Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::::::The only thing 'we' (in the sense of 'Misplaced Pages') should do is revert Heptor's edits. No amount of discussion will produce a productive result. The stable version is the only acceptable one. I certainly do not agree that the picture is 'nuanced'. The vast majority of reliable sources are quite clear about the nature of these events, and the lead of this article has stood the test time, remaining stable for years until your attempts to twist it into a mess. Enough is enough! ] — ] 15:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
:::::::The only thing 'we' (in the sense of 'Misplaced Pages') should do is revert Heptor's edits. No amount of discussion will produce a productive result. The stable version is the only acceptable one. I certainly do not agree that the picture is 'nuanced'. The vast majority of reliable sources are quite clear about the nature of these events, and the lead of this article has stood the test time, remaining stable for years until your attempts to twist it into a mess. Enough is enough! ] — ] 15:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: I see very little willingness on your part to engage in a discussion. ] (]) 15:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: I see very little willingness on your part to engage in a discussion. ] (]) 15:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Ymblanter}}, given the involvement of two long-0established editors, and the political significance of the article, I think a "consensus required" type of restriction might be justified - that is, any bold edit which is reverted, must not be reinstated without consensus. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 23:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::::::}}
{{Outdent|::::::::}}
Well, now you are in 1RR violation and you still don't engage in any constructive discussions. The version that you are pushing is based on the totality of one academic-ish journal, published by the Rand Corporation: "Lessons from Russia's Operations in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine" (you did however list it up twice in the reference list, so kudos I guess). The actual academic discussions on this subject are more nuanced, as illustrated by the reference list below. At least you are trying to clean up some of your mess, but I have to say that the structure remains so-so, and there are quite a few rambling sentences that should be broken up. ] (]) 18:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, now you are in 1RR violation and you still don't engage in any constructive discussions. The version that you are pushing is based on the totality of one academic-ish journal, published by the Rand Corporation: "Lessons from Russia's Operations in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine" (you did however list it up twice in the reference list, so kudos I guess). The actual academic discussions on this subject are more nuanced, as illustrated by the reference list below. At least you are trying to clean up some of your mess, but I have to say that the structure remains so-so, and there are quite a few rambling sentences that should be broken up. ] (]) 18:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
There is a disagreement between the involved parties about Russia's role in the Minsk agreements. Ukrainian govt says that Russia was a party to the agreement, while Russia says that its role was to observe, essentially same as OSCE. This follows the general narrative promoted by the two states, where Ukraine presents the conflict as war with Russian Federation, while Russia considers the conflict to be a civil war between Ukrainian citizens. Presently, the Ukrainian view is stated as factual in the article, in particular the second sentence in the fourth paragraph, "Ukraine, Russia, the DPR and the LPR signed an agreement to establish a ceasefire, called the Minsk Protocol". Requesting additional views on the matter. Heptor (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Green men with Russian accent
The second sentence in the article prominently qualifies groups that protested against the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution as "Russian-backed", linking to the article on from Little_green_men_(Ukrainian_crisis)#Reappearance_in_Donbass. This seems to insinuate that the protests were instigated by the said green men, for which there is presently little evidence. Quoting from the linked article, "dozens of heavily armed strangers with Russian accents had appeared on the weekend and set up a road block". This demonstrates a poor undertanding of the area, since the majority of the local population in Donbas speak Russian as their first language, and observation of people with Russian accent is a flimsy evidence of Rusian invasion. The article could be improved by discussing Russian involvement in the conflict more explicitely in a separate paragraph, rather them making vague insinuations. Heptor (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@RGloucester: you had previously shown an interest in the neutrality aspect of this article, it would be quite interesting to see your opinion on the matter stated and explained. Heptor (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello RGloucester. You made a series of controversial edits on June 16th. You summarized these edits as "c/e", which I have to say was misleading, since they mostly concerned Russian involvement in the conflict, a rather controversial topic. The coverage of this topic in the article deserves an expansion, and the organization of this article would be improved if this expansion was focused in a separate section. If you are interested in contributing, please consider expanding War_in_Donbass#Russian_involvement. Thanks, Heptor (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Your edits have been entirely unacceptable, and I've reverted them. Each time you to try to remove sourced information about Russian involvement in the war. Please spare us this continued campaign of POV pushing. RGloucester — ☎18:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
RG, you made significant controversial edits with misleading edits summaries. You removed at least two reliable sources: . I am happy that you are now participating in the discussion. Kindly explain the changes you made on June 16th, and let's take it on from there.
