Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Requested move 22 June 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Whether "conflict" or "unrest" should be used has split opinion here pretty much down the middle. But the reason, in my opinion, there's a consensus here is because those in support have made the argument that the current title is incorrect linguistically. This has not been refuted and nor has an alternate title with "conflict" in it been proposed to avoid the problem. No prejudice against a new RM to discuss whether "conflict" should be added back to the title in such a way that it does not cause a linguistic problem. Jenks24 (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

---

2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine → 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine – One user tried to rename article using "unrest" term instead of "conflict". Due to avoid the edit war, I restored the "status-quo" name ("conflict") and started this discussion. Please show arguments and sources for unrest. Now, I am in oppose to this renaming. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC) NickSt (talk) 8:12 pm, Today (UTC+3)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

*Request that this RM be closed on procedural grounds (support proposed title). The initiator of this request opposes it. That is not how requested moves are meant to be formatted. He said that he was initiating this request on my behalf here[1], and I do not want such an RM discussion. Therefore, there are no grounds for this RM. RGloucester — ☎ 18:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support move (back to what I understand was the original title). As pointed out numerous times in several discussion threads above, "pro-Russian conflict" is simply nonsensical linguistically and logically, so pretty much anything else is better than it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with a move, as you are presumably aware, this RM isn't formatted properly. Wouldn't it be best to close this and restart a proper move discussion with a proper argument for the proposed title? RGloucester — ☎ 20:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't see a procedural problem myself. You mean because the editor who filed it isn't supporting it himself? That is hardly an issue, as soon as there are other good-faith supports. It's just like some AfD's that get filed on procedural grounds by editors who themselves declare neutral. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If you say so. I'll strike my comment. RGloucester — ☎ 21:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

*Strongly support. We already have an article about the armed conflict. This article covers the anti-government/separatist movement in general. The title as it currently is makes navigation difficult. L'Aquotique (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Strong support – I posted a schematic of our coverage of these events above. Let me repost it here:

• 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine – summary article dealing with the unrest across Ukraine in aftermath of Euromaidan, including both protests and armed insurgency
  • Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine – Timeline of all the events
• 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk – in-depth coverage of the armed conflict in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts
  • Donetsk People's Republic – coverage of the state itself
  • Lugansk People's Republic – coverage of the state itself
  • Various sub-articles on battles
• 2014 Crimean crisis – in-depth coverage of the events in Crimea, leading to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation
  • Timeline of the 2014 Crimean crisis – Timeline of the Crimean events
  • 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine – Military intervention by Russia in Crimea

As one can see, this article is not about the conflict. This article is about the overall unrest, which includes areas that are not in armed conflict. The conflict article is the insurgency article, which has its own RM going at the moment (please do comment there). Furthermore, as been seen at the discussion above in the section #Title makes no sense, this title doesn't make any sense linguistically, because "conflict" is two-sided, and hence, a conflict cannot be "pro-Russian". Unrest, on the other hand, can be "pro-Russian". The article was stable at that title for quite a long time, but was moved in an informal discussion to conflict as a compromise to sate some people who were concerned about the gravity of the conflict. In the meantime, however, no one has been happy with the "conflict" compromise. Furthermore, we've also now split off the insurgency article, meaning that this article is not the primary article for the conflict. As a result, this move makes sense, and should be carried out. RGloucester — ☎ 21:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

*Support – I support this move. It has already been made clear that the article is about ALL of the pro-Russian unrest and not merely the far eastern guerrilla warfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.204.131.250 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – If we have to move it, I would be against simply returning to what was already an awful compromise in the first place. We should at least attempt to finalize the title because there are too many people in opposition to "unrest" by coming up with a third, new title. Dustin (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

"Unrest" was never a compromise title. It was stable at unrest from 14 April, per a move made at an informal talk page discussion. It was "conflict" that was the compromise. RGloucester — ☎ 22:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not it was a "compromise", it is not a good title in my opinion, and there are many others who oppose it as well. I would prefer a third title. I don't really know how you could consider that title "stable" when it was being attacked all the time. Dustin (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Every title that we've had has been "attacked". This article started at Russian Spring, moved to 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine, then to 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, and now to 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. No title is perfect, and no title will be not be "attacked" given the nature of these events. The fact of the matter is, this article was stable at the "unrest" title for quite a while, and that's the most fitting title for a summary article in this instance, unless someone can provide something better. At present, I've seen no such alternative that offers a good "summary" title for all the unrest across Ukraine, including insurgency and protests, without using words like "conflict" when this isn't the conflict article. RGloucester — ☎ 22:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I don't see why you have such low limits before outdenting. Personally, I do not like it because if you think the indent is becoming too high, you can just use {{outdent}}. Also, what ever happened to our previous discussion? I always have preferred "post-revolutionary", but that idea seems to have been forgotten. I disagree with the proposed title. Dustin (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm pragmatic. I indent depending on what I feel looks better. Regarding "post-revolutionary", Iryna Harpy provided analysis in that discussion as to why it isn't really suitable. RGloucester — ☎ 00:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

