![]() | 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 |
I said the same thing about the old 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine article, and now it has become a problem here. We really need to try and convert these 'timelines' into prose, per WP:PROSELINE. Timelines are not our default style, and are meant to be avoided unless necessary. Prose text which takes a historical perspective is preferable to day-by-day reporting in a timeline format, which tends to veer into the journalistic. I'm not sure how to convert this, at present, but I think that new information added to the article should try and avoid WP:PROSELINE problems. RGloucester — ☎ 04:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Belligerents does not have anything to do with who's fighting but who's participating in the conflict whether that be funding insurgents or giving diplomatic or logistical support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Fingers2 ( talk • contribs) 04:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Turchynov says "many" pro-Russia separatists killed or injured in Sloviansk, and "all" pro-Russia checkpoints around the city captured by Ukrainian forces. [1] Sca ( talk) 15:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
We should prob. Change the headline to that since it's not really a "standoff" anymore more like a siege or battle since it's involving a military blockade and high casualties for a moderately low insurgency. ---2Fingers2- 26 April 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Fingers2 ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
1.If troops enter the town and fight house to house it's a battle.
2.If they blockade the town for months then it's a siege.
3. If seperalist's are occupying one building only like the RSA then it's a standoff. Which I believe the author made it at the time gunnen were only occupying the police station but since then it has escalated into the taking of the whole town.
And considering the whole Donestk Region this is the only place with action and death on a few execptions.
How about, 'Crisis' or 'Situation'? --
Bdwolverine87 (
talk)
12:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a text stating "In the city, it was reported that pro-Russian militants beat children who they caught photographing a separatist checkpoint. The news caused a backlash among residents in their opinion towards the militants", the only source is some general portal from Ukraine called ostro.org I see no English or other sources and this one quite frankly doesn't look reliable at all.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Source is not a general portal [4]
In Sloviansk separatists were seen beating of children who photographed the checkpoint in Bylbasovka. This was reported in the press service of the Donetsk Regional State Administration. The report notes that the beating of children caused a backlash from local residents, who are changing their attitude towards members of illegal armed groups.
-- Львівське ( говорити) 02:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Western media finally seems to be acknowledging the nuance of the situation in Donetsk. Please read this New York Times article. I think it is indicative of the fact that we've can't be overtly accepting of either involved parties' depiction of events. RGloucester — ☎ 16:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
A highly reliable and useful source:
-- Petri Krohn ( talk) 19:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Lvivske deleted info about Right Sector from the template, because "ref is a youtube video NOT in sloviansk (and it's the 'black men' from the SNA, too) and RT is a filthy Russkie propoganda". Okay, but why Yarosh gave up on "ShusterLive" (he was planning to participate in this TV programme) and went to Slovyansk to his supporters, and said Right Sector will participate in the final stage "anti-terrorist" operation in Slovyansk? Really, why did he do it? Anyway, a lot of Russian-language and Ukrainian-language sources have quoted his words, I added some of sources in the article as a proof. The first one is a fithy Russkie propoganda in English [7], the second one is the pure truth™ in glorious Ukrainian [8]. Both of them say Right Sector will participate in the final stage operation Slovyansk. 83.237.127.226 ( talk) 23:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Petri just changed the OSCE mission stuff to "German intelligence gathering mission" with no reference. Interfax refers to the group as "a group of international military inspectors of the OSCE" and "OSCE military inspectors" [10]. Kiev calls them "representatives from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe" [11]. In searching I see nothing about a Berlin-Kiev agreement, just that they were observers sent under the OSCE's Vienna Document of immunity. The OSCE is also dealing with the captors directly, indicating that the OSCE is involved [12].
The detained men are military officers who also were here under OSCE auspices, but under a separate mission from the civilian observers.
Also, changing it from OSCE to "NATO mission plus Sweden" and "misidentified" without adding a ref reeks of a POV pushing edit. I ask that this be reverted or fixed to be accurate to sources. -- Львівське ( говорити) 02:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, wait. We've got confirmation: 'The Special Monitoring Mission got confirmation that the military observers carrying out an inspection under the OSCE Vienna Document had been taken captive by forces of the self-proclaimed mayor of Sloviansk' - per today's OSCE update. RGloucester — ☎ 03:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
From the OSCE link you provided:
the abduction of members of the unarmed OSCE military verification mission in Sloviansk
-- Львівське ( говорити) 03:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The title as it now stands is simply wrong. This was not an OSCE mission, but a German military mission. FAZ is a reliable source, and German sources should be deferred to because this was a German mission.
This has also been reported by Deutsche Welle, German state television. So "OSCE" mission should be changed to "German army (Bundeswehr) mission". – Herzen ( talk) 20:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Herzen has made it through a single discussion without blaming his troubles on this "extremist Ukrainian nationalist" cabal out to get him -- Львівське ( говорити) 22:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll link this press release again: press release by OSCE. 'International military observers' is the most neutral way to put it, given the conflict between sources, and what the OSCE itself says. Even if they are OSCE observers, 'international' is still correct, and so retains neutrality either way. RGloucester — ☎ 16:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC) : seems OSCE is the common use descriptor in the press and just about everywhere. I see no need to neutralize something that is factual and neutral to begin with. We need to go by WP:COMMON, no? — Львівське ( говорити) 17:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC) ::It isn't factual, because the OSCE itself clarified in that press release that they are not 'directly OSCE observers'. They are there under the Vienna Document. We do not use common names that are incorrect. Regardless, the media is not uniform in usage, as described above. Some said 'OSCE observers', some said 'international', some said 'affiliated with the OSCE'. It isn't as simple as you say. RGloucester — ☎ 19:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
From the discussion above it clearly follows that the term "OSCE Observers" is blutant abuse, what is corroborated by the links you cite, including the link to OSCE web site wherein the term "military inspectors from OSCE participating States". Given all the ambiguity, controversy and the fact that no official source unequivocally, explicitelly declared them as "OSCE Observers" this wording should be replaced with something more in line with actual facts. And this is not about them being spys or not (the aim of their visit is anyway clear and obvious even for somebody without inteligence experience, regardless whether they are called OSCE Observers or not).
http://interfax.com.ua/news/general/203853.html Please add! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.242.176.183 ( talk) 00:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC) ¨
German press is reporting up to 400 involved Academi contractors fighting on Ukrainian side. Did not add it yet because i am not sure about the reliability of sources, but press is reporting it comes from the government. And BND has apparently confirmed that.
Anyone caring enough to do some research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.48.106.46 ( talk) 10:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
After reading some articles about the Ukranian crisis, it clearly shows that all of them are heavily biased, sourced with nothing but American propaganda and some Ukranian "independent" news site... then I notice these articles are all maintened by Lvivske, an openly banderite, anti-russian fascist adulator. How is this article neutral which such people patrolling and reversing anything that is not western propaganda? This is ridiculous. 181.160.250.179 ( talk) 08:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there any number available about the size of the "Pro Russian" militias? Another issue, the An Airplane + the Mi 8 are cited as damaged instead of destroyed.-- 190.234.106.106 ( talk) 02:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
need more sourcing but this says yesterdays fight had 100 dead [14] just leaving it here for now -- Львівське ( говорити) 18:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The fighting has intensified in recent days, with much more shelling and areal bombing. Casualty figures are certainly higher than those currently cited in the article, though it may be hard to get reliable counts at this point... - Helvetica ( talk) 14:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The picture showing rebels outside police station is far too outdated. You may add it to History section but not front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EasyMoney7Cash$ ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Just posting it here in case one of our classic IP/SPAs tried to cram this into the article but LifeNews was reporting that Ukraine was using UN branded helicopters in Sloviansk. It ends up they were using footage from 2 years ago from a UN-Ukraine peacekeeping mission in the Congo. Yet another reason why Lifenews can't be used as a source, I guess. Good grief. [15] -- Львівське ( говорити) 23:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Another helicopter was shot down today, with nine dead.
Igor Strelkov say this is the 10th so far, but I am not sure if he only includes those shot down in Slavyansk and Kramatorsk or all losses in the war.
