Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iryna Harpy (talk | contribs) at 23:57, 1 September 2014 (→POV tag attached. Strongly pro-Maidan and anti-separatist/federalist, which includes the naming of the entry.: ce: pseudo-ration 'discussions' are not discussions but WP:TE). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:57, 1 September 2014 by Iryna Harpy (talk | contribs) (→POV tag attached. Strongly pro-Maidan and anti-separatist/federalist, which includes the naming of the entry.: ce: pseudo-ration 'discussions' are not discussions but WP:TE)(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 and feel that you must right great wrongs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The article title is pro-coup POV, because if the unrest is caused by being pro-Russian, then why did it only begin after the coup in Kiev? This is just the usual "blame everything on Russia" POV that is ubiquitous in articles related to the coup. And don't tell me it's all about reliable sources. The West has one point of view; Russians and Novorossians have another point of view. Reliable sources exist for the latter just as much, if not more, as they exist for the former. – Herzen (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This not simply a case of Western versus Eastern views, that approach alone is already nonsensical since in reality there a lot of different views (in Russia and in the West). If you want attribute official positions of Russian or Western governments fine, but do not declare any reliable source simply as partisan. As for your question, there is an "obvious" simple answer, the pro Russian unrest began exactly when Russia was losing influence in Kiev. There was simply no need for pro-Russian unrest while the government was pro-Russian anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Herzen, and think that Kmhkmh's perspective is OR, and so the title of this entry is OR. Yes, it's fine to speculate on why the separatist conflict broke out in eastern Ukraine. But also admit that you don't really know. Your OR should not influence the title of a Misplaced Pages entry. 'Separatist' is a perfectly good description of what is going on in Ukraine's east. 'Pro-Russian' is OR speculation and Western propaganda.Haberstr (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the article's talk page and not article itself and I did not suggest any content for the article whatsoever, hence there is no WP:OR. I merely answered Herzen's question which contrary implication actually has a straight forward answer.

As far as "separatist" I have no objection to use that term (as it is accurate in a way and is/was used by many sources). However that the separatist movement (not necessarily the actual population) is pro-Russian is rather obvious and you certainly need no propaganda sources for that nor even much an "interpretation" of known facts, you just need to pay attention the statements of the separatists leaders themselves. If there is any propaganda at work here, then it is declaring them as as not "pro Russian".--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Iryna, please remove POV tag not immediately but after a civil discussion and an attempt at consensus. Note the WP emblazoned directly on the POV tag: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." For further and more general advice, and please note the passages on civility, read the WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:CLOSE.Haberstr (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Iryna I do not see anything wrong with the current title. The facts on the ground are that the protesters and rebels fighting are pro-Russian. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If you mean pro-Russian as in favor of annexation by Russia, that is simply not true. A substantial majority or minority may want that, and a substantial majority or minority may want Novorossiyan independence, and a substantial minority may still want a loose federation inside of Ukraine. The title of the section misleadingly indicates loyalty or fealty or desire for union for Russia, when perhaps only a minority in eastern Ukraine want that. The best NPOV term would be 'separatist' not 'pro-Russian'.Haberstr (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Haberstr that "pro-Russian" is a POV term. The unrest is an "anti-Ukrainian government" unrest.
And the word "ultranationalist" in the lead is just crazy, if you ask me. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The unrest is not nationalist, it's against Ukrainian nationalism. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article is blatantly pro-coup POV and must be tagged as such until corrected. (I think the article is a disgrace to Misplaced Pages. Because it undermines the value of Misplaced Pages as a worthy source.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

For the final time, "pro-Russian" does not mean "seeking annexation by Russia". It merely means they favour relations with Russia as opposed to the EU &c. It is the only term that encompasses all viewpoints within the anti-government camp (separatist, federalist, New Russian). We've had this discussion multiplicitous times before. "Anti-Ukrainian government" does not disambiguate the events from Euromaidan (which was also anti-government). RGloucester — ☎ 14:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

But there are so many people who don't understand the "pro-Russian" part of the title. Maybe it is a sign that it should be changed... --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It isn't my fault that non-native (or even native) English speakers don't understand the English language, which is very precise and clear in this matter. I've provided dictionaries definitions numerous times, and I'm not going to do it again. Pull out your copy of the OED and see for yourself. This title was agreed upon by consensus at an RM, and it was made explicit at that point that no more frivolous moves should be carried out. There is no adequate alternative to this title, as we've hashed it all out before. Reliable sources describe the unrest as pro-Russian, as do the protestors themselves. RGloucester — ☎ 15:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, in the Russian language, the word "pro-Russian" would mean the same as in English: they love Russia / support the Russian policy and Russia's views on the world. But it's not really the meaning it's being used in here. Okay, I will look at the archives.
But the article itself is pro-Maidan. (The word "ultranationalist" in the lead being just one example. The whole article is like this, anyone should be able to see it.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

it is not suprising that all the moskals come to play on wikipedia as they conquer novoazovsk leave this place glory to ukraine glory to heros — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.16.147 (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This is just more spurious tagging. It seems some user(s) have decided that "since you won't let us push POV in the article(s) we will tag it up". This is just WP:POINTy and disruptive. Volunteer Marek 18:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I could say just the same that some users decided that "since there are more of us, pro-Maidan POV pushers here, we can do whatever we want and won't even let you tag this article". And that it was disruptive to remove the tag instead of discussing. (But I won't say this.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Haberstr: I explained the removal in the very first sentence of my reply: "Tag removed per WP:TE." If you were using tags responsibly, this would not be an issue. What you are engaging in is tag-bombing articles bringing up the same issues you have brought up time and time again with consensus being against you. Tagging 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and Media portrayal of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine simultaneously is WP:POINTy to say the least. When all your arguments are based on reiterations of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, I remove the tag... as was done with the other two articles by other editors. Your editing pattern has been, and still is, based on WP:POV disdain for neutral, encyclopaedic content, and is indicative of non-content related problems. I don't care how hard you try to couch your biases in policy and impoverished attempts at pseudo-rational discussion, the end product is the same: you're merely floundering at gaming the system. Would you like me to throw a few more policies and guidelines into the mix, or are we done on your casting WP:ASPERSIONS as to my editing practices? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Should the title of the article include the word 'Revolution'?

There's a long, long wikipedia article on the February 2014 unrest in Kiev entitled "2014 Ukrainian Revolution".

Wouldn't it be consistent to call the "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" something like "2014 East Ukrainian Revolution"? Perhaps "2014 Donestk/Lugansk Revolution"?

After all, the people in East Ukraine have declared independence and formed new governments.

Whether these governments survive is another question, but it sure sounds like revolutionary behavior on the part of the inhabitants of that area.

Son of eugene (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Not per WP:COMMONNAME. Consistency is not an issue here either, as mainstream sources have a principally different approach to the two events. Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"The people" certainly haven't done any such thing, while it is true that large parts of the population were skeptical about the changes in Kiev, the separatists are a Russian supported/infiltrated minority that staged a coup d' etat, in particular ousting locally elected officials as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Using such a title would be original research. Per Jaan Pärn's comment, we use WP:COMMONNAME and, as noted by Kmhkmh, the use of 'revolution' is inappropriate per WP:NDESC as it implies that it is something it is not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories: