned a lot more, is not a summary of the article now, it has a lot of citations (against the gist of the policy on lead) which need to be removed, and that it has some material which is not there in the body of the article which needs to be tossed from the lead to the body. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 18:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Another point for discussion. An exhaustive list of the countries which oppose or support Russia's role in the crisis need not be there in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the contents in the article, it is not a place where you give information which is not there in the body of the article. The list of the countries along with the citations needs to be taken to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#International diplomatic and economic responses. A summary of the information only need to be retained in the lead. For example, Several members of the international community and organizations such as Amnesty International have criticized Russia for its actions in post-revolutionary Ukraine, and condemned Russia, accusing it of breaking international law and violating Ukrainian sovereignty. Many countries implemented economic sanctions against Russia or Russian individuals or companies, to which Russia responded in kind. The comments made by Amnesty International and quotes from its statement should be taken to the body of the article. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 18:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Sayerslle, what is the "substantial infromation" which I proposed to be removed? I find this confusing when you make allegations and dont specify which part is it that you are referring to? I want a SUMMARY of all substantial information to be retained in the Lead as per policy. The substantial information, if it is there in the lead only, should be transferred to the body of the article. Do you want unique information in the lead (which is not there in the body of the article?)-- Drajay1976 ( talk) 18:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I still disagree with the Malaysian flight being in there, I think it is too specific for the lead of this article, but you both seem to believe it is justified so I won't remove it. Now other points. Since I'll be accused of POV I'll put my justification for my edit here.
Regardless it doesn't need an most of a paragraph in the lede. I'm cleaning it up and moving most of it to the body. Hollth ( talk) 13:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
This info about protests in Russia against Russian involvement in the war in Ukraine should be added. Volunteer Marek 18:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Concur with original poster. Wikipedia is not censored. If these protests are occurring, at least some summary mention of them is appropriate in this article, since they are definitely relevant to the Response to the military intervention. It is, of course, okay to have most of the detail reserved to another Wikipedia article such as 2014 anti-war protests in Russia. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 10:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a military map! That would be like adding the demonstrations in London, Paris or Germany in a map about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Add that information in another image, if you wish, not in this one! If you have good sources, that is welcome (in my opinion), but not in this map.
Mondolkiri1 (
talk)
04:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I was in the Talk Page of the map itself. Yes, it's welcome and informative, since it comes from reliable sources and complies with the WP rules! Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 04:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
If they are Pro-Russian Forces, does that make the troops of the Kiev coup d'etat Pro-American or Pro-NATO or Pro-EU forces?
Just a little thought on the nomenclature being used here.
Solntsa90 ( talk) 20:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking a question. Should we use the phrase *Pro-EU forces* to describe the forces of the Kiev Regime? Solntsa90 ( talk) 12:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
You spend too much time on this page. I most certainly wasn't addressing the question to you.
Solntsa90 ( talk) 00:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)