| Revision as of 19:59, 15 November 2014 editTrabant1963 (talk | contribs)240 edits →Novorossian republics on the map: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:02, 15 November 2014 edit undoTrabant1963 (talk | contribs)240 edits →Novorossian republics on the mapNext edit → | ||
| Line 284: | Line 284: | ||
| == Novorossian republics on the map == | == Novorossian republics on the map == | ||
| I propose to paint the territory of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics into the light green color (like crimea), cause in fact they are not the part ukraine already, their status is like the transnistrian | I propose to paint the territory of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics into the light green color (like crimea), cause in fact they are not the part ukraine already, their status is disputable like the transnistrian (which aspires to the independence) | ||
Revision as of 20:02, 15 November 2014
If you are here to discuss Kiev vs. Kyiv please click here| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ukraine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
 | Ukraine was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on 10 dates. August 24, 2004, August 24, 2005, August 24, 2006, August 24, 2007, August 24, 2008, August 24, 2009, August 24, 2010, August 24, 2011, August 24, 2012, and August 24, 2014 |
Declarations of War and Casualty/Death toll statistics are not censored by Misplaced Pages policy
The following published article on recentism (and WP:Notnews) is presented for review. Misplaced Pages has also earned a reputation as a news source because of its rapid updating of articles related to breaking news., "How Misplaced Pages Won Olympic Gold", Mossop, Brian, Wired, August 10, 2012. Normally declarations of war and including war casualty statistics are not subject to deletion under policy for recentism (or, WP:Notnews). FelixRosch (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your reference focuses solely on Olympic results. Misplaced Pages articles, contrary to your edits, aren't made up of quotes found in today's newspaper. --NeilN 19:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is one example only taken from the source in Wired. You appear to be reading WP:Notnews in an unspecified manner. Are you suggesting that it is ok to include recent results from Gold awards, but somehow it is not possible to included news reports identifying a state of War as being declared? Not consistent. Your reference to WP:Notnews is not applicable and therefore reverted unless you have other Misplaced Pages policy rules for excluding declaration of War status and death toll statistics. These are not seen as generally being reversible events or trite events for which WP:Notnews could be applied. FelixRosch (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Use your common sense. Seriously. Updating articles about sports events with the results of said sports events is expected and necessary and usually the conclusion of updates. Updating the article saying one agency is stating one part of a country is in a state of civil war does not require a five line quote mostly about something else. --NeilN 19:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- That's not quite what the large newspaper coverage across the country has been covering for over a week since the airliner was downed by missile fire. Last month you were also blocking the addition of death toll statistics being published by multiple news sources as well. Neither of these was a WP:Notnews issue although both were being deleted. For Misplaced Pages to mention both of these death toll statistics is part of its function for commenting on historically established military tensions and casualties being documented in multiple major news sources for over a month. These casualties are being rightfully mourned at present, and this is not a reversible incident but part of the historical facts of the escalating conflict. If you have a shorter version of reporting a death toll which is now over 500 (covering both my edit from last month and the current edit with references and cites as provided), then suggest a one or two sentence version. The most straightforward way to report that there are over 500 documented casualties in the death toll would be informative of the actual level of military escalation. FelixRosch (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Once again, this is the summary article for Ukraine. Text for the 2014 events is about as long as the text that covers the entire World War II when between 5 and 8 million Ukrainians died. I think your historical perspective is slightly off. --NeilN 21:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not this again... WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. One sentence of "The Red Cross considers the Ukraine to be in a state of civil war" or something similar would be sufficient. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- PS, citing articles outside WP does not change WP's WP:NOTNEWS policy. Note, it's not a guideline or essay, it's a policy. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Substituting short version of Red Cross MH-17 edit by User:Evergreen. Agree with User:Evergreen that short version is sufficient for the multi-sentence version. FelixRosch (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Still contains unnecessary detail so trimmed. --NeilN 15:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Substituting short version of Red Cross MH-17 edit by User:Evergreen. Agree with User:Evergreen that short version is sufficient for the multi-sentence version. FelixRosch (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Once again, this is the summary article for Ukraine. Text for the 2014 events is about as long as the text that covers the entire World War II when between 5 and 8 million Ukrainians died. I think your historical perspective is slightly off. --NeilN 21:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- That's not quite what the large newspaper coverage across the country has been covering for over a week since the airliner was downed by missile fire. Last month you were also blocking the addition of death toll statistics being published by multiple news sources as well. Neither of these was a WP:Notnews issue although both were being deleted. For Misplaced Pages to mention both of these death toll statistics is part of its function for commenting on historically established military tensions and casualties being documented in multiple major news sources for over a month. These casualties are being rightfully mourned at present, and this is not a reversible incident but part of the historical facts of the escalating conflict. If you have a shorter version of reporting a death toll which is now over 500 (covering both my edit from last month and the current edit with references and cites as provided), then suggest a one or two sentence version. The most straightforward way to report that there are over 500 documented casualties in the death toll would be informative of the actual level of military escalation. FelixRosch (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Use your common sense. Seriously. Updating articles about sports events with the results of said sports events is expected and necessary and usually the conclusion of updates. Updating the article saying one agency is stating one part of a country is in a state of civil war does not require a five line quote mostly about something else. --NeilN 19:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is one example only taken from the source in Wired. You appear to be reading WP:Notnews in an unspecified manner. Are you suggesting that it is ok to include recent results from Gold awards, but somehow it is not possible to included news reports identifying a state of War as being declared? Not consistent. Your reference to WP:Notnews is not applicable and therefore reverted unless you have other Misplaced Pages policy rules for excluding declaration of War status and death toll statistics. These are not seen as generally being reversible events or trite events for which WP:Notnews could be applied. FelixRosch (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The entire section has become WP:UNDUE yet again. There are details (such as the Red Cross calling it a 'civil war') which are being kept in check on the 2014 insurgency in Donbass article as there is no one take on the situation (including NGO opinions). The protracted quotes from Poroshenko are also UNDUE. Why is this article now featuring information that doesn't align with the main articles dealing with subject matter? If anyone wishes to contribute by working on the main articles constructively, they are welcome to join us at the relevant articles. This article, however, is not a surrogate for would be journalists to bypass the content screening process. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Like --NeilN 02:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone WP:BRD with this removal of superfluous WP:RECENTISM and of the policy and consensus-based decisions being ignored over and over again. The latest addition (which I assume was in order to redress WP:POV imbalance) was also the last straw. Go to the current affairs articles and keep information belonging in the multiple articles about recent events where they belong. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
To User:IrynaHarpy: Your mention of a "BRD" is ambiguous and does not make clear what edit you are reverting and who made the edit you are reverting. You mention a "BRD" but your edit on the Page was for a full Paragraph blanking of anything and everything in the section after the Petroshenko election which was edited by multiple editors over a period of four to five weeks. If it is a BRD then give the edit number which you are reverting and the editor name whom you are reverting. If your intention was to fully accomplish a paragraph blanking then an RFC would be called for since multiple editors were involved over a period of four to five weeks in editing the full paragraph which you appear to want to fully blank out, and all of them should be given a chance to respond first. There is no difficulty with your making either the BRD of the RFC and this note is for clarification purposes at this time. Otherwise, if it was a BRD then provide the edit number for the edit you are reverting and the name of the editor who is being reverted. FelixRosch (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- You misunderstand what a WP:RFC is for. First a regular discussion should be held. If the discussion fails to resolve the issue then open an RFC to get outside input. IrynaHarpy followed standard Misplaced Pages practices which you still seem to have trouble grasping. --NeilN 16:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- No problem grasping anything you state here, and it is User:IrynaH who has for some reason called this a "BRD". My request is still that if it is BRD, that the edit number and the editor be identified by name. If you are fearful of an RFC on this, then you must know that the normal process for blanking out a full paragraph would require establishing consensus first, before the paragraph blanking. No difficulty taking either path, the BRD or the RFC; just clarify the ambiguity in giving the edit number and the name of the editor who is being reverted. From what you are saying, it does not appear to be a BRD, but User:IrynaH should normally be the one to clarify this. FelixRosch (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- And this shows your understanding of Misplaced Pages practices is faulty.
- User:IrynaH who has for some reason called this a "BRD" -> She is correct. It is a bold edit.
- if it is BRD, that the edit number and the editor be identified by name -> No understanding of WP:BRD
- you must know that the normal process for blanking out a full paragraph would require establishing consensus first -> wrong
- Please actually read WP:BRD. --NeilN 16:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- My understanding was that Iryna's edit was the bold edit. That said, I'm about ready for an RfC since FelixRosch is WP:IDHT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Concur with NeilN and EvergreenFir statements. Also agree wtih Iryna Harpy's edit. Kirin13 (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- My understanding was that Iryna's edit was the bold edit. That said, I'm about ready for an RfC since FelixRosch is WP:IDHT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- No problem grasping anything you state here, and it is User:IrynaH who has for some reason called this a "BRD". My request is still that if it is BRD, that the edit number and the editor be identified by name. If you are fearful of an RFC on this, then you must know that the normal process for blanking out a full paragraph would require establishing consensus first, before the paragraph blanking. No difficulty taking either path, the BRD or the RFC; just clarify the ambiguity in giving the edit number and the name of the editor who is being reverted. From what you are saying, it does not appear to be a BRD, but User:IrynaH should normally be the one to clarify this. FelixRosch (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages administrator Andrew Lih is attributed as stating the correct position: "Misplaced Pages has also earned a reputation as a news source because of its rapid updating of articles related to breaking news." FelixRosch (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@FelixRosch: Andrew Lih has an opinion, not the "correct position". For content issues it matters not a whit that he is an admin. --NeilN talk to me 16:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC) (Reposted at request of User:EverGreen on "Ukraine" page)- Both of you are then stating the IrynaH has done the Bold edit part, and if both of you are correct in this, then my edit today was the Revert part of the BRD so that the Discussion can now take place. I would have preferred for IrynaH to answer for herself since she is reliable on this Talk page but she has not answered since this morning. My understanding is that the Discussion phase can now take place without further reverts until consensus is reached. My reasons for re-posting the material after the Poroshenko election which was deleted boldly are the following: (1) Deleting all of this material is an excessive deletion and not necessary; (2) The full deletion of the missile attack and airline fatalities is unrealistic since an international incident like this over Ukraine can not be fully ignored by deleting it here; (3) The issue of mass emigration in the 1000s crossing the borders is accurate and verified with no reason for fully deleting it; (4) The Red Cross designation that a state of Civil War exists in Ukraine is very significant since War Crimes trials against the leaders who authorized the missile attack are now made possible in International Courts of Justice (and are reported to already be in preparation) now that the Red Cross has declared a state of Civil War; (5) The issue of WP:Notnews and recentism raised by various editors here (the name of this section here on Talk) is not in agreement with general interpretation by administrators at Misplaced Pages like Admin:AndrewLih, and his opinion should be respected: "Misplaced Pages has also earned a reputation as a news source because of its rapid updating of articles related to breaking news."; (6) No-one wants this page to include a daily ledger of newspaper headlines, however, no one has done this and the information about the missile attack,etc, should not be deleted. One of you is likely to close out this discussion soon, and since multiple editors were involved in creating the material User:Iryna wishes to delete all at once, the normal time frame of 48-72 hours should be allowed for the discussion comments to be collected of all editors involved. FelixRosch (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Felix - Yes, I'm saying your revert was the R in BRD. You were correct to make it from what I can tell. Anyway, I'll repeat that AndrewLih's comments are their own personal opinion. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, however, are Misplaced Pages policy. My understanding is that there is a hierarchy of pages on Misplaced Pages: pillars, policy, guidelines, and essays, in descending order (see WP:POLICIES). Multiple experienced editors have said they feel the section contains news and has undue weight, a problem predicted by WP:RECENTISM. If it helps any, here's how I think about it: if Misplaced Pages existed 70 years ago, what would this page look like? It would have a lot more detail about events WWII, Communism, etc. and the page would be 3 times as long. Would this be a good thing? No, as the details are not necessary. The version we have now contains enough detail and breadth of historical events that we get the important stuff in Ukrainian history, but not too much of any one thing. It is that level of depth and breadth that we wish to maintain for current events. Let's take the Red Cross as an example. Will the Red Cross's declaration be that important in 10 or 15 years? Probably not. Should it be included on a page dedicated to a detailed account of the current unrest? Sure! But unless we start having multiple international organizations calling this a civil war, stating the opinion of one organization is giving it undue weight. Misplaced Pages should always be behind the times; ideally we publish about what others have published about what others have published about. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@FelixRosch: How is my opening sentence, "I've gone WP:BRD with this removal..."
so confusing to you? Yes, I was the one who removed the superfluous WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM that has accumulated here yet again. Frankly, I'm getting tired of having to read WP:WALLSOFTEXT left by you on this and the Russia article trying to justify violating Misplaced Pages policy in order to act as a journalist on both articles. You're the only contributor who believes themselves to be correct in the face of multiple editors having formed consensus based on policies and guidelines disagreeing with you.
You appear to have developed some strange sense of WP:OWN with regards to appropriate WP:NOTNEWS content for this and the "Russia" article, yet you're notable by your absence when it comes to the articles dealing with the current events. These are not your personal articles away from the madding crowd. I don't even know whether you're aware that you're making executive decisions even in using sources defining it as a 'civil war' (that is confined to Donbass and discussions as to whether it should be described as a 'war' or 'conflict' have been underway for over a week on that article alone). Please stop piling more content into what should be a highly proscribed section. Your push for adding what is, essentially, an op ed is not appreciated, runs contrary to policy, plus flies in the face of the carefully scrutinised, neutral language in the main articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- FYI
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FelixRosch reported by User:Moxy (Result: ) -- Moxy (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Anyone now disagreeing with Iryna Harpy's edit? --NeilN 13:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously, I'm not. Do other editors concur that my redaction should be reinstated? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Concur. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Concur with Iryna Harpy's edit. Kirin13 (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Concur. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
As ample time has been provided for any arguments for retaining the WP:UNDUE content I removed. From discussions and consensus here, I've taken it that my redaction was agreed on as being a positive move and, therefore, have restored my brief version. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Holodomor
10 million ? Holodomor: " Recent research has since narrowed the estimates to between 2.4 and 7.5 million".Xx236 (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Repeat: Misplaced Pages is not a reliable resource. You want to argue it at the Holodomor article? Be my guest. Try reading through the archives and you'll find out why the lowest possible figures are given. Here, it is merely stated that
"The famine claimed up to 10 million Ukrainian lives..."
There are actually much higher estimates backed up by WP:RS which have been kept out of this article in the interests of curbing edit warring. If you're looking to start warring over this article as well, you'd better come well equipped, dear colleague.
- Unfortunately, I have urgent matters to attend to tomorrow, so will not be able to log in. When I do log in again, if I find that you've treated the talk page of this article as a graffiti wall for your extremist sites, known hoax site information, etc. (as you have on so many other Ukrainian related articles already), I have that expansive list of your WP:TE, WP:POV Polish propagandist exploits on hand and am taking it straight to an ANI. Your long term contributions speak for themselves as your being a WP:SPA. I've only been staving off because I'm collecting the so-called 'reliable sources' you've introduced which are going to a WP:RSN where they will be examined by neutral editors.
- P.S. Please let me know how you go with finding genuinely reliable resources to support any of the information on the Polish Autonomous District article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have listed abowe two genuinely reliable sources in Ukrainian. Xx236 (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- http://lb.ua/news/2010/01/14/19793_nalivaychenko_nazval_kolichestvo_zh.html 10 million demographic looses not 10 million of dead people. Xx236 (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Repeat: Try the Holodomor article. It should be interesting to see how far you'll get using Valentyn Nalyvaichenko as a WP:RS. He's a politician, not an historian. The article you're citing is from 2010, and his position is within the context of a court judgement on Holodomor. Amazing that they've actually managed to get an absolutely precise number of direct and indirect deaths where historians and researchers from around the globe still have found no way of establishing figures, don't you think?
- As for your other two sources, feel free to take them to the Holodomor article. WP:UNDUE & WP:BALASPS for this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Should conspiracy theories started by Nazis, then adopted for cold war purposes, then adopted for nationalistic purposes, really be part of the article in the first place? It's an important political propaganda tool, but still. -G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.204.165 (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Map
Why is Crimea on the map now that it is part of Russia? --71.110.129.100 (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's a disputed territory. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect - it has been part of Russia for nearly 6 months. --71.110.129.100 (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Give it up. Volunteer Marek 19:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- The map is highly misleading. A casual reader could assume that Crimea is still part of Ukraine. It should be updated to show just modern day Ukraine and not former Ukrainian territory such as Crimea. --71.110.129.100 (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Crimea is still part of Ukraine. Volunteer Marek 20:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- This was already discussed in a very large WP:RFC. The current map reflects that consensus. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- The map can not stand. Crimea is under military occupation according to international community and it is not disputed.--Tritomex (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- I also think Crimea should be a grey colour on the map. However it would be painful for many Ukranian members, so wiki should reflect that emotion and does do. After all, this is an amateur encyclopedia. Reaper7 (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Emotion shouldn't come into it. Misplaced Pages, like any other encyclopaedia should only publish facts. And the facts in this case state that Crimea is now part of Russia so the map should be changed accordingly.--71.110.129.100 (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- We're not going to proceed another request for comment over the same topic again and again and again for eternity. Misplaced Pages maximally presents all sides of POVs when all facts are reliably sourced. If you insist on arguing, it will lead you to nowhere. Any persistent attempt to change the current map without presenting new fact/rationale we haven't been discussed will result in instant rollback and full protection of the article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Emotion shouldn't come into it. Misplaced Pages, like any other encyclopaedia should only publish facts. And the facts in this case state that Crimea is now part of Russia so the map should be changed accordingly.--71.110.129.100 (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
"Really", the last notable event in South-East Ukraine was the Poroshenko election last spring, "Really"
The current status in the Ukraine is adequately updated by Uri Friedman, "A 24-Step Plan," Atlantic, 26 August 2014. There is no reason for this page to claim that the Poroshenko election from last spring is the last notable item in this section. FelixRosch (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Anthem title
I reverted 67.218.88.67's edit which changed the title of the anthem from Shche ne vmerla Ukraina to Shche ne vmerly Ukrainy nee slava, nee volya. The edit does in fact seem to be correct as that is the title used on the Ukrainian language wiki. However, I'd recommend that Shche ne vmerla Ukraina be retitled first before changing it here. Anyone who can read Ukrainian please verify this? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- You probably recall that this issue has been brought up a couple of times recently (archived here and here. I'd already checked a number of articles, the actual constitution, etc. regarding the matter. The Constitution only calls it the national anthem/hymn without qualifying the name of the song. According to the Ukrainian article on the anthem (which pre-dates its current ungrammatical and redacted version) it is "Shche ne vmerla Ukraina". Per WP:WINARS, the Ukrainian Misplaced Pages's article gives no citations for the name. Ultimately, per the constitution, it is only known as the national anthem. I've also read the talk pages and there are disputes as to the name, the fact that it's a grammatical fiasco, and that no one actually knows what it's really called other than the Ukrainian Hymn.
- What we do have is a plethora of information on the variants on the lyrics over the years up to, and including, the present version under its original title, suggesting that the non-OR title (per the Misplaced Pages title) is the one to stick with. So far as I'm concerned, the recent vernacular interpretation of is merely the vernacular. To even include that it's the vernacular title, however, in the article Shche ne vmerla Ukraina would also be WP:OR. Let's be conservative and stick to the sourced title. I know we're getting POV pushers telling us what it's called, but they'd have to come up with an RS for their title as I haven't found anything to support it, and the discussions suggest that it isn't even mainstream enough to bother with for the moment. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Gini coefficient probably wrong
Someone should look at that. Its very unlikely to be like that, given current development. 85.167.116.192 (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Donetsk and Lugansk republics on the map
I think that the both self-proclaimed republics can be coloured light-green as crimea, cause de-facto they are disputed regions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabant1963 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's known as WP:OR. They are not recognised regions, nor are there any sources recognising them as such. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the Donetsk and Lugansk republics should be a different shade. They no longer pay tax to kiev, take orders from Kiev or vote in Ukranian elections. Reaper7 (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your WP:RS for all of this being?... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- There are no established boundaries for these terrorist states. They claim all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, but the Russians have subjugated only about a third of this area. The fighting continues since the Russians in Donbass never recognized the Minsk ceasefire and putin never ordered them to stop fighting. --Taivo (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Precisely the point. Current reportage indicates that, even if Putin promises to 'recognise' the states in NATO, the only way it can be enforced is by further Russian military intervention. The states have no means by which to be 'independent' as they aren't even in a position to pay pensions to those living there (unless Russia takes on these obligations). The borders? Continued fighting? Reaper7 seems to have made an executive decision regarding their being independent and believes that the entirety of the two oblasts should be in 'colour me non-Ukrainian'. Unless s/he has a crystal ball, I fail to see how this reflects any form of reality. At this point in time, given the fact that the Minsk protocol has been continuously violated, it's completely WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- There are no established boundaries for these terrorist states. They claim all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, but the Russians have subjugated only about a third of this area. The fighting continues since the Russians in Donbass never recognized the Minsk ceasefire and putin never ordered them to stop fighting. --Taivo (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your WP:RS for all of this being?... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the Donetsk and Lugansk republics should be a different shade. They no longer pay tax to kiev, take orders from Kiev or vote in Ukranian elections. Reaper7 (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Domestication of the horse
The statement that Ukraine "is the prime candidate site for the domestication of the horse" makes it sound like discussion of the future rather than the past.--Khajidha (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, I don't see it as important enough to belong in the introduction. It can go to the relevant section with, as you hint, a minor rewrite to improve clarity. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, yes, it does look like a bit of a remnant (interesting facts about the territory Ukraine is located in) before the mad influx of users wanting to use this article as a surrogate current affairs article. I've moved it from the lead to the 'Early history' section with a slight amendment to wording. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Economy section in need of updating
I've tagged the Economy section for updating. While recent events are not desirable per WP:RECENTISM, the economy section reads as being optimistically upbeat, sourcing mainly early to mid-2000's articles and projections. Certainly, even before Euromaidan, one of the major issues at stake was a steady downturn in the economy from at least 2010.
The section needs to be brought up-to-date, at least in terms of a realistic indicator of the situation... which isn't terribly good when bailouts have been at the centre of the average person's political allegiances. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
"Certainly, even before Euromaidan, one of the major issues at stake was a steady downturn in the economy from at least 2010." - https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:UKR:BLR:SYR&hl=en&dl=en No it was downturn in 2009 (world cirsis) and growth in 2010-2013Cathry (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
An-225
Isn't the only ever built copy of An-225 was made in USSR? Then, it's not correct to name it "Ukranian-made". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.238.9 (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on where the airplane was made or the territorial status, if any, of any such place or places. However, my opinion is that a single airplane, more than a quarter century old, is a very small part of a country's economy and doesn't belong in the national Wikiarticle. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- In agreement with Jim.henderson. If a plane is really an apt image for the economy section, replacing it with an Antonov An-148 is preferable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
October election
Quotes, quotes, quotes, again.
- "Poroshenko would be kept in his current position as leader of Ukraine." More text is devoted to describing the source than the actual content. Plus that was not what the election decided.
- Second addition is more of Felix's propensity for building article content though quotes from recent news sources.