I did not make any changes. I reverted your edits, because they are a clear attempt at POV pushing, and are making a disinformation campaign out of this article. RGloucester — ☎18:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't doubt that you mean well, but Im afraid that some of the neuances about the politics of the conflict may have been lost in your edits. Would it be unreasonale to ask you to detail the specifics of why you consider these changes an attempt at pov pushing? For example, do you disareee with how i offloaded most of the text on the Rusain involvement in a separate section? Is there something wrong with the two references I added? Heptor (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Past engagement with you has made clear that constructive discussion is impossible. I will simply allow others to judge the veracity of your intent. RGloucester — ☎19:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
This is the first and only time that I have seen you participate in a discussion on any article that I have edited. Heptor (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I was asked at this editing dispute at my talk page. Whereas I have no opinion on the validity of edits made by Heptor (and, to be honest, I do not quite understand what they wanted to do - not that I want to understand it), I see that the article was for a long time in a quasi-stable state (I have now extended confirmed protected it to exclude sockpuppet edits, which it has see a lot). In this situation, if the edits get reverted, per WP:BRDHeptor has to go to the talk page and explain what they want to do, and subsequently seek consensus. There is no obligation for RGloucester to participate in this discussion if they do not want to; however, if the discussion starts and RGloucester ignores it they should not be surprised that their point of view have not been taken into account. If any of you feels like the opponent is acting against the policies, you should present the opponent to WP:ANI, or, if this has happened before, possibly to WP:AE.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
May I assume that RGloucester disagrees with my reversal of his edits from June 16th? I have also made a series of other edits, mostly directed towards offloading the overly long lead, and some copy-editing on the section about the Russian involvement. Does RG disagrees with that as well? I had been editing this article a lot previously, have to point out that it was in a rather stable state before June also. Heptor (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Heptor, you are really taxing my patience. I did not make any 'edits from 16th June'. All I did then was revert the stealth changes you had inserted into the article in an attempt to create WP:FALSEBALANCE. The long-standing version is the one I have reverted to, which is a reproduction of the 21 February version, dating to just before you began your campaign of POV pushing. You move the 'Russian involvement' section to background, when this is clearly not 'background' information, but information about the body of the conflict. You remove reference to the annexation of Crimea, the 2014 August invasion, &c., and attempt to make it seems as if the Crimean vote was legitimate, in clear defiance of the consensus of reliable sources. Enough is enough! The Russian claims are not of equal validity...reliable sources do not treat them as such, and showcasing them in the lead in an attempt to make the article more 'neutral', only creates WP:FALSEBALANCE. Your changes may seem inane to the untrained eye, but it's quite clear what you're trying to do. I entreat you to kindly stop, or otherwise I shall have to request your topic banning from this subject area. RGloucester — ☎13:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
RG, I kindly entreat you to WP:AGF, keep a WP:CIVIL tone and follow the dispute resolution resolution procedures. There was nothing stealth about my edits. Unlike you I generally provide extensive and descriptive edit summaries. I do have to point out that at least until June you contributed little except reverts with abusively snark edits summaries. Until now, you ignored attempts to engage in a conversation. I hope to see further improvement in your willingness to collaborate. As to the actual content dispute, maybe we can address a few points:
Do you dispute that (PS: also ) are articles published in a reputable journals, that paint a nuanced picture that can be accurately captured by the summary "The extend of the Russian involvement in the conflict is controversial. It is variably described as a covered-up Russian invasion or as a mainly local separatist insurgency."
The summary description of the 2014 Crimean status referendum in the first paragraph of this article had been stable at least since April. Do you dispute that it is an accurate summary of the main article? Quoting from the first paragraph therin, "The Crimean status referendum was a controversial vote on the political status of Crimea held on March 16, 2014 by the legislature of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the local government of Sevastopol The official result was a 97 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 83." The vote is described as "mostly unrecognized", but perhaps we should also add "illegal under Ukrainian law"?
The Russian involvement in this conflict is rather profound and had a significant impact on the course of this conflict. For this reason I moved this section up from the bottom of the article to a place very near the top. You seem to object rather strongly about having it as a subsection in the "background" section. I don't quite see what's the big deal here, one way or the other. I'd be happy to have it elevated as a separate section if it would make your day a little better. Heptor (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The only thing 'we' (in the sense of 'Misplaced Pages') should do is revert Heptor's edits. No amount of discussion will produce a productive result. The stable version is the only acceptable one. I certainly do not agree that the picture is 'nuanced'. The vast majority of reliable sources are quite clear about the nature of these events, and the lead of this article has stood the test time, remaining stable for years until your attempts to twist it into a mess. Enough is enough! RGloucester — ☎15:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Ymblanter, given the involvement of two long-0established editors, and the political significance of the article, I think a "consensus required" type of restriction might be justified - that is, any bold edit which is reverted, must not be reinstated without consensus. Guy (help!) 23:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, now you are in 1RR violation and you still don't engage in any constructive discussions. The version that you are pushing is based on the totality of one academic-ish journal, published by the Rand Corporation: "Lessons from Russia's Operations in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine" (you did however list it up twice in the reference list, so kudos I guess). The actual academic discussions on this subject are more nuanced, as illustrated by the reference list below. At least you are trying to clean up some of your mess, but I have to say that the structure remains so-so, and there are quite a few rambling sentences that should be broken up. Heptor (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
1RR is not in effect on this page. I have insulted multiple, reliable, scholarly sources on the subject, and clarified the stream of events. The academic discussions you suggest are not at all 'nuanced'. Your sources don't support the conclusions you've made, and this is of course no surprise. If I list things multiple times in the ref list, it is because I am giving page numbers! Something one can't expect from the likes of you. In any case, I will continue to improve this lead in line with the current academic consensus on this matter. RGloucester — ☎18:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, citing for example, far from instigating the rebellion in Donbass and using it to destabilise Ukraine, revise the international order, or seize additional territory, Moscow has largely been reacting to events and trying to gain some control of a process which was originally almost entirely outside of its control. How is that not nuanced? Also, do you have to be so angry all the time? It's rather unbecoming. Heptor (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
It isn't nuanced at all. If you read your source, and indeed, the Rand Source, you'd see that. Most sources agree that Russia was caught off-guard by the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, and thus had to react, as such. The reaction went well in Crimea, but didn't go so well in Donbass. The initial protests in Donbass were genuinely spontaneous, though whether they represented a region-wide consensus is doubtful. Russia decided to encourage a fringe of separatists with political, information, and military support, but didn't realise that these idiots would actually start making the mess they did, or that Ukraine would actually fight back, unlike in Crimea. Russia eventually realised that Novorossiya was a failure, that the 'separatists' didn't have the capability to function as true proxies, and thus invaded in August 2014 to settle the score, and regain control of events. That 'control' is evident in the Minsk Protocol, and the desire to reintegrate the DPR and LPR into Ukraine...to serve as a permanent conveyor of Russian interest into the Ukrainian state. So, while Russia did not have a premeditated intent to do what it did in Donbass, it did indeed do it! And that's what the sources say. Far from nuanced, the picture is incredibly clear. RGloucester — ☎19:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The picture is anything but "incredibly clear". Consider also , There are many conflicting narratives about the conflict in Donbas. The Ukrainian govern-ment, the national media and, to a large extent, their counterparts in the West present theviolent conflict in Donbas as led, from its beginning in Spring of 2014, by regular armed Russian military units and Russian military intelligence agents who therefore lackpopular backing in this region. They present the war in Donbas as a conventional or a hybrid war between Ukraine and Russia. You are throwing around expressions like "most sources agree". Yet you have provided no sources on your own, and I see no evidence that you've familiarized yourself with any of the ones I have listed.
I did indeed insert many sources into the article. Please read them. Your newly linked source is old, dating to 2016. New developments have changed the general perception of events. Indeed, the author himself mentions that the lack of data prevents him from drawing conclusions about the nature of the conflict. That data is available now, and indeed, RS like the Rand report make the situation very clear. RGloucester — ☎19:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
That's a downright lie. For one thing, I can't read Ukrainian or Russian, so how would I be citing Pravda? I do cite Kyiv Post on occasion, and consensus at the RS noticeboard and elsewhere have deemed them an RS. I have never cited EuroMaidan Press, which is basically a blog. Your intent is very clear, with such statement as these. RGloucester — ☎20:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I have never cited Pravda, and the idea one could cite a source without reading it is truly the thin end of the wedge.RGloucester — ☎20:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
What are you citing? You haven't listed any sources here, and your version of the article now lists Rand Corporation six times because they support the view you are pushing, while you removed <ref name="Matveeva2016"> because they say that there are other perspectives. Heptor (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't need to 'list sources here', they are in the damn article. The comprehensive Rand Corporation report is certainly worth citing six times! I did not remove Katchanovski...he's cited in the article. Other sources were not removed because of the sources themselves, but because you cited them for conclusions they did not support, and without precise page numbers! RGloucester — ☎20:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
You don't need to do anything, but you haven't presented any sources supporting any your statements. Heptor (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Every edit I have introduced includes a source with a precise page number...it's not my problem if you don't care to read them! RGloucester — ☎21:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Matveeva, Anna (2016). "No Moscow stooges: identity polarization and guerrilla movements in Donbass". Southeast European and Black Sea Studies. 16 (1): 25–50. doi:10.1080/14683857.2016.1148415. ISSN1468-3857.
^ Bruno De Cordier, Ghent (2017-02-14). "Ukraine's Vendée War?A Look at the "Resistance Identity" of the Donbass Insurgency". RUSSIAN ANALYTICAL DIGET. 198: 2–5. Retrieved 2020-07-08. The driving forces behind the insurgency in Donetsk and Lugansk go well beyond the clichés of Moscow-backed separatism, cynical geostrategic calculations and the quest for natural resources.
Referencing and citation: criterion met