And I said how I disagreed. Even if you have 80% in support, that should not be enough. Dustin (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I don't think percentages matter. Adherence to title guidelines, on the other hand, does. Given that the present title isn't even proper English, I don't think it really can be defended. As far as "post-revolutionary", I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree. RGloucester — ☎ 00:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Very immature idea. Unrest sounds like a few riots. This is more akin to civil war and conflict gives more of that impression than the watered down 'unrest.' Reaper7 (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

*Strong support - As I and other users have pointed out in above sections, the armed conflict in the east is already covered in a separate article. General protesting and unrest do not necessarily constitute an armed conflict. Move as soon as possible, because the current name is misleading and makes navigation difficult, especially for our regular readers. Q5W5 [discussion] 23:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support. I've been keeping track of the Ukraine unrest primarily through Wikipedia and if I'm not mistaken, this article's title has already been changed several times. I would agree that it seemed more accurate before as "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.52.199.152 (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support - I've already outlined my views on the naming convention for this article copiously, and objected to its having being moved to 'conflict' in the first instance. A medley of other options have been suggested, all of which are unsuitable (other than being WP:OR or WP:POV). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, what sources are using the term "Unrest" to describe this? We cant just make up our own parent article title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The current title isn't a common name either. We are using WP:NDESC (yes, making up a title) as there isn't one sole unambiguous common name that we can use. The only thing we can do is refine our neutral descriptive title to match the scope of the article, and the title naming criteria in general. The best option, in this instance, is unrest. Just for the sake of it, though, I'll provide a news article from two days ago that uses "pro-Russian unrest", just to make to clear to you that this is not totally outlandish.[2] RGloucester — ☎ 02:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

COMMONNAME, Knowledgekid87? Please elaborate. You used that same argument to justify amalgamating "Federal State" with "Novorossiya". Badly thought through, and genuinely off the mark changing the name from "Federal State of New Russia" to Federal State of Novorossiya.

In terms of discussions regarding the title, it's been established that 'pro-Russian' has been pervasive since pockets of 'unrest' escalated after the Crimean crisis. 'Conflict' has most definitely not been used in any consistent manner: i.e., pro-Russian separatist conflicts, but always when referring to separate and new events in media article titles in accordance with the context. Conflating 'pro-Russian' with 'conflict' infers that this is a 'conflict' pervading all of Ukraine when, in fact, it is to be found in specific regional pockets. I've yet to see anything resembling a conflict throughout Ukraine. Various forms of unrest have manifested beginning with Euromaidan, and these fall into their own order as child articles. You've noted unrest as being "tame" in your ES. Well, yes, it isn't the hype I suspect you've subjected yourself into believing it to be. We need to exercise a little WP:COMMONsense and not subject the reader to the hysteria that goes hand in hand with WP:RECENTISM. —Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It isn't even worth going down the road of "common name" again, because we've established multiple times that there is no singular and unambiguous common name for these events. RGloucester — ☎ 04:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite so. This is an umbrella article for a variety of events surrounding the pro-Russian 'unrest', therefore WP:NDESC also demands that logic be applied. Not all of the events can be described as being 'conflicts'. Basically, various forms and levels of unrest (including conflicts where the child article warrants the description) fall under the umbrella term. This has been turned into Groundhog Day. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Strong support - A simple Google search shows that many sources are using the term unrest to describe the current situation ([3]), so the suggested move would not be a "made up" title. Getonthedogsled! (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Google search actually shows most sources use the term conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Strong support - Not all the pro-Russian areas are waging an armed rebellion on the Kiev government. In many places, it's just general unrest and protesting. So unless the entire pro-Russian region of the country takes up arms, the article should be "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" and left at that. King Nebuchadnezzar II (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Support - numerous news articles call it "Ukraine unrest". I'm a little surprised this article even uses "conflict", which seems exaggerated. 77.223.136.192 (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Exaggerated? How many more body bags would you need to see for it to go from unrest to conflict? The Oxford dictionary defines unrest as A state of dissatisfaction, disturbance, and agitation, typically involving public demonstrations or disorder, That is what you have seen in Ukraine? Reaper7 (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. "Turmoil", the primary definition found in OED, is exactly what is in Ukraine. The armed conflict is a different matter, for the 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk article. I see that you still don't understand the division between our articles. RGloucester — ☎ 01:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::Agree strongly with RGloucester. You cannot argue with dictionary definitions. Q5W5 [discussion] 02:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to think RGloucester that the unrest as you call it is a separate event from the conflict in the east, which it ain't. Its all related. EkoGraf (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Related, yes. But different. That's why we have separate articles for separate incidents as part of the whole unrest. That's because there isn't "conflict" or "insurgency" outside of Donetsk and Luhansk. Nevertheless, protests continue in Kharkiv, Odessa is mostly calm, and there have been sporadic protests in other southern and eastern Ukrainian oblasts. I just updated the Kharkiv section as such with a new protest. We can't conflate events and blow them out of proportion. If we call this article conflict, we are saying that there is an insurgency in Kharkiv, in Odessa, in Mykolayiv, in Kherson. There isn't. There hasn't been. Conflation is a disaster of misinformation. RGloucester — ☎ 16:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Strong support For now this is mainly just civil disturbance rather than an actual war or conflict. But if all the pro-Russian regions eventually rebel against Kiev, then the current name would be acceptable. But that's a concern for another day and hopefully it won't escalate any more than it already has. 117.166.165.9 (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, every civil disturbance has helicopters and planes being shot down and 24-hour tank battles. EkoGraf (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Support - It's hardly a conflict, especially compared to Iraq or Mexico. Usually I hear it referred to as civil unrest or violence.

• Neutral - This proposal doesn't address the one-sided nature of the title. The new proposal below is better; please go and use your energies on that one instead. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It isn't one sided. The protestors/activists/demonstrators/insurgents are consistently described as pro-Russian by reliable sources, and they initiated the unrest. Just as the title of this article was "pro-Russian protests in Ukraine" months ago, so too is this "pro-Russian unrest". The qualifier is NECESSARY, because "civil unrest" is not WP:PRECISE: we need to disambiguate from the large amount of civil unrest during Euromaidan, which also took place in 2014. We've had this discussion fifty times. Please read our archives. RGloucester — ☎ 13:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Strong support - I knew upon seeing the article's title that it was incorrect. There is already a separate article on the insurgency in the far eastern oblasts. The other pro-Russian regions are experiencing anti-government unrest, not armed revolt. I even tried changing the title myself, which was four times prevented by a filter because I'm a new user. Hopefully, this matter will get solved soon because the current title is so annoying. Stephen B at USDA (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Just a warning – Pursuant to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/L'Aquotique, this discussion is infested with sock-puppets. I personally think it would be best to close the discussion and restart it with a clean slate, but we'll see what the administrators will do when they come around. RGloucester — ☎ 17:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd support that move - ideally we need to separate out the question of the noun (crisis/conflict/unrest) from the question of whether it needs 'pro-Russian' or any other qualifier. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

User:AlexTiefling: Do you mean you support moving the article, or starting over with a clean survey? I'm a little confused. Слава Богу, это пятница! (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry - yes, that was unclear. I support starting over. I'm still neutral on this proposed title change, since conflict vs unrest looks like a fairly minor point to me. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know, @AlexTiefling:, you are talking to a sockpuppet. RGloucester — ☎ 17:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As the sock is running rampant at the moment, rather than start all over again, would it be worth striking all of the instances of 'votes' here? Starting from scratch would only attract the same user again at this point. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

We should wait for an administrator to take action. They are supposed to come in and mop up, once the case is completed. RGloucester — ☎ 00:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Strong support - The news seems to call it unrest more often than conflict or war. 117.174.42.51 (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, lets see, something very unnatural is going on here. Google hits have be used as to why this article should be 'unrest'? really?:

• 3 million google hits for ukraine pro-russian unrest. ([4])
• 4 million google hits for Ukraine insurgency. ([5])
• 11 million google hits for Ukraine Unrest. ([6])
• 60 million google hits for Ukraine conflict 2014.([7])
• 85 million google hits for Ukraine civil war 2014.([8])

Something is seriously wrong with the words 'unrest' and 'insurgency' to describe what we have seen in Ukraine. 'Civil War' is the correct term used in English for what is going on, even if the BBC and CNN are scared of using it. Reaper7 (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You've provided no citations for your numbers, or methodology. Furthermore, you've conflated the "insurgency" article with this article. They serve different purposes. As far as "civil war", don't start with that again. RGloucester — ☎ 18:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ermm? Just google it yourself if you don't believe me. The methodology is the same as the comment above mine that you did not comment on, a simple google search. I am sorry if Insurgency and Unrest are the least popular terms, but that is just how the internet is. We don't always agree with the most used terms - in your case.. in my case, I agree with the most used terms..I put references. Reaper7 (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. The burden of proof is on you, not me, and regardless, you're once again conflating various articles that are not of the same scope. The post above didn't make any claims about what was "most common". It merely said that "unrest" was not "made-up". RGloucester — ☎ 19:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