--NeilN 16:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NOTNEWS is a persistent problem here with some user
s. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Really", nothing has happened in the Ukraine since the Poroshenko election last Spring, "Really". @NeilN has created what amounts to a blackout on all editing in these two sections other the last 3 months by baiting and edit warring with new editors. Ukraine is going through a civil war representing possibly its largest crisis since Chernobyl and your blackout watch on this section leaves Misplaced Pages readers baffled by this blacking out of news from the entire summer on this civil war which you have perpetuated. If you do not like my rendering, then apply your own version, but do not blackout the material. Here is the wording from TNYT, "Mr. Poroshenko hailed Sunday’s vote as a resounding endorsement of his government’s efforts to break free of Kremlin influence and shift hard toward Europe. 'I asked you to vote for a democratic, reformist, pro-Ukrainian and pro-European majority,” he said in a statement posted on his website after polls closed. 'Thank you for having heard and supported this appeal.' Mr. Poroshenko said more than three-quarters of those who voted 'powerfully and permanently supported Ukraine’s course toward Europe.' He called the result 'a landslide vote of confidence from the people.' Most read this as a vote of confidence for Poroshenko's government and his position, but use your own words rather than perpetuating your blackout of information for this section for the entire summer since last spring. FelixRosch (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- FelixRosch basically restored the first part of his edit (gave me a chuckle, given what he's written about BRD on other pages). My objection to it still stands. --NeilN 18:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Are we going to have to go through this yet again, FelixRosch? It has been made clear throughout the year that this article is WP:NOTNEWS and should not reflect WP:RECENTISM. Continuously pushing your (vast tracts) of current affairs into the content contravenes WP:BALASPS. You've been disappearing and then re-emerging in order to push the same WP:UNDUE content, yet the policies and consensus have not changed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes we are. --NeilN 19:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- You appear to be confusing Notnews with a blackout of all edits in these two section since the Poroshenko election last May. FelixRosch (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, FeliexRosch, it is you who is confusing this article with the multitude of articles about the recent events in Ukraine. If you wish to contribute to those articles, you are welcome to do so. This article is WP:NOTNEWS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- You appear to be confusing Notnews with a blackout of all edits in these two section since the Poroshenko election last May. FelixRosch (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes we are. --NeilN 19:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- "Really", nothing has happened in the Ukraine since the Poroshenko election last Spring, "Really". @NeilN has created what amounts to a blackout on all editing in these two sections other the last 3 months by baiting and edit warring with new editors. Ukraine is going through a civil war representing possibly its largest crisis since Chernobyl and your blackout watch on this section leaves Misplaced Pages readers baffled by this blacking out of news from the entire summer on this civil war which you have perpetuated. If you do not like my rendering, then apply your own version, but do not blackout the material. Here is the wording from TNYT, "Mr. Poroshenko hailed Sunday’s vote as a resounding endorsement of his government’s efforts to break free of Kremlin influence and shift hard toward Europe. 'I asked you to vote for a democratic, reformist, pro-Ukrainian and pro-European majority,” he said in a statement posted on his website after polls closed. 'Thank you for having heard and supported this appeal.' Mr. Poroshenko said more than three-quarters of those who voted 'powerfully and permanently supported Ukraine’s course toward Europe.' He called the result 'a landslide vote of confidence from the people.' Most read this as a vote of confidence for Poroshenko's government and his position, but use your own words rather than perpetuating your blackout of information for this section for the entire summer since last spring. FelixRosch (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Combining sections
Is there any enthusiasm for combining the Euromaidan and 2014 revolution and Pro-Russian unrest in southern and eastern Ukraine sections to present one chronology and eliminate redundant material? --NeilN 19:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- I definitely see value in that. They're all manifestations of growing civil unrest in Ukraine and, in the context of such a broad article, could certainly be pared down in line with WP:UNDUE. It doesn't strike me as being likely that everything will suddenly be resolved tomorrow and tied up with a neat bow marked 'history'. There are main articles specifically dealing with every step of the way, which is where any detailed information belongs. A neutral summary should suffice as the refs are comprehensively listed per each main article.
- Any specific ideas on the presentation? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, these are very different events. My very best wishes (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
RfC for including casualty statistics as exceeding casualty statistics for 9-11 (under 3000 at 9-11, just over 3000 in Ukraine)
 |
|
Editor @NeilN has indicated that death-toll statistics for the current civil war in the Ukraine should be excluded and deleted in the section for the civil war in the Ukraine article (section titled "Pro-Russian unrest"). The current death-toll statistics in the civil war in Ukraine now exceeds the casualty statistics for 9-11 in New York. Ukraine is currently going through its largest crisis since Chernobyl and @NeilN appears to believe that deleting information on casualty statistics in Ukraine ought to be done as WP:Notnews. @NeilN has deleted the following one sentence edit. "On 25 October 2014, the news weekly magazine Economist updated the status of Ukraine's casualty statistics in an article titled, The Battle for Ukraine's Future, stating: 'The energy and hope of a new beginning that sustained the (Maidan) revolution have been drained by a war that has claimed 3,600 lives.'" Those who think it is responsible to Support the inclusion of the casualty statistics in the article should indicate their position as a "Support" comment, and those who wish to block the inclusion of the death-toll statistics should indicate this as an Oppose comment. FelixRosch (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support, for including the casualty statistics as originating this rfc. Ukraine is currently going through its largest crisis since Chernobyl and information on casualty statistics in Ukraine is of use to historians as representing an historical conflict which exceeds the casualty statistics of 9-11 in New York. FelixRosch (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose as WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:COATRACK. That info belongs on the article about the conflict, not here. That section is already too long. Compare to Ukraine#Euromaidan_and_2014_revolution and Ukraine#Pro-Russian_unrest_in_southern_and_eastern_Ukraine to the five sentences in United_States#Contemporary_history. This article is about the country in general, not current events. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose this addition. Felix cannot seem to grasp WP:SUMMARY and the host of guidelines EvergreenFir has linked to above. I believe his desire to turn this article into a news source is made crystal clear by this statement and what he deems is of "historic proportion" --NeilN 21:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose if the question is whether to compare the death toll of the current war with that of 11 September 2001. Although the statistic is correct, its inclusion is not encyclopedic. It doesn't need to be included in this article, but only needs to be in the article on the current war. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per all of the NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, COATRACK, etc. already invoked here, and as has been the consensus regarding the WP:UNDUE nature of this form of abuse of this article. To add to this, it would be an abuse of WP:CALC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Support; I see nothing wrong with casualty figures (aside from the annoyance of having to update them), but the 9/11 comparison is apples & oranges.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. While the casualty report is marginally relevant (although see other Oppose votes), the comparison to 9/11 is not encyclopedic. It's also more casualties than the Titanic, than at the Alamo, etc. It's irrelevant information. --Taivo (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Taivo; The issue of 9/11 is not mentioned in the recommended edit at all, and it was mentioned in the RfC announcement only as a comparison to another adverse event with a comparable number of casualties as being noteworthy (Ukraine just over 3 thousand, 9/11 just under 3,000). FelixRosch (TALK) 15:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Support per EverGreenFir, the statistics should rather belong in the conflict article, however the 9-11 Statistics are mentioned in the USA Article ... Avono♂ (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose addition of the edit, per EvergreenFir's comments in particular - this information doesn't belong in a summary but as a statistic in the relevant "main" article. Also oppose adding comparisons to 9/11 or any other conflict per WP:SYNTH: no source is making the comparison to 9/11 therefore we can't either. Not on any page. Ivanvector (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC) edited to clarify opposition to both Ivanvector (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector; The United States Misplaced Pages article does include the contemporary casualty statistics for its honored casualties in the Military section there. These comparable casualty statistics ought to be included on the Ukraine page as well by consistency guidelines for casualties suffered during the civil war in Ukraine in its Southeast Oblasts of Donetz and Lukhans. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- @FelixRosch: When you want to alert another editor to your comment, typing @ is insufficient. Use the {{yo}} template. Especially when you're replying to comments made a week ago. I agree with the comment below, this is not the same as 9/11 and I have no idea what "consistency guideline" you're referring to. Add the stats to the conflict page, and stop WP:BLUDGEONing to get the stats onto the Ukraine main page. This section is already too long - it should be a summary properly weighted against the other historical info presented - as it is, the Euromaidan and this section are longer than the section on World War II. It's WP:UNDUE. It's not going in. Drop the stick, man. Ivanvector (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector; The United States Misplaced Pages article does include the contemporary casualty statistics for its honored casualties in the Military section there. These comparable casualty statistics ought to be included on the Ukraine page as well by consistency guidelines for casualties suffered during the civil war in Ukraine in its Southeast Oblasts of Donetz and Lukhans. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. We cannot compare to 9/11 and cannot note casualties in this article, per WP:UNDUE. If the casualties are shown by WP:RS to alter the demographics or character of the nation or something of that nature, then we add them. Without RS stating nation-defining significance, we cannot. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- @A D Monroe; The re-partitioning of Crimea to Russia & the secession of Donbass from Ukraine appear to create new nation-defining geographical borders... FelixRosch TALK 21:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree partitioning and sucession are nation-defining; I assume we can easily find RS for those effects on Ukraine, so those can be in the lede based on those sources (with an eye to WP:BALANCE, as many Ukrainians probably see these as temporary). I assume we won't find any RS for the casualties being nation-defining, so those cannot go in the lede. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- @A D Monroe; Yes, that is the case. The New York Times has multiple cites for the Crimea re-partitioning to Russia some of which were front page coverage. The New York Times cites are also available for the Donbas secession, which also co-report the conflict taking place. If you need the actual links now, they can be added here as well. FelixRosch (TALK) 19:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, but this is "RfC for including casualty statistics", not on re-partitioning. Again, I agree with partitioning being included (with weight based on RSs), but that's off-topic. I oppose the subject of this RfC; I've seen no RSs that support the casualties being nation-defining. --A D Monroe III (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- @A D Monroe; Separate the off-topic and on-topic; The borders are being re-partitioned on the basis of the civil war and its casualties. Donetz, Lukhash, and Crimea wish to re-define the Ukraine border either by declaring autonomy from Ukraine or re-partition to Russia by the civil war casualties as shown on the maps in the news articles: The reports of casualties are from the United Nations as reported by the NY Times in August was given at 2200 casualties here , which was updated by Reuters in September to 3000 casualties here , and this was updated in 25 October 2014 by the Economist magazine to 3600 casualties for the civil war in Ukraine here . FelixRosch (TALK) 16:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sources stating casualty counts are off-topic. Only sources saying those counts changed Ukraine are on-topic. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- @A D Monroe; Here is the link to the geographical secession map for Donetz and Lukhash supported by Russia and linked in color from the BBC for which the casualties have been recorded in the civil war . FelixRosch (TALK) 21:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- That link is off-topic; it mentions casualty numbers, but says nothing about their significance to the definition of Ukraine. This has gone from WP:UNDUE to WP:SYNTH, bordering on pure WP:OR. I'm done here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- @A D Monroe; Here is the link to the geographical secession map for Donetz and Lukhash supported by Russia and linked in color from the BBC for which the casualties have been recorded in the civil war . FelixRosch (TALK) 21:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sources stating casualty counts are off-topic. Only sources saying those counts changed Ukraine are on-topic. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- @A D Monroe; Separate the off-topic and on-topic; The borders are being re-partitioned on the basis of the civil war and its casualties. Donetz, Lukhash, and Crimea wish to re-define the Ukraine border either by declaring autonomy from Ukraine or re-partition to Russia by the civil war casualties as shown on the maps in the news articles: The reports of casualties are from the United Nations as reported by the NY Times in August was given at 2200 casualties here , which was updated by Reuters in September to 3000 casualties here , and this was updated in 25 October 2014 by the Economist magazine to 3600 casualties for the civil war in Ukraine here . FelixRosch (TALK) 16:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, but this is "RfC for including casualty statistics", not on re-partitioning. Again, I agree with partitioning being included (with weight based on RSs), but that's off-topic. I oppose the subject of this RfC; I've seen no RSs that support the casualties being nation-defining. --A D Monroe III (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- @A D Monroe; Yes, that is the case. The New York Times has multiple cites for the Crimea re-partitioning to Russia some of which were front page coverage. The New York Times cites are also available for the Donbas secession, which also co-report the conflict taking place. If you need the actual links now, they can be added here as well. FelixRosch (TALK) 19:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree partitioning and sucession are nation-defining; I assume we can easily find RS for those effects on Ukraine, so those can be in the lede based on those sources (with an eye to WP:BALANCE, as many Ukrainians probably see these as temporary). I assume we won't find any RS for the casualties being nation-defining, so those cannot go in the lede. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- @A D Monroe; The re-partitioning of Crimea to Russia & the secession of Donbass from Ukraine appear to create new nation-defining geographical borders... FelixRosch TALK 21:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
I am quite in awe of FelixRosch's chutzpah. He manages to completely disrupt another RFC complaining about neutrality and yet thinks this RFC statement is acceptable. Please ignore his analysis of my opinion. --NeilN 21:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- The conflict in the Ukraine has reached a level of casualties surpassing the level of 9-11 casualties in New York and your edit history shows that you are reverting the edits which post this data. FelixRosch (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- No one is debating the number of casualties. We are saying it doesn't belong here... and we've told you multiple times the multiple reasons why. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The content is notable, and should definitely need to be somewhere on Misplaced Pages. However, given that this is an article about the nation, and not the event which is the civil war, perhaps it is better in an article about that event, and after the event ends (whenever that is), a mention of casualties included at that time. However, now it appears to be premature.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC) @RightCowLeftCoast; Yes, that's correct concerning the end of the war. The full quote from the Economist citation indicated that a ceasefire, though fragile was obtained stating: "The energy and hope of a new beginning that sustained the (Maidan) revolution have been drained by a war that has claimed 3,600 lives. Crimea is gone; large swathes of Donbas, the industrial region in the south-east, have been seized by separatists; the ceasefire is fragile... Ukraine has lost precious time to reform its economy, which is teetering on the verge of collapse." (25 October 2014, news magazine Economist, "The Battle for Ukraine's Future", p.53.) FelixRosch (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- The usual practice in national articles is to include casualty statistics only if the casualties were large. Casualty statistics are included in the Ukraine article for the Soviet civil war and for World War Two, which are much larger than 3600. The national article on United States, for instance, only has casualty statistics for the American Civil War, not for World War Two, although more than 250,000 Americans were killed, let alone for the September 11 attacks. The number of casualties in the current Ukrainian-Russian war should only be included in the article on that war. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- America is a very large country which was not under any geographical threat due to the terrorist attack, whereas Ukraine currently has a significant percentage of itself under occupation.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- All of these other major issues aside, this proposal is pure, unadulterated WP:OR. I'd be grateful if FelixRosch could point out where even one reliable source uses this comparison, or perceives it to be analogous in any sense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- The full quote from the Economist citation indicated: "The energy and hope of a new beginning that sustained the (Maidan) revolution have been drained by a war that has claimed 3,600 lives. Crimea is gone; large swathes of Donbas, the industrial region in the south-east, have been seized by separatists; the ceasefire is fragile... Ukraine has lost precious time to reform its economy, which is teetering on the verge of collapse." (25 October 2014, news magazine Economist, "The Battle for Ukraine's Future", p.53.) There is no WP:OR in the edit. FelixRosch (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Fine. Go add it to one of the relevant articles, provided other editors don't consider it being WP:UNDUE there. You'd also have to drop the op-ed voice in order to add it to any of the recent events articles. It's still WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM in an article of this nature as has been pointed out time and time again... Er, but why the comparison of the figure to the 9/11 death toll? That's a one-off attack which is now in the past. This is actually still ongoing (Minsk Protocol or no Minsk Protocol, fighting continues). Further to that, the real figures in terms of casualties has not yet been established, even without prospective future casualties. Feel free to check all of the articles surrounding the various battles: reliable sources aren't in agreement with each other as to the figures, therefore the Forbes estimate is only a guestimate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- The issue of 9/11 is not mentioned in the recommended edit at all, and it was mentioned in the RfC announcement only as a comparison to another adverse event with a comparable number of casualties as being noteworthy (Ukraine just over 3 thousand, 9/11 just under 3,000). Nonetheless, I shall adjust the wording of the RfC title as you request. The recommended edit itself makes no mention of 9/11 at all nor should it. As for your comment on WP:Notnews, no-one is trying to include a day-to-day ledger of newspaper headlines here. When I returned to this section last week after the summer there appeared to be an effective blackout on everything occurring after the Poroshenko election last May five months ago. Some reasonable consensus is needed here. A blackout of all edits to this section since last May is not useful. FelixRosch TALK 18:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- "no-one is trying to include a day-to-day ledger of newspaper headlines here". Really? This is your first edit to the article, one that set a pattern. --NeilN 18:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's correct. No-one is trying to post a day-to-day ledger of newspaper headlines (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, etc). Nor should they. FelixRosch TALK 18:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Instead, you are trying to hijack the subject of a broad-based article to include figures on current affairs issues in order to perpetuate the content of this article being used for WP:RECENTISM. The only rationale and function I can see for the introduction of such content, particularly given your editing pattern — as pointed out by NeilN, and which the regular editors on this page can all attest to — is that of being a WP:TROJAN. Whether it is your intention or not, this will simply serve to attract further development of the context (being ongoing current affairs leading to WP:UNDUE section bloat) where it is unwarranted and undesirable for obvious reasons. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is no "hijack" or any other issue here other than the blackout which has been imposed by other editors here on all edits to this section since the Poroshenko election last May. If you are in such fear and trembling about updating the casualty statistics periodically then let someone else do it. There is no reason to blackout all edits in this section since the Poroshenko election last May concerning the civil war which is the largest crisis in Ukraine since Chernobyl. The casualty statistics have been accumulated over a period of eight (8) months and are the exact opposite of WP:Recentism which you cite. The casualty statistics are informative of the humanitarian losses suffered during the conflict and which are at a significant humanitarian level of concern. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Good example, thank you! The Chernobyl incident merits exactly one (1) short paragraph in this article. --NeilN 15:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- You do understand that an event over 10 years old like Chernobyl stabilizes historically with time as to how concisely its history is written. The current civil war is still subject to historical development which can be represented responsibly in an on-line encyclopedia without raising undue fear and trembling among editors of the article. A blackout on all data after the Poroshenko election last May is excessively cautious and paints a relatively bucolic view of Ukraine over the last few months which does not represent the humanitarian losses suffered. The casualty statistics should be included. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- "Stabilizes over time". Exactly. Misplaced Pages is not a current affairs ledger, so the day-to-day casualty statistics are not appropriate material for this broad-based article. Link to the article on the war and put your statistics there. And since the situation is not stable, it is impossible for a number such as this not to become a daily ledger, since the number must be updated constantly as new numbers are reported. Indeed, we have neither 1) accurate, independently verified numbers, nor 2) numbers from the Russian mercenaries. It's not appropriate for this article, and it's probably not even appropriate for the article on the war since the reported numbers are almost always self-serving and inaccurate--on both sides. --Taivo (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Taivo; My comment was to include a single mention of the statistics after an edit blackout period of 5 months which has been established on this page since the Poroshenko election last May. This is different than a day to day ledger which no-one is supporting here. Leaving out the statistics entirely makes the section look as if it is painting a bucolic picture of Ukraine today which is not accurate. Some mention of the casualties should be made to represent the humanitarian losses suffered. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- "Stabilizes over time". Exactly. Misplaced Pages is not a current affairs ledger, so the day-to-day casualty statistics are not appropriate material for this broad-based article. Link to the article on the war and put your statistics there. And since the situation is not stable, it is impossible for a number such as this not to become a daily ledger, since the number must be updated constantly as new numbers are reported. Indeed, we have neither 1) accurate, independently verified numbers, nor 2) numbers from the Russian mercenaries. It's not appropriate for this article, and it's probably not even appropriate for the article on the war since the reported numbers are almost always self-serving and inaccurate--on both sides. --Taivo (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- You do understand that an event over 10 years old like Chernobyl stabilizes historically with time as to how concisely its history is written. The current civil war is still subject to historical development which can be represented responsibly in an on-line encyclopedia without raising undue fear and trembling among editors of the article. A blackout on all data after the Poroshenko election last May is excessively cautious and paints a relatively bucolic view of Ukraine over the last few months which does not represent the humanitarian losses suffered. The casualty statistics should be included. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Good example, thank you! The Chernobyl incident merits exactly one (1) short paragraph in this article. --NeilN 15:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is no "hijack" or any other issue here other than the blackout which has been imposed by other editors here on all edits to this section since the Poroshenko election last May. If you are in such fear and trembling about updating the casualty statistics periodically then let someone else do it. There is no reason to blackout all edits in this section since the Poroshenko election last May concerning the civil war which is the largest crisis in Ukraine since Chernobyl. The casualty statistics have been accumulated over a period of eight (8) months and are the exact opposite of WP:Recentism which you cite. The casualty statistics are informative of the humanitarian losses suffered during the conflict and which are at a significant humanitarian level of concern. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Instead, you are trying to hijack the subject of a broad-based article to include figures on current affairs issues in order to perpetuate the content of this article being used for WP:RECENTISM. The only rationale and function I can see for the introduction of such content, particularly given your editing pattern — as pointed out by NeilN, and which the regular editors on this page can all attest to — is that of being a WP:TROJAN. Whether it is your intention or not, this will simply serve to attract further development of the context (being ongoing current affairs leading to WP:UNDUE section bloat) where it is unwarranted and undesirable for obvious reasons. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's correct. No-one is trying to post a day-to-day ledger of newspaper headlines (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, etc). Nor should they. FelixRosch TALK 18:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- "no-one is trying to include a day-to-day ledger of newspaper headlines here". Really? This is your first edit to the article, one that set a pattern. --NeilN 18:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- The issue of 9/11 is not mentioned in the recommended edit at all, and it was mentioned in the RfC announcement only as a comparison to another adverse event with a comparable number of casualties as being noteworthy (Ukraine just over 3 thousand, 9/11 just under 3,000). Nonetheless, I shall adjust the wording of the RfC title as you request. The recommended edit itself makes no mention of 9/11 at all nor should it. As for your comment on WP:Notnews, no-one is trying to include a day-to-day ledger of newspaper headlines here. When I returned to this section last week after the summer there appeared to be an effective blackout on everything occurring after the Poroshenko election last May five months ago. Some reasonable consensus is needed here. A blackout of all edits to this section since last May is not useful. FelixRosch TALK 18:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Fine. Go add it to one of the relevant articles, provided other editors don't consider it being WP:UNDUE there. You'd also have to drop the op-ed voice in order to add it to any of the recent events articles. It's still WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM in an article of this nature as has been pointed out time and time again... Er, but why the comparison of the figure to the 9/11 death toll? That's a one-off attack which is now in the past. This is actually still ongoing (Minsk Protocol or no Minsk Protocol, fighting continues). Further to that, the real figures in terms of casualties has not yet been established, even without prospective future casualties. Feel free to check all of the articles surrounding the various battles: reliable sources aren't in agreement with each other as to the figures, therefore the Forbes estimate is only a guestimate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- The full quote from the Economist citation indicated: "The energy and hope of a new beginning that sustained the (Maidan) revolution have been drained by a war that has claimed 3,600 lives. Crimea is gone; large swathes of Donbas, the industrial region in the south-east, have been seized by separatists; the ceasefire is fragile... Ukraine has lost precious time to reform its economy, which is teetering on the verge of collapse." (25 October 2014, news magazine Economist, "The Battle for Ukraine's Future", p.53.) There is no WP:OR in the edit. FelixRosch (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- All of these other major issues aside, this proposal is pure, unadulterated WP:OR. I'd be grateful if FelixRosch could point out where even one reliable source uses this comparison, or perceives it to be analogous in any sense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- America is a very large country which was not under any geographical threat due to the terrorist attack, whereas Ukraine currently has a significant percentage of itself under occupation.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- The usual practice in national articles is to include casualty statistics only if the casualties were large. Casualty statistics are included in the Ukraine article for the Soviet civil war and for World War Two, which are much larger than 3600. The national article on United States, for instance, only has casualty statistics for the American Civil War, not for World War Two, although more than 250,000 Americans were killed, let alone for the September 11 attacks. The number of casualties in the current Ukrainian-Russian war should only be included in the article on that war. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
This is your current proposed addition. It's clear from your editing history and comments on this talk page that you wish to add "in the news" events to the article as they happen. --NeilN 18:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Already covered this difference (in a separate Talk section) which you appear to have with Andrew Lih, the admin at Misplaced Pages who wrote the famous book on Misplaced Pages. The edit I am presenting is not presented as an "etched in stone" edit, and it recognizes that an on-line open-source encyclopedia can be sufficiently strong to contain current information which is partially in process and can be changed as warranted by responsible editors. If you disagree that Misplaced Pages as an on-line encyclopedia can represent new material which is partially in process, then there are many who disagree with the "etched in stone" standard of editing which you appear to be enacting upon this section. All that is being stated is that a blackout on all edits since the Poroshenko election last May seems to be excessive, and that without periodic updates to this section on the civil war in Ukraine then a bucolic and unrealistic version of Ukraine emerges on Misplaced Pages. Such a bucolic version of Ukraine represented by the editing blackout since last May does not represent the humanitarian strife of 3000 casualties taking place in Ukraine for the past numerous months. FelixRosch (TALK) 19:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, the problem is with you picking up on Lih's opinion and saying it is "attributed as stating the correct position." (incidentally Lih has not edited this article once). That's as absurd as your assertion that the section is portraying Ukraine as bucolic. --NeilN 20:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- And, Felix, you completely and totally ignore the problem that there are, at present, absolutely no reliable statistics on losses in Ukraine. None. Not one. Zero. Zip. Nada. It is unencyclopedic to list numbers that you know for a fact are unreliable. That's aside from the fact that listing any number here is simply posting the latest "score" from Kyiv or Donetsk and will be changed daily to reflect the current state of the propaganda war. --Taivo (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Taivo; The Economist news magazine is generally seen as a very reliable source. The full quote from the Economist citation indicated: "The energy and hope of a new beginning that sustained the (Maidan) revolution have been drained by a war that has claimed 3,600 lives. Crimea is gone; large swathes of Donbas, the industrial region in the south-east, have been seized by separatists; the ceasefire is fragile... Ukraine has lost precious time to reform its economy, which is teetering on the verge of collapse." (25 October 2014, news magazine Economist, "The Battle for Ukraine's Future", p.53.) This is the opposite of your comment on no sources. This is a reliable source. FelixRosch (TALK) 22:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Do you actually believe every word you read? The Economist is "generally" a reliable source, but you have to read the entire article to find where they got the 3600 number--from the Ukrainian government? Well, that's just the Ukrainian government's view on the matter. Is the Economist actually evaluating its sources or is it just putting out a round number based on the latest statement from the Ukrainian defense ministry? And is this piece of information from the Economist found in 1) an editorial (not a reliable source), 2) a summary of the situation (not necessarily unreliable, but just a generalized comment nonetheless), or 3) an actual attempt to make a legitimate piece of information available? Your quote is very clearly just a generalized comment about how sad the situation is, not in any sense an attempt to give an accurate appraisal of casualties. Your argument fails. You are just pushing to put your daily ledger into the article and not evaluating your sources. Such day-to-day news reporting is not encyclopedic. And, even it it were accurate (which it is not), it's still not appropriate in this article. --Taivo (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- This is why I keep asking you to involve yourself with the current affairs articles, FelixRosch. I haven't seen a single comment from you on the talk pages throughout their development. As Taivo has noted, the Economist is only one RS. Evidently, you have no idea of how many discussions have taken place regarding a multitude of WP:RS and WP:BIASED sources. The WP:CALC we've applied over the months, in itself, does not tally with official figures. The best we can do is use WP:INTEXT attribution for casualties on both sides. Resultantly, we have a sliding scale of figures because we don't use the one source, yet you're proposing to use one source? As for your WP:ASPERSIONS about Ukrainian editors trembling over initiating changes to this article, I construe that to be a personal attack. It is nothing short of arrogant to state that you're intrepid enough to carry the burden of adding content where no one else dares to go. This RfC isn't going your way based on solid policy arguments and thorough explanations as to why your proposal is WP:UNDUE per WP:BALASPS, yet you persist with your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT agitation. If you feel that you're an intrepid editor, do join us at the relevant articles. As regards content for the subject of this article, it's time to drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Taivo; The reports of casualties are from the United Nations as reported by the NY Times in August was given at 2200 casualties here , which was updated by Reuters in September to 3000 casualties , and this was updated in 25 October 2014 by the Economist magazine to 3600 casualties for the civil war in Ukraine here . All three of these news sources are seen as highly reliable sources. The data of these statistics for the humanitarian suffering in Ukraine are documented and verified by multiple sources including the United Nations. The casualty statistics should be added to this section which has had a blackout on all edits since the Poroshenko election last May. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- You still don't get the point--a running tally of casualties is not encyclopedic content and not appropriate for this article. War is a humanitarian crisis, it doesn't need a daily body count to become that. Until the war is over and the butcher's bill tallied with the best, most reliable methods, all numbers are unreliable. It's not appropriate to have a number that has to be updated on a daily basis. --Taivo (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Taivo; It is on a humanitarian basis that this edit addresses the point of representing casualties of over 3000 individuals, and that their being updated once per month or once in two months is informative to persons who have been affected by the civil war. Asking for an update once per month or every two months in an on-line open-source encyclopedia does not appear excessive. It would report multiple reliable sources indicating the level of long standing humanitarian suffering in Ukraine. FelixRosch (TALK) 22:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, additions once per month or every two months are excessive. Look at the History sections of Brazil, United States, Canada, France, Poland, Liberia, Iraq... to see how they are properly summarized. --NeilN 22:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your own links do not support you as in the United States Misplaced Pages article which lists casualty statistics in honor of the fallen casualties as follows;
- Yes, additions once per month or every two months are excessive. Look at the History sections of Brazil, United States, Canada, France, Poland, Liberia, Iraq... to see how they are properly summarized. --NeilN 22:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Taivo; It is on a humanitarian basis that this edit addresses the point of representing casualties of over 3000 individuals, and that their being updated once per month or once in two months is informative to persons who have been affected by the civil war. Asking for an update once per month or every two months in an on-line open-source encyclopedia does not appear excessive. It would report multiple reliable sources indicating the level of long standing humanitarian suffering in Ukraine. FelixRosch (TALK) 22:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- You still don't get the point--a running tally of casualties is not encyclopedic content and not appropriate for this article. War is a humanitarian crisis, it doesn't need a daily body count to become that. Until the war is over and the butcher's bill tallied with the best, most reliable methods, all numbers are unreliable. It's not appropriate to have a number that has to be updated on a daily basis. --Taivo (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Taivo; The reports of casualties are from the United Nations as reported by the NY Times in August was given at 2200 casualties here , which was updated by Reuters in September to 3000 casualties , and this was updated in 25 October 2014 by the Economist magazine to 3600 casualties for the civil war in Ukraine here . All three of these news sources are seen as highly reliable sources. The data of these statistics for the humanitarian suffering in Ukraine are documented and verified by multiple sources including the United Nations. The casualty statistics should be added to this section which has had a blackout on all edits since the Poroshenko election last May. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- This is why I keep asking you to involve yourself with the current affairs articles, FelixRosch. I haven't seen a single comment from you on the talk pages throughout their development. As Taivo has noted, the Economist is only one RS. Evidently, you have no idea of how many discussions have taken place regarding a multitude of WP:RS and WP:BIASED sources. The WP:CALC we've applied over the months, in itself, does not tally with official figures. The best we can do is use WP:INTEXT attribution for casualties on both sides. Resultantly, we have a sliding scale of figures because we don't use the one source, yet you're proposing to use one source? As for your WP:ASPERSIONS about Ukrainian editors trembling over initiating changes to this article, I construe that to be a personal attack. It is nothing short of arrogant to state that you're intrepid enough to carry the burden of adding content where no one else dares to go. This RfC isn't going your way based on solid policy arguments and thorough explanations as to why your proposal is WP:UNDUE per WP:BALASPS, yet you persist with your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT agitation. If you feel that you're an intrepid editor, do join us at the relevant articles. As regards content for the subject of this article, it's time to drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Do you actually believe every word you read? The Economist is "generally" a reliable source, but you have to read the entire article to find where they got the 3600 number--from the Ukrainian government? Well, that's just the Ukrainian government's view on the matter. Is the Economist actually evaluating its sources or is it just putting out a round number based on the latest statement from the Ukrainian defense ministry? And is this piece of information from the Economist found in 1) an editorial (not a reliable source), 2) a summary of the situation (not necessarily unreliable, but just a generalized comment nonetheless), or 3) an actual attempt to make a legitimate piece of information available? Your quote is very clearly just a generalized comment about how sad the situation is, not in any sense an attempt to give an accurate appraisal of casualties. Your argument fails. You are just pushing to put your daily ledger into the article and not evaluating your sources. Such day-to-day news reporting is not encyclopedic. And, even it it were accurate (which it is not), it's still not appropriate in this article. --Taivo (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Taivo; The Economist news magazine is generally seen as a very reliable source. The full quote from the Economist citation indicated: "The energy and hope of a new beginning that sustained the (Maidan) revolution have been drained by a war that has claimed 3,600 lives. Crimea is gone; large swathes of Donbas, the industrial region in the south-east, have been seized by separatists; the ceasefire is fragile... Ukraine has lost precious time to reform its economy, which is teetering on the verge of collapse." (25 October 2014, news magazine Economist, "The Battle for Ukraine's Future", p.53.) This is the opposite of your comment on no sources. This is a reliable source. FelixRosch (TALK) 22:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- And, Felix, you completely and totally ignore the problem that there are, at present, absolutely no reliable statistics on losses in Ukraine. None. Not one. Zero. Zip. Nada. It is unencyclopedic to list numbers that you know for a fact are unreliable. That's aside from the fact that listing any number here is simply posting the latest "score" from Kyiv or Donetsk and will be changed daily to reflect the current state of the propaganda war. --Taivo (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, the problem is with you picking up on Lih's opinion and saying it is "attributed as stating the correct position." (incidentally Lih has not edited this article once). That's as absurd as your assertion that the section is portraying Ukraine as bucolic. --NeilN 20:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- "The proposed base Department of Defense budget for 2012, $553 billion, was a 4.2% increase over 2011; an additional $118 billion was proposed for the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The last American troops serving in Iraq departed in December 2011; 4,484 service members were killed during the Iraq War. Approximately 90,000 U.S. troops were serving in Afghanistan in April 2012; by November 8, 2013 2,285 had been killed during the War in Afghanistan."
- The edit on casualties for the Ukraine should be added on the basis of the humanitarian suffering of fallen casualties on the example of the United States page section of recording casualty statistics in honor of fallen casualties. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- You neglect to mention that the content you pulled out was not in the History section. --NeilN 15:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your point being that you want the edit on casualties to go into the "Armed forces" section of the Ukraine page, since the Ukraine page does not have a "Military" section as on the United States page. The United States page does cover the contemporary casualty statistics and the Ukraine page ought to do this as well. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- FelixRosch, a living example of "I didn't hear that". Everyone opposes your edit, Felix. Get over it and move on to more productive pursuits. You're not going to get your way on this because there is a broad consensus against you. --Taivo (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Taivo; You have asked me to provide multiple reliable sources and I have provided three of them including Reuters and the NY Times. You ignore them and make alternative claims without documentation or citation. If you have a source contradicting Reuters and the NY Times then you can cite it here. Otherwise my support along with the other editors for the reports from Reuters and the NY Times continue to stand. The humanitarian suffering in the Ukraine numbering as thousands of casualties ought to be included on the Ukraine page, the same as the comparable contemporary casualty statistics for United States war casualties are reported on that page.. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- You are absolutely not listening to anything I have said, Felix. I have never asked you to "provide reliable sources". I have stated over and over again that there are no reliable sources for casualty figures because there are no independent verifiable sources for the figures at the source. It doesn't matter whether you're quoting Reuters or the NY Times, their sources are unreliable (the Ukrainian Defense Ministry and the Russian terrorists' occasional comments on the subject) because they are propaganda. No third, neutral party is on the frontlines counting bodies. You are just deaf to what others are saying. And there is not a single, solitary editor here who supports your proposal to add these numbers to the article--whether you're getting your numbers from terrorists or Reuters or the Almighty him/her/it/them-self. You are alone in this. Wake up and realize that you will not get these numbers into this article. --Taivo (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Taivo; You have asked me to provide multiple reliable sources and I have provided three of them including Reuters and the NY Times. You ignore them and make alternative claims without documentation or citation. If you have a source contradicting Reuters and the NY Times then you can cite it here. Otherwise my support along with the other editors for the reports from Reuters and the NY Times continue to stand. The humanitarian suffering in the Ukraine numbering as thousands of casualties ought to be included on the Ukraine page, the same as the comparable contemporary casualty statistics for United States war casualties are reported on that page.. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- FelixRosch, a living example of "I didn't hear that". Everyone opposes your edit, Felix. Get over it and move on to more productive pursuits. You're not going to get your way on this because there is a broad consensus against you. --Taivo (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your point being that you want the edit on casualties to go into the "Armed forces" section of the Ukraine page, since the Ukraine page does not have a "Military" section as on the United States page. The United States page does cover the contemporary casualty statistics and the Ukraine page ought to do this as well. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- You neglect to mention that the content you pulled out was not in the History section. --NeilN 15:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- The edit on casualties for the Ukraine should be added on the basis of the humanitarian suffering of fallen casualties on the example of the United States page section of recording casualty statistics in honor of fallen casualties. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Ukraine, - Central or Eastern Europe?
Could somebody explain, on basis of which exactly criterions Ukraine is defined as an Eastern European, not as a Central European country?96.127.233.237 (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- As explained on the page Eastern Europe, there are different definitions and criterions used to defined the different regions of Europe. According to all definitions mentioned on that page (in particular those used by the United Nations Statistics Division and by the European Union), Ukraine is in Eastern Europe. --Off-shell (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Novorossian republics on the map
I propose to paint the territory of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics into the light green color (like crimea), cause in fact they are not the part ukraine already, their status is disputable like the transnistrian (which aspires to the independence)
Categories:- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Ukraine articles
- Top-importance Ukraine articles
- WikiProject Ukraine articles
- B-Class Russia articles
- Top-importance Russia articles
- Top-importance B-Class Russia articles
- B-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- B-Class Russia (politics and law) articles
- Politics and law of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- B-Class Europe articles
- High-importance Europe articles
- WikiProject Europe articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- Selected anniversaries (August 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2008)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2010)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2011)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2012)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2014)
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment