Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iryna Harpy (talk | contribs) at 10:25, 31 August 2014 (→POV tag attached. Strongly pro-Maidan and anti-separatist/federalist, which includes the naming of the entry.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:25, 31 August 2014 by Iryna Harpy (talk | contribs) (→POV tag attached. Strongly pro-Maidan and anti-separatist/federalist, which includes the naming of the entry.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 10 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Ukrainian place names are transliterated using the National system.
Please see the guidelines on the romanization of Ukrainian on Misplaced Pages for more information.

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A news item involving 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 April 2014.

Misplaced Pages

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Russian & Soviet

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ukraine Top‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Russia High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Draft:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine was copied or moved into 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Army of the South-East

Army of the South-East should be merged here or the timeline, not a standalone article, it doesnt have notability.

Should be considered for edition

Groundless detention of number of journalists by the Russian FSB

FSB detained the Polish journalist of Gazeta Wyborcza in Crimea 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 (Radziwinowicz z Krymu tuż po uwolnieniu: Jeden z funkcjonariuszy mierzył do mnie z broni). FSB also arrested Ukrainian filmmaker a native of Simferopol Oleh Sentsov on terrorism charges (Russian FSB arrested Ukrainian filmmaker Oleg Sentsov on terrorism charges).

It's time to create 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Kharkiv

The section on Kharkiv 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 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Kharkiv and transform the current section on Kharkiv into a summery.

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 SQ). I am not sure if they then still need to be listed in an Wiki-article about pro-Russian unrest... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 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 Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, if that suits your fancy. RGloucester — ☎ 19:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with RGloucester, 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 WP:GEOSCOPE issue. As it is, a proliferation of articles which don't really meet WP:GNG have sprung up due to overenthusiastic 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. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

recent edits, same old stuff

Edits like these are obviously highly POV, they constitute original research and they rely on non-reliable sources. They also remove actual reliable sources.

Not sure what is there to discuss here since we've been through this a dozen times. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2014 (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. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Should the article mention the break up of the USSR?

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. --Russiansunited (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Sort of. But yes, the USSR should be mentioned somewhere in the article, though not necessarily the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

If you support keeping the Nazi comment by the Canadian Minister in the article say why here!!

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!!

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."

Source: Canadian government TV network CBC http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-seeks-nato-membership-to-gain-western-military-aid-1.2750162

Why is the Canadian Minister's comment okay but not this? --Russiansunited (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't about the military operation in Donbass. Feel free to add the Putin quote at War in Donbass. RGloucester — ☎ 00:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

this is silly

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

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 original research based on an interpretation of a primary 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.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

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.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2014 (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.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

section on peace deal

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.

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.

We must avoid at all costs a fight between Nato and Russia. --Russiansunited (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC) WP:NOTFORUM. RGloucester — ☎ 21:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

POV tag attached. Strongly pro-Maidan and anti-separatist/federalist, which includes the naming of the entry.

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.Haberstr (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Tag removed per WP:TE. Haberstr, the only problem with WP:POV this article is suffering from is the fact that it doesn't suit your personal bias. The terminology has not been invented per anyone's POV: it follows reliable sources. Even there, great care has been taken to keep the language neutral and allude to sources that (as you well know) were being dismissed on the RS/N. Thank you, in advance, for resisting any further temptation to tag articles because you aren't getting your way. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories: