| Revision as of 07:01, 31 August 2014 editHaberstr (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,833 edits →POV tag attached. Strongly pro-Maidan and anti-separatist/federalist, which includes the naming of the entry.: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:52, 8 October 2024 edit undoThehazardcat (talk | contribs)14 edits →Misleading image in the infobox: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply |
| (563 intermediate revisions by 92 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=e-e|style=long}} |
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=e-e|style=long}} |
|
{{Controversy}} |
|
{{Controversy}} |
|
{{UKROM}} |
|
{{UKROM}} |
|
{{British English Oxford spelling}} |
|
{{British English Oxford spelling}} |
|
{{ITN talk|April 17|2014}} |
|
{{ITN talk|April 17|2014}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|collapsed=yes| |
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=n|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Russian=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=n|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Russian=y|Post-Cold-War=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject Ukraine|class=C|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Ukraine|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Russia|class=C|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=C|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject European history|importance=high}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Copied|from=Draft:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine |from_oldid=603528282 |to=2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine |diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2014_pro-Russian_protests_in_Ukraine&diff=603528865&oldid=603518494 }} |
|
{{Copied|from=Draft:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine |from_oldid=603528282 |to=2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine |diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2014_pro-Russian_protests_in_Ukraine&diff=603528865&oldid=603518494 }} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
| algo = old(10d) |
|
| algo = old(40d) |
|
| archive = Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| archive = Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| counter = 6 |
|
| counter = 8 |
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
| archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
| archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Russian reaction) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Russian reaction","appear":{"revid":571144177,"parentid":571141209,"timestamp":"2013-09-01T22:53:55Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":592013131,"parentid":592012039,"timestamp":"2014-01-23T12:13:32Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Foreign groups) ]. <!-- {"title":"Foreign groups","appear":{"revid":613717404,"parentid":613716847,"timestamp":"2014-06-20T18:21:58Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":,"replaced_anchors":{"Escalation (May-June 2014)":"Escalation in May and June","Domestic Insurgents":"Domestic insurgents","Anti-Insurgent Forces":"Counter-insurgency forces"}},"disappear":{"revid":1018720478,"parentid":1018518162,"timestamp":"2021-04-19T14:19:29Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Army of the South-East == |
|
== Fake map == |
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
The map used in the infobox says protests were in Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhia, Kherson and so on, while the article lists none of such. Why the map is there? ] (]) 22:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
] should be merged here or the timeline, not a standalone article, it doesnt have notability. |
|
|
|
:The article does mention protests there, see ]. ]<sub>]</sub> 19:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Let's see. The source for Mykolaiv is gone. The reliability is out of the question.{{pb}}The source for Dnipro is gone.{{pb}}The source for Zaporizzhya is reliable news source. But I'd like to strengthen my question: why the map used in the infobox shows protests, while the article is named "pro-Russian unrests"? Why there is no secondary overview source for the map? ] (]) 20:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Should be considered for edition == |
|
|
|
:::Source is not gone, you can find archive of old source page easily. Just because link is dead does not mean source is unreliable. See mykolaiv (https://web.archive.org/web/20140608104344/http://www.mukola.net/news.php?id=58741&arhiv=1) and dnipro (https://web.archive.org/web/20140312232154/http://www.ukrinform.ua/rus/news/v_dnepropetrovske_sostoyalis_dva_mitinga_za_i_protiv_novoy_vlasti_1608502). Article is called unrest because there because as map shows in some areas protests evolved into actual violence including due to influence of outside actors. maybe try to read article before removing valid map? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
::::It's on you to prove the source is reliable. ] (]) 16:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Groundless detention of number of journalists by the Russian ] |
|
|
|
:::::] is an established outlet widely used by other RS and on Misplaced Pages. Also it's easy to find other sources for the pro-Russian protests, see this article by BBC Ukraine {{tquote|В Донецке, Харькове, Николаеве и Запорожье в среду прошли пророссийские митинги, участники которых требовали федерализации Украины и проведения местных референдумов о статусе регионов.}} ]<sub>]</sub> 21:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::{{tq|1=] is an established outlet widely used by other RS and on Misplaced Pages}}<br>Could be but the link above redirects to some casino. In the article titled ''pro-Russian unrest'' I'd prefer to see the map showing unrests. Showing the map with protests may create false impression to the reader. ] (]) 21:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
FSB detained the Polish journalist of ] in ] Vatslav Radzivinovich (Waclaw Radziwinowicz) who is of mixed Polish and Russian heritage was groundlessly detained for six hours and threatened at a gun point by the Russian officials (). FSB also arrested Ukrainian filmmaker a native of ] Oleh Sentsov on terrorism charges (). |
|
|
|
:::::::The above IP is me editing while logged out, before I decided to return to the encyclopaedia. To continue this discussion, the map does show 'unrest'. Protests are a form of unrest. See : 'A state of trouble, confusion and turbulence, especially in a political context; a time of riots, demonstrations and protests'. The whole purpose of the map is to show that the unrest displayed different gradients in different regions, which it did. I do not understand why you continue to remove it, which if anything is a disservice to the reader, denying an easy visual representation of what actually happened. ] — ] 22:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::In that case we should return to the start of the topic. Where are RSs, preferably non-news, saying there were unrests in ''Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhia, Kherson and so on''? ] (]) 22:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
== It's time to create ] == |
|
|
|
:::::::::The sources in the article are reliable, and the substandard ones with RS. These are of course news sources, but news sources from reliable outlets are not unreliable. As for an academic source attesting to mere fact there were pro-Russian protests in the region at this time, here . If you require a more extensive bibliography, that will require some time. ] — ] 09:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::I'm not against the map showing ''unrests'', but there should not be the map showing ''protests'' to not to create a false impression.{{pb}}''Where are RSs, preferably non-news, saying there were '''unrests''' in Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhia, Kherson and so on?'' There are none, as there were no unrests there. ] (]) 11:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
] is getting (in my opinion) too long... Besides their seem to be every week-end a "Pro-Ukrainian" rally and a counter rally and if they will keep on doing this the section will only expand more.... So I propose to create ] and transform the current section on Kharkiv into a summery. |
|
|
|
:::::::::::I am very confused. The definition of 'unrest' was provided above; as you can see, it includes 'protests' in its scope. The map you removed specifies that 'protests' occurred in these regions, which is exactly what the sources cited in the article say...what exactly is the problem? ] — ] 11:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::{{tq|1=The definition of 'unrest' was provided above; as you can see, it includes 'protests' in its scope}}<br>This is ]. See the whole thread for the problem. The map shows protests while the article subject is unrests, and there should not be such a map about protests in the infobox, the sources are weak news sources, the map is a compilation of these and is not based on secondary RS talking about unrests. ] (]) 11:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
The people who form these "Pro-Ukrainian" counter rallies seem to have stopped calling themselves "pro-Russian" (according to the news on the local website ''''). I am not sure if they then still need to be listed in an Wiki-article about pro-Russian unrest... — ''']''' • ] 17:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:At the moment, I think that is un-needed. The notability of the protests in Kharkiv (on their own, rather than as part of the whole) is in question. There have been recurrent protests, but they have been small (100-200 people, usually), and have not been picked up in western media at all. I think that our coverage of them now is pretty good, and I see no reason to warrant creating a separate article for these small protests. The Kharkiv section is no longer than either the Donetsk or Luhansk sections. Minor protests can also be included at ], if that suits your fancy. ] — ] 19:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
:::::::::::::The definition provided was linked from Wiktionary; it is not 'OR'. Feel free to check your preferred dictionary; the result will be the same. I am still very confused. ] — ] 12:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::It is an original research when you need to employ a dictionary to reach a conclusion. And it is simply wrong. Protest and unrests are different. ] (]) 12:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I have to agree with RGloucester, {{U|Yulia Romero}}. It's English Misplaced Pages, and the Western media is focussed on Donbass with virtually nothing about Kharkiv appearing. I'd take it as being a ] issue. As it is, a proliferation of articles which don't really meet ] have sprung up due to ] contributors POV-selecting subject matter, so there are merges to consider at a future point. This is problematic in that: A) It's impossible to know what is being duplicated; B) A number have been written by POV-ers and have an in-group editing them as alternative versions of the main articles. The more articles there are, the more difficult it is to patrol them and keep a lid on bias. --] (]) 10:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::::::::::The problem is with the caption, not the map. The map correctly shows the regions in which there were only protests. Please don't remove the map if the problem is only with the caption. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::::I've replaced "unrest" with "disturbances" which is more general to address your concerns. Alternatively we can write "Map of Ukraine with regions occupied by Russia and having pro-Russian insurgency and protests". This would be rather long and unwieldy but would exactly correspond to the sources. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
== recent edits, same old stuff == |
|
|
|
::{{outdent|13}} Why there is a map with "protests" in the lead of the article titled "unrest"? Are "disturbances" the same as protests? or unrests? Which secondary RS cover the map? Why there is such a map in the article infobox when there are no such RS? See how many questions the inclusion of such a map into the infobox raises. ] (]) 21:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Well, the scope of the article quite clearly includes both protests and more violent forms of unrest. I think it makes sense since in many cases protests gradually turned more violent. ]<sub>]</sub> 19:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
are obviously highly POV, they constitute original research and they rely on non-reliable sources. They also remove actual reliable sources. |
|
|
|
:The map at "Pro-Russian protests" section is also wrong. It states, for example, 5,000+ pro-ru participants for Odesa while the source (not working now so not reliable) says "up to 5,000". ] (]) 13:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::That would be an easy fix. Also, if a web page is not available it doesn't mean that the source is unreliable. There is no policy that says so. Here's an archived . ]<sub>]</sub> 19:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Not sure what is there to discuss here since we've been through this a dozen times. ] (]) 05:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::Note the main argument: ''The map at "Pro-Russian protests" section is also wrong. It states, for example, 5,000+ pro-ru participants for Odesa while the source (not working now so not reliable) says "up to 5,000".''{{pb}}It's those wishing to keep the source who need to prove it's reliable. ] (]) 19:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Well, actually it's a mistake on part of ''Ukrainian Policy''. They wrote "up to 5,000" linking by ''Odessa Media'' which says "более пяти тысяч одесситов," that is, more than 5,000. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I suspect we're just stuck with having to revert and find the deleted sources. It's infuriating, but I seem to spend more time on having to check through edit after edit since my last 'visit' for the bits and pieces that were overlooked. What a waste of editor resources and fits of screaming at the daft crud that's missed. Put that together with numerous other articles around the same current events and it's enough to be hauled off in a straight-jacket. There must be some way of implementing sterner restrictions on new editors. IP protection isn't enough. --] (]) 06:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::So, do we have a reliable source on this.{{pb}}Also, you returned the "unrests" map into the infobox without the justification. ] (]) 20:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Let's see Zaporizhzhia oblast data. BBC gives 100+ attendees, Korrespondent - up to 500 OR more than 5,000. Yet the map shamelessly paints 5,000+ to Zaporizhzhia.{{pb}}You really should not be returning it . ] (]) 20:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Should the article mention the break up of the USSR? == |
|
|
|
:::Well, the article you've linked provides two estimates for the April 6 protests |
|
|
|
|
|
:::{{tquote|свыше пяти тысяч жителей прошли от площади Ленина по проспекту, передает издание IPnews.}} |
|
Not once does the article mention the word USSR. The Russian position is that Russians stranded in the Ukraine after the break up of the USSR have a right to be united and protected by Russia. This should be in the intro. --] (]) 15:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::{{tquote|По другим данным, в марше участвовало не более 500 человек}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:::So the map uses the higher number. We should either find additional sources or show it on the map that the estimates differ (e.g., by combining all <10,000, or by using striped fill). |
|
:Sort of. But yes, the USSR should be mentioned somewhere in the article, though not necessarily the lede.] (]) 18:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::The BBC article is about the protests in the beginning of March. ]<sub>]</sub> 06:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::So is the map correct? Is it wrong? ''Приняло участие в демонстрации до тысячи человек.'' ] (]) 08:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
== If you support keeping the Nazi comment by the Canadian Minister in the article say why here!! == |
|
|
|
:::::The map shows the biggest protest in each region. It seems like in Zaporozhye this happened in the beginning of April. I don't know which of the estimates for those protests (<500 or >5000) is correct, hence I suggested to stripe-paint it. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::The map is always an approximation of the reality. This map is based on sources and is helpful to the reader. If we find new sources which contradict the existing ones we can and should fix the map. ]<sub>]</sub> 19:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Nazi comment in the article should be removed. If you wish to keep the Nazi comment by the Canadian Minister, then it should be balanced with this!! |