P.S. – Maybe we should start something like List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 17:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is a "official" list of aviation losses: 8 helicopters destroyed, 5 badly damage. 7 of these are Mi-24 attack helicopters. All of the losses, except one have happened in the Slavyansk front. Also two An-30 airplanes have been lost. (The latest one on June 6th crashed in Drobysheve, which is in the arra of the Slavyansk battle.-- Petri Krohn ( talk) 22:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
nice link Petri, but the final sum looks like 4 Mi-8 lost and 4 Mi-24 lost.(But i only remember 3 Mi-24 lost, two reported in the same event and a third shoot down bu fire and subsequently destroyed by Ukranians to avoid capture.) The article claims 5 Mi 8, not 4. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 17:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The other "results" in the infobox are similarily silly, and they're not results at all. The result was: Ukrainian victory. -- SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 20:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, stop adding various articles together to count ANYTHING, EVER. If the figures are not in the source (the TOTAL figures), they should not be invented by trying to add various figures together to create a new "total" one. Read WP:OR. -- SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 20:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The fighting has intensified in recent days, with much more shelling and areal bombing. Casualty figures are certainly higher than those currently cited in the article, though it may be hard to get reliable counts at this point... - Helvetica ( talk) 14:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
An archiving was done by a bot but no link was posted to the archive. Restoring the section of talk. Article still in need of updating - particularly regarding civilian casualties. - Helvetica ( talk) 09:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
"Pro-Russian withdrawal" and "Pro-Russian forces retreat from Sloviansk" means the same thing, right? -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 15:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Rout — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.66.167.5 ( talk) 11:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
During a siege, a defending army cannot possibly be routed, since it is fighting in an isolated, fixed position. It's wrong terminology. It can either be destroyed, surrender, or break out from the siege.
Rout is something that can be done in the open battle ground, but siege is completely different situation.
So who is Simon Ostrovsky, and does he work for the CIA or FBI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.251.188 ( talk) 09:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the heavy civilian losses that resulted from the Ukrainian shelling of the city? This article is disgustingly one-sided as it largely gives the impression that the only victims were Ukrainian politicians, pro-government journalists, and literally less than a dozen civilians that somehow ended up dying at the hands of the separatists -- of course supposed to imply that the separatists were the sole bad guys and the Ukrainian govt forces being so good that not even their indiscriminate bombing raids didn't hit any innocents. 188.26.248.113 ( talk) 11:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
In analyzing the outcome it is important to know what the original aims of the operation were. The most important tactical aim was naturally to block the European route E40 highway at the Kharkov–Donetsk border. But why? Here are some primary sources with English language translations from Russian and Ukrainian originals.
The “Slavyansk Impasse” was meant to give DPR time to create functional armed forces.
If Russia is not able to secure an immediate termination of fire and the execution of a truce, or if it does not step in with its armed force to protect us, to protect the Russian people that reside here, who are a part of the Russian nation, we will be exterminated.
Undoubtedly, Slavyansk became the symbol of the “Russian Spring;” moreover – it entered history. Forever. But the purpose of the city was different. Slavyansk drew to itself all the battle-worthy forces of the Ukrainian army, it enabled the mobilization of the Militia in Lugansk and Donetsk."
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |laysource=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)From the very inception of the hostilities, Slavyansk served as a shield for Donetsk. In taking our positions in Slavyansk, we set up a shield to protect the entire territory of DPR [Donetsk People’s Republic] and LPR [Lugansk People’s Republic]. We bore the main brunt of the enemy offensive and diverted its forces, thereby giving the political leadership and the social leadership of the Republics an opportunity to organize and, in acting in accordance with our example, to take the reigns of [local] power from the Junta, to a certain degree preventing it from establishing itself.
That is why, when we ascertained that this task had been completed – this task specifically – that in both Donetsk and in Lugansk, governments had been established that conformed with the will of the people in terms of implementing state sovereignty and conducting the referendum and were capable of creating their own armed forces, [we understood] that our own task had been substantially fulfilled.
From these statements one can gather four aims:
I would hope to see reliable scholarly sources on the issue, but maybe it is too early. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 13:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Updated 12:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Drajay1976 removed all references to the Interpreter claiming "Not WP:RS". Any details on why is it considered as unreliable source? Enivid ( talk) 15:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
About the following sentence: The day prior to the Donetsk referendum he said "now, in a time of war we don't have time for hostages, we will kill them all."
The source is an article in Vice News.
And here is the comment from the same article:
quote: "Speaking at a press conference the day before the vote, Ponomarev, who has a penchant for chucking troublesome journalists and activists in his basement prison said that, “now, in a time of war we don’t have time for hostages, we will kill them all.” Ponomarev was referring to Ukraine military not foreign press. The reason being is that when they previously released Ukrainian army they asked them to go home and not come back. After that they found out that previously released soldiers killed unarmed villagers. hence the decision not to take any prisoners. He also added he was sorry about this escalation. Stop twisting the facts Vice news.
Enivid's comment "source is clear about it" is senseless. Source - the article with comments - telling us that Vice News just twisting the facts. Source - the article with comments - conflicts with itself. It makes sense if and only if there will be the first source.
Per google there are 100+ Urkainian articles with original words. Example: [16] On 9th of May self-proclaimed «mayor» of Slavyansk Ponomarev said that current city "administration" will not capture Ukrainian soldiers anymore, just «kill em». "Now we will exterminate them. Nobody will talk with em... As harder we will treat them, as faster they will respect us", - he explained.
Therefore I see two alternatives:
I follow the second solution, as the first one have no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infsega ( talk • contribs) 00:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see WP:OR. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm talking about sources and their reliability only. Please see WP:IRS, WP:NPV and WP:GAME. "Hostage Crisis" itself is an original research. It doesn't match the sources. Infsega ( talk) 10:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Per Wiki classification Ponomarev is primary source, Bild is secondary source, Vice News and LA Times are tertiary. All of them contains confliciting infomation. Secondary source (Build) is preferred. Infsega ( talk) 11:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Siege of Sloviansk sounds too dramatic. In reality there was a stand off. I propose to rename it as Stand off in Sloviansk. Such name is given to the article of Ukrainian counterpart. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 03:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Should location be changed to the Donetsk People's Republic, or be left as Donetsk Oblast? Cnd474747 ( talk) 02:40, 13 November 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 |
I said the same thing about the old 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine article, and now it has become a problem here. We really need to try and convert these 'timelines' into prose, per WP:PROSELINE. Timelines are not our default style, and are meant to be avoided unless necessary. Prose text which takes a historical perspective is preferable to day-by-day reporting in a timeline format, which tends to veer into the journalistic. I'm not sure how to convert this, at present, but I think that new information added to the article should try and avoid WP:PROSELINE problems. RGloucester — ☎ 04:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Belligerents does not have anything to do with who's fighting but who's participating in the conflict whether that be funding insurgents or giving diplomatic or logistical support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Fingers2 ( talk • contribs) 04:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Turchynov says "many" pro-Russia separatists killed or injured in Sloviansk, and "all" pro-Russia checkpoints around the city captured by Ukrainian forces. [1] Sca ( talk) 15:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
We should prob. Change the headline to that since it's not really a "standoff" anymore more like a siege or battle since it's involving a military blockade and high casualties for a moderately low insurgency. ---2Fingers2- 26 April 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Fingers2 ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
1.If troops enter the town and fight house to house it's a battle.
2.If they blockade the town for months then it's a siege.
3. If seperalist's are occupying one building only like the RSA then it's a standoff. Which I believe the author made it at the time gunnen were only occupying the police station but since then it has escalated into the taking of the whole town.
And considering the whole Donestk Region this is the only place with action and death on a few execptions.
How about, 'Crisis' or 'Situation'? --
Bdwolverine87 (
talk)
12:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a text stating "In the city, it was reported that pro-Russian militants beat children who they caught photographing a separatist checkpoint. The news caused a backlash among residents in their opinion towards the militants", the only source is some general portal from Ukraine called ostro.org I see no English or other sources and this one quite frankly doesn't look reliable at all.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Source is not a general portal [4]
In Sloviansk separatists were seen beating of children who photographed the checkpoint in Bylbasovka. This was reported in the press service of the Donetsk Regional State Administration. The report notes that the beating of children caused a backlash from local residents, who are changing their attitude towards members of illegal armed groups.
-- Львівське ( говорити) 02:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Western media finally seems to be acknowledging the nuance of the situation in Donetsk. Please read this New York Times article. I think it is indicative of the fact that we've can't be overtly accepting of either involved parties' depiction of events. RGloucester — ☎ 16:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
A highly reliable and useful source:
-- Petri Krohn ( talk) 19:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Lvivske deleted info about Right Sector from the template, because "ref is a youtube video NOT in sloviansk (and it's the 'black men' from the SNA, too) and RT is a filthy Russkie propoganda". Okay, but why Yarosh gave up on "ShusterLive" (he was planning to participate in this TV programme) and went to Slovyansk to his supporters, and said Right Sector will participate in the final stage "anti-terrorist" operation in Slovyansk? Really, why did he do it? Anyway, a lot of Russian-language and Ukrainian-language sources have quoted his words, I added some of sources in the article as a proof. The first one is a fithy Russkie propoganda in English [7], the second one is the pure truth™ in glorious Ukrainian [8]. Both of them say Right Sector will participate in the final stage operation Slovyansk. 83.237.127.226 ( talk) 23:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Petri just changed the OSCE mission stuff to "German intelligence gathering mission" with no reference. Interfax refers to the group as "a group of international military inspectors of the OSCE" and "OSCE military inspectors" [10]. Kiev calls them "representatives from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe" [11]. In searching I see nothing about a Berlin-Kiev agreement, just that they were observers sent under the OSCE's Vienna Document of immunity. The OSCE is also dealing with the captors directly, indicating that the OSCE is involved [12].
The detained men are military officers who also were here under OSCE auspices, but under a separate mission from the civilian observers.
Also, changing it from OSCE to "NATO mission plus Sweden" and "misidentified" without adding a ref reeks of a POV pushing edit. I ask that this be reverted or fixed to be accurate to sources. -- Львівське ( говорити) 02:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, wait. We've got confirmation: 'The Special Monitoring Mission got confirmation that the military observers carrying out an inspection under the OSCE Vienna Document had been taken captive by forces of the self-proclaimed mayor of Sloviansk' - per today's OSCE update. RGloucester — ☎ 03:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
From the OSCE link you provided:
the abduction of members of the unarmed OSCE military verification mission in Sloviansk
-- Львівське ( говорити) 03:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The title as it now stands is simply wrong. This was not an OSCE mission, but a German military mission. FAZ is a reliable source, and German sources should be deferred to because this was a German mission.
This has also been reported by Deutsche Welle, German state television. So "OSCE" mission should be changed to "German army (Bundeswehr) mission". – Herzen ( talk) 20:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Herzen has made it through a single discussion without blaming his troubles on this "extremist Ukrainian nationalist" cabal out to get him -- Львівське ( говорити) 22:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll link this press release again: press release by OSCE. 'International military observers' is the most neutral way to put it, given the conflict between sources, and what the OSCE itself says. Even if they are OSCE observers, 'international' is still correct, and so retains neutrality either way. RGloucester — ☎ 16:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC) : seems OSCE is the common use descriptor in the press and just about everywhere. I see no need to neutralize something that is factual and neutral to begin with. We need to go by WP:COMMON, no? — Львівське ( говорити) 17:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC) ::It isn't factual, because the OSCE itself clarified in that press release that they are not 'directly OSCE observers'. They are there under the Vienna Document. We do not use common names that are incorrect. Regardless, the media is not uniform in usage, as described above. Some said 'OSCE observers', some said 'international', some said 'affiliated with the OSCE'. It isn't as simple as you say. RGloucester — ☎ 19:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
From the discussion above it clearly follows that the term "OSCE Observers" is blutant abuse, what is corroborated by the links you cite, including the link to OSCE web site wherein the term "military inspectors from OSCE participating States". Given all the ambiguity, controversy and the fact that no official source unequivocally, explicitelly declared them as "OSCE Observers" this wording should be replaced with something more in line with actual facts. And this is not about them being spys or not (the aim of their visit is anyway clear and obvious even for somebody without inteligence experience, regardless whether they are called OSCE Observers or not).
http://interfax.com.ua/news/general/203853.html Please add! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.242.176.183 ( talk) 00:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC) ¨
German press is reporting up to 400 involved Academi contractors fighting on Ukrainian side. Did not add it yet because i am not sure about the reliability of sources, but press is reporting it comes from the government. And BND has apparently confirmed that.
Anyone caring enough to do some research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.48.106.46 ( talk) 10:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
After reading some articles about the Ukranian crisis, it clearly shows that all of them are heavily biased, sourced with nothing but American propaganda and some Ukranian "independent" news site... then I notice these articles are all maintened by Lvivske, an openly banderite, anti-russian fascist adulator. How is this article neutral which such people patrolling and reversing anything that is not western propaganda? This is ridiculous. 181.160.250.179 ( talk) 08:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there any number available about the size of the "Pro Russian" militias? Another issue, the An Airplane + the Mi 8 are cited as damaged instead of destroyed.-- 190.234.106.106 ( talk) 02:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
need more sourcing but this says yesterdays fight had 100 dead [14] just leaving it here for now -- Львівське ( говорити) 18:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The fighting has intensified in recent days, with much more shelling and areal bombing. Casualty figures are certainly higher than those currently cited in the article, though it may be hard to get reliable counts at this point... - Helvetica ( talk) 14:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The picture showing rebels outside police station is far too outdated. You may add it to History section but not front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EasyMoney7Cash$ ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Just posting it here in case one of our classic IP/SPAs tried to cram this into the article but LifeNews was reporting that Ukraine was using UN branded helicopters in Sloviansk. It ends up they were using footage from 2 years ago from a UN-Ukraine peacekeeping mission in the Congo. Yet another reason why Lifenews can't be used as a source, I guess. Good grief. [15] -- Львівське ( говорити) 23:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Another helicopter was shot down today, with nine dead.
Igor Strelkov say this is the 10th so far, but I am not sure if he only includes those shot down in Slavyansk and Kramatorsk or all losses in the war.
P.S. – Maybe we should start something like List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 17:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is a "official" list of aviation losses: 8 helicopters destroyed, 5 badly damage. 7 of these are Mi-24 attack helicopters. All of the losses, except one have happened in the Slavyansk front. Also two An-30 airplanes have been lost. (The latest one on June 6th crashed in Drobysheve, which is in the arra of the Slavyansk battle.-- Petri Krohn ( talk) 22:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
nice link Petri, but the final sum looks like 4 Mi-8 lost and 4 Mi-24 lost.(But i only remember 3 Mi-24 lost, two reported in the same event and a third shoot down bu fire and subsequently destroyed by Ukranians to avoid capture.) The article claims 5 Mi 8, not 4. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 17:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The other "results" in the infobox are similarily silly, and they're not results at all. The result was: Ukrainian victory. -- SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 20:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, stop adding various articles together to count ANYTHING, EVER. If the figures are not in the source (the TOTAL figures), they should not be invented by trying to add various figures together to create a new "total" one. Read WP:OR. -- SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 20:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The fighting has intensified in recent days, with much more shelling and areal bombing. Casualty figures are certainly higher than those currently cited in the article, though it may be hard to get reliable counts at this point... - Helvetica ( talk) 14:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
An archiving was done by a bot but no link was posted to the archive. Restoring the section of talk. Article still in need of updating - particularly regarding civilian casualties. - Helvetica ( talk) 09:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
"Pro-Russian withdrawal" and "Pro-Russian forces retreat from Sloviansk" means the same thing, right? -- 92.232.49.38 ( talk) 15:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Rout — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.66.167.5 ( talk) 11:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
During a siege, a defending army cannot possibly be routed, since it is fighting in an isolated, fixed position. It's wrong terminology. It can either be destroyed, surrender, or break out from the siege.
Rout is something that can be done in the open battle ground, but siege is completely different situation.
So who is Simon Ostrovsky, and does he work for the CIA or FBI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.251.188 ( talk) 09:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the heavy civilian losses that resulted from the Ukrainian shelling of the city? This article is disgustingly one-sided as it largely gives the impression that the only victims were Ukrainian politicians, pro-government journalists, and literally less than a dozen civilians that somehow ended up dying at the hands of the separatists -- of course supposed to imply that the separatists were the sole bad guys and the Ukrainian govt forces being so good that not even their indiscriminate bombing raids didn't hit any innocents. 188.26.248.113 ( talk) 11:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
In analyzing the outcome it is important to know what the original aims of the operation were. The most important tactical aim was naturally to block the European route E40 highway at the Kharkov–Donetsk border. But why? Here are some primary sources with English language translations from Russian and Ukrainian originals.
The “Slavyansk Impasse” was meant to give DPR time to create functional armed forces.
If Russia is not able to secure an immediate termination of fire and the execution of a truce, or if it does not step in with its armed force to protect us, to protect the Russian people that reside here, who are a part of the Russian nation, we will be exterminated.
Undoubtedly, Slavyansk became the symbol of the “Russian Spring;” moreover – it entered history. Forever. But the purpose of the city was different. Slavyansk drew to itself all the battle-worthy forces of the Ukrainian army, it enabled the mobilization of the Militia in Lugansk and Donetsk."
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |laysource=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)From the very inception of the hostilities, Slavyansk served as a shield for Donetsk. In taking our positions in Slavyansk, we set up a shield to protect the entire territory of DPR [Donetsk People’s Republic] and LPR [Lugansk People’s Republic]. We bore the main brunt of the enemy offensive and diverted its forces, thereby giving the political leadership and the social leadership of the Republics an opportunity to organize and, in acting in accordance with our example, to take the reigns of [local] power from the Junta, to a certain degree preventing it from establishing itself.
That is why, when we ascertained that this task had been completed – this task specifically – that in both Donetsk and in Lugansk, governments had been established that conformed with the will of the people in terms of implementing state sovereignty and conducting the referendum and were capable of creating their own armed forces, [we understood] that our own task had been substantially fulfilled.
From these statements one can gather four aims:
I would hope to see reliable scholarly sources on the issue, but maybe it is too early. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 13:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Updated 12:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Drajay1976 removed all references to the Interpreter claiming "Not WP:RS". Any details on why is it considered as unreliable source? Enivid ( talk) 15:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
About the following sentence: The day prior to the Donetsk referendum he said "now, in a time of war we don't have time for hostages, we will kill them all."
The source is an article in Vice News.
And here is the comment from the same article:
quote: "Speaking at a press conference the day before the vote, Ponomarev, who has a penchant for chucking troublesome journalists and activists in his basement prison said that, “now, in a time of war we don’t have time for hostages, we will kill them all.” Ponomarev was referring to Ukraine military not foreign press. The reason being is that when they previously released Ukrainian army they asked them to go home and not come back. After that they found out that previously released soldiers killed unarmed villagers. hence the decision not to take any prisoners. He also added he was sorry about this escalation. Stop twisting the facts Vice news.
Enivid's comment "source is clear about it" is senseless. Source - the article with comments - telling us that Vice News just twisting the facts. Source - the article with comments - conflicts with itself. It makes sense if and only if there will be the first source.
Per google there are 100+ Urkainian articles with original words. Example: [16] On 9th of May self-proclaimed «mayor» of Slavyansk Ponomarev said that current city "administration" will not capture Ukrainian soldiers anymore, just «kill em». "Now we will exterminate them. Nobody will talk with em... As harder we will treat them, as faster they will respect us", - he explained.
Therefore I see two alternatives:
I follow the second solution, as the first one have no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infsega ( talk • contribs) 00:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see WP:OR. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm talking about sources and their reliability only. Please see WP:IRS, WP:NPV and WP:GAME. "Hostage Crisis" itself is an original research. It doesn't match the sources. Infsega ( talk) 10:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Per Wiki classification Ponomarev is primary source, Bild is secondary source, Vice News and LA Times are tertiary. All of them contains confliciting infomation. Secondary source (Build) is preferred. Infsega ( talk) 11:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Siege of Sloviansk sounds too dramatic. In reality there was a stand off. I propose to rename it as Stand off in Sloviansk. Such name is given to the article of Ukrainian counterpart. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 03:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Should location be changed to the Donetsk People's Republic, or be left as Donetsk Oblast? Cnd474747 ( talk) 02:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)