|
|
|
::::::{{tq|1=This map is based on sources and is helpful to the reader}}<br>As shown above, the map is not representing sources correctly, and is based on unreliable sources. ] (]) 19:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::What sources does the map misrepresent (except for the Zaporozhye number, for which I've suggested a solution)? |
|
The balance is this comment,"Russian President Vladimir Putin compared Kyiv's drive to regain control of its rebellious eastern cities to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in the Second World War. He announced that rebels had succeeded in halting it, and proposed that they now permit surrounded Ukrainian troops to retreat." |
|
|
|
:::::::Which sources are unreliable and why? ]<sub>]</sub> 21:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::{{tq|1=except for the Zaporozhye number, for which I've suggested a solution}}<br>Yes, this one. And there are no reliable sources for Odesa numbers. ] (]) 21:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Source: Canadian government TV network CBC |
|
|
|
::::::::Now it's also wrong with Kharkiv. ] (]) 21:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-seeks-nato-membership-to-gain-western-military-aid-1.2750162 |
|
|
|
:::::::::Why have you again removed the infobox map? The sources have been presented. I can understand if the protest map requires revision, though as of yet I am not convinced, but the infobox is clearly supported by the existing sources. What exactly are you contesting in this map? The mere fact that there were protests in these regions has been demonstrated time and time again. ] — ] 22:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::See ] . Why there is a map with "protests" in the lead of the article titled "unrest"? Are "disturbances" the same as protests? or unrests? Which secondary RSs cover the map? Why there is such a map in the article infobox when there are no such RS?{{pb}}No, the scope of "unrests" article does not include protests unless there are secondary RSs covering these. ] (]) 22:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Why is the Canadian Minister's comment okay but not this? --] (]) 00:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::This article isn't about the military operation in Donbass. Feel free to add the Putin quote at ]. ] — ] 00:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
:::::::::::I do not know if you are a native speaker of English, but 'unrest' includes protests. The title of the article was decided by consensus many years ago and was specifically chosen to include different forms of 'unrest', because the gradient of unrest in each region was different. If you want to propose a new name for the article, go ahead. Secondary sources for the existence of 'protests' have been provided. ] — ] 22:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::{{tq|1='unrest' includes protests}}<br>... but protests are not unrest. ] (]) 22:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::That is your OR, not supported by evidence. The previous consensus established in the 2014 when this article was renamed was that 'unrest' does include protests. Dictionaries agree, such as . This is also ] with other Misplaced Pages articles, such as ], an article that is primarily about 'protests'. ] — ] 09:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
== this is silly == |
|
|
|
::::::::::::::{{tq|1=That is your OR, not supported by evidence}}<br>You disagree that protests and unrest are two different words with different meaning? I think we should stop here. Your thesis that "'unrest' includes protests" was addressed in a very message you are replying to. ] (]) 09:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*For Kharkiv, the protest map does need to be updated given that 6 March 2014 protest . ] — ] 22:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Re the use of the word "alleged" for captured Russian soldiers, and the edit summary of the revert: ''That's compromise wording. There's an editor who does not approve of the numbers and wants to fully remove them. Besides, the whole invasion is denied by Russia, thus the number is alleged. Until you find a source confirming its official please refrain'' |
|
|
|
::In fact, Platonova puts the during March. ] — ] 22:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Changes required=== |
|
That's a silly argument. If some editor is behaving disruptively and tries to remove reliably sourced content, especially without explaining their reasoning or engaging in discussion, we don't try and "compromise" with them, we revert them. If they persist we report them. And of course in this particular case the editor in question who keeps removing the number is just another in a long list of newly created or sleeper throw away accounts with hardly any edits who've been disrupting these articles for months. Why are we accommodating and enabling this kind of behavior? |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
And as I explained on my talk page, it is absolutely irrelevant whether or not Russia denies the invasion or not, whether it admits its soldiers were captured or killed. Basing text on what they say, aside from just being crazy, would be ] based on an interpretation of a ] source. That's why we use *secondary sources*. And then the question is simply 1) is the source reliable? and 2) does the source actually say "alleged". If the answers are 1) yes, 2) no, then we don't invent this "alleged" out of thin air.] (]) 05:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| class="wikitable" |
|
:There is no invasion of Ukraine by any Russian forces. What is happening is simple, hasty organized forces by Kiev authorities made up of demoralized conscripts and poorly trained extreme right wing militias(in some cases openly demonstrating links to Neo-Nazism) have been routed by local militia made out of motivated and well trained local men(former soldiers and veterans), out of whom a small part are Russian citizens that volunteered mostly due to their families living in the region.To cover up their incompetence and failures Kiev forces invented stories of "Russian invasion" which are not supported by any shred of evidence which were accepted as fact by lazy journalists and politicians abroad with a stake in victory of one of the sides.That is the cold hard reality of the matter.--] (]) 16:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|+ |
|
|
|- |
|
|
! Region !! Now !! Should be !! Comments |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Kharkiv || 500+ || 10,000+ || Per ''The Donbas Conflict in Ukraine: Elites, Protest, and Partition'', p. 89 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Zaporizhzhia || 5,000+ || <500/5,000+ || Per ] which offers two estimates |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's collect all the changes needed in one place and then amend the map. ]<sub>]</sub> 06:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:We are talking about second-hand and third-hand accounts provided by regular critics of the Russian government with regards to these figures. Such shaky claims should not even be included in the infobox, let alone treated as established fact. The whole account of over 100 Russian soldiers being killed in a single Grad rocket attack is inherently suspect. "Alleged" is not being invented out of thin air as it is a natural extension from "x says" and is consistent with how we generally approach these types of extraordinary unconfirmed claims from involved parties. Just because reliable sources report the allegations does not mean they are endorsing them.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 20:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:What are reliable sources for Odesa numbers? ] (]) 09:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:: by . ]<sub>]</sub> 18:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::We are not using propaganda. ] (]) 19:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::What makes you think it's propaganda? ]<sub>]</sub> 19:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The very title. ] (]) 20:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Not sure I understand. ]<sub>]</sub> 17:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::If there are better sources which report different numbers I'm happy to update the map. ]<sub>]</sub> 18:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@], let's not use "ukrainianpolicy", as it was found to be unreliable.{{pb}}Regarding your "peak attendance" comment , the sources don't have to use the exact wording. The sources you added do not use that wording as well . ] (]) 09:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Also Guardian is incorrect quoting Interfax, as Interfax reports ''По оценкам организаторов митинга, собравшихся около 20 тысяч, по оценкам сотрудников милиции - около 5 тысяч.'' and we are not using organizers' claims. ] (]) 09:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm not saying the sources have to use the exact wording, rather the sources for your claims of 700 and 100 attendees either did not state those numbers or stated higher numbers for other protests in Odesa; you also appear to be the only one saying that Ukrainian Policy is unreliable, and just because the website is offline now doesn't mean it was unreliable when it wasn't. We as well can use the maximalist claim of 25,000 if the minimalist claim of 500 is kept; both can be removed if we agree to use only 3,000–5,000 for the attendee amount. ] (]) 09:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{tq|1=you also appear to be the only one saying that Ukrainian Policy is unreliable}}<br>Did others offered any ''proofs'' of its reliability, instead of ''claims''? Try to assess it per ].{{pb}}I added dates to attendee numbers, 500 - 1000 is the number for 3 March, 5,000 (no, not 25,000) is for 1 March. ] (]) 09:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Dumskaya.net seems to be a reliable source. It's an ] cited more than 250 times in the Ukrainian Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
::::Considering that the 25k number comes only from Interfax and even then it's attributed to the organisers, I don't we need to change anything here. ]<sub>]</sub> 19:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
Considering that we haven't identified other inaccuracies, I've requested the Commons editors to change the colours. ]<sub>]</sub> 17:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== section on peace deal == |
|
== Misleading image in the infobox == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
@], why the image which raises so many questions have been inserted into the infobox again ? Here are those questions, again: Why there is a map with "protests" in the lead of the article titled "unrest"? Are "disturbances" the same as protests? or unrests? Which secondary RSs cover the image? Why there is such a map in the article infobox when there are no such RS? |
|
This is the peace deal. |
|
|
Terms: Parts of the Ukraine that contain people of Russian origin that wish to join Russia become part of Russia. |
|
|
Second, after this transfer Ukraine be granted European Union status and become part of Nato. Win, win. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The image is also misleading by itself, as it has "2014 Pro-Russian Unrest" written on it as a title but it shows areas which had no unrests but protests. The image gives the reader a false impression that "unrests" were far more widespread, while unrests were only occurring in Donetsk, Luhansk, Mariupol, Kharkiv and Odesa. Including it is also the violation of ], therefore. ] (]) 17:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Ukraine becomes more stable and Russia protects their citizens. We gain as sanctions are now lifted. We avoid the fallout of a conflict that could undermine our reaching out to Russia to one day become part of the European Union and become a key asset in our defense team. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Two editors told you that unrest includes protests. Unrest does not need to be violent. This is the definition from the Cambridge dictionary |
|
We must avoid at all costs a fight between Nato and Russia. |
|
|
|
: disagreements or fighting between different groups of people. ]<sub>]</sub> 18:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
--] (]) 21:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::This sentence has been answered and the answer is that while unrest may include protests, nevertheless protests are not unrests and should not be misunderstood as such. While the added image does exactly that: gives the false impression, substituting unrest with protests.{{pb}}The thesis is also not supported by secondary reliable sources on article subject. Conclusions like the one above are either ] or ] or both. ] (]) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
]. ] — ] 21:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::I think at this point there is no longer any point in discussing this further. If you don't agree with the position of other editors regarding the scope and the name of the article, the best course of action would be to seek external feedback. ]<sub>]</sub> 19:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The scope of the article is defined by its title and by secondary RSs discussing article subject. ] (]) 20:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{Agree}}, the article should be renamed because it is an exaggeration ] (]) 13:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Disagree, the article is not placing undue attention on the response of Eastern Ukraine towards the Revolution ] (]) 21:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Did not approve of the revolution == |
|
== POV tag attached. Strongly pro-Maidan and anti-separatist/federalist, which includes the naming of the entry. == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
''Some people in largely Russophone eastern and southern Ukraine, the traditional bases of support for Yanukovych and his Party of the Regions, did not approve of the revolution'' - I see Marples book talks not about "eastern and southern Ukraine" but about Donbas, Eastern Donbas. The chapter is "Prelude to War" . ] (]) 20:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
POV tag attached; the entry is strongly pro-Maidan and anti-separatist/federalist, right down to the naming of the entry. For example, consider balancing this sub-section -- "Anti-Maidan and paid protesters" -- with similar accusations against pro-Maidan protestors and militias. Also, please consider removing "ultra-nationalist" from the entry's lead sentence. Also, consider including the well-evidenced (tape-recorded phone call) narrative that the West, in particular the U.S.'s Victoria Nuland, was heavily involved in Maidan orchestration and in the selection of the first post revolution/coup Prime Minister. Well, I'm sure the POV tag is obviously amply justified so I don't need to continue.] (]) 07:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Please note the proposal for a ] by Yanukovych supporters during the Orange Revolution. 'Southeastern Ukraine' has traditionally been a common alternative name for this region...I expect it has less currency now given the current geopolitical situation, however. ] — ] 22:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::We should not be engaging in original research. I'm asking why the article should state that, given that the source says Donbas. ] (]) 22:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Marples is not the cited source for that passage... ] — ] 22:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The question raised still remains. ] (]) 22:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:If sources don't support the sentence, it should be replaced with the one supported by sources. ] (]) 21:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
The map used in the infobox says protests were in Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhia, Kherson and so on, while the article lists none of such. Why the map is there? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
The image is also misleading by itself, as it has "2014 Pro-Russian Unrest" written on it as a title but it shows areas which had no unrests but protests. The image gives the reader a false impression that "unrests" were far more widespread, while unrests were only occurring in Donetsk, Luhansk, Mariupol, Kharkiv and Odesa. Including it is also the violation of WP:WEIGHT, therefore. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
.svg)
Agree, the article should be renamed because it is an exaggeration Pusf.smbd (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)