That's terribly courageous of you to dare say what the mass media don't dare say, minister (Reaper7). Essentially, your 'methodology' is to string together arbitrary descriptors and estimate how many google hits they come up with. Is there anything to be said on the quality of the hits? I've just googled ukraine pro-russian terrorists to reveal 15 million hits. When I typed in ukraine pro-russian putin, it yielded 20 million hits! In fact, ukraine every toddler bazooka came back with 4 million results. If you don't apply some form of logic, it simply doesn't equate with 'methodology'. What you are presenting is 'random strings of words'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

When you Google "Ukraine civil war", most of these sources don't actually use the term "civil war" to describe the current situation. Rather they say, Ukraine is on the brink of a civil war. You can't make judgements exclusively by the # of results turned up by Google; instead you have to look at the actual usage of the entered search terms, which are in bold. For example, the search George W Obama turns up numerous articles, but no more than five of them actually use that term. The rest are just articles that contain the words "George W" & "Obama". AyatollahSantaClaus^(talk) 02:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, AyatollahSantaClaus. Using open parameters for a google search will yield whatever it can pull in using the individual search words - in itself that's a "close enough is good enough" argument. All that is needed is something in the body of an article or image description to find you a 'hit'. I checked through all of Reaper's search results and found that by the end of the first couple of articles (where no minus was even added to the search string for instances of Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors), the only consistent usage was in direct quotes from statespersons or spokespeople surrounding the event/s. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutral Approch I'm not 100% sure what's going on, but the media i've been reading has been describing this as a "crisis" or "conflict"--Arbutus the tree (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Strong oppose This was already discussed a few weeks ago and an overwhelming majority consensus among editors was this is a conflict, not an unrest. I stood by the term conflict in that discussion, and I am still sticking to it. Besides, Wikipedia article names are designated per the common name rule. And the most common term to describe the events in Ukraine that is being used is the word conflict. Regardless of our personal opinions on what it should be called. EkoGraf (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That was a month ago, and it was merely a compromise at an informal discussion that most people have been unhappy with since That was also before the split to the new conflict article, when this article stood alone. Therefore, if any article should be called "conflict", it is the 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk article (I've recommend "conflict in Donbass" at a requested move discussion there. This article here is not about the "conflict". Regardless, neither of these names are the "common name", and there is no one unambiguous name for the whole unrest. This article, dealing with the unrest overall, cannot be titled conflict. Regardless of that, the present title is grammatically incorrect. So no, saying that this is the "common term" is wrong. It may be the common term for the fighting in Donbass, but it isn't the term for the rest of the unrest. RGloucester — ☎ 15:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Weak support – The media has used both terms to describe the situation, but based on the current organization of the articles here, "unrest" seems slightly more accurate. L B Richard921 (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support Originally I did not think much of this, but after reviewing some other comments made above and doing some searching on Bing, the new proposed title does seem to reasonably match up with what news sources call the Ukraine situation. Therefore, I'm giving my support to this proposal. 1717Sanchez ^{chat with me!} 07:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Per the reasons I provided in a previous thread titled "Title makes no sense".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - If you ignore the wave of support comments made by one sockpuppet, seems we are not having a consensus on the issue at this time, with six people expressing support for the move and five against it. EkoGraf (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The page has been relisted by an administrator as a result of the sockpuppet influx, meaning that the RM will continue. RGloucester — ☎ 01:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Here's another source: this one actually uses the phrase "pro-Russian unrest"[9]. The complaints about it "not existing" are false. RGloucester — ☎ 15:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Conflict does not mean only military conflict. A military clash is one form of conflict, another (for instance) is a clash between two crowds with petrol bombs... "Unrest" is too weak a word, verging on euphemism. I think the adjective "pro-Russian" does require further discussion, however — it's a debatable description of one side in the conflict. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right about the meaning of the word "conflict". However, your complaints about "unrest" are highly incorrect. The adjective is necessary, and doesn't make sense when combined with conflict, unlike unrest. Many reliable sources use "unrest", as mentioned above. It makes sense for our article coverage, as presently people are confused into thinking this article is about the armed conflict, when it isn't. For the benefit of our readers, we must return this article to the proper title. RGloucester — ☎ 22:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The adjective "pro-Russian" may be applicable to some of the people involved in the conflict, or the unrest. I do not see how it is applicable to what's been happening overall, whether you call what's been happening "conflict", "unrest", or something else. It's true that we can't just say "2014 conflict in Ukraine" or "2014 unrest in Ukraine", because that would include the earlier events in Kiev... One way of not including those earlier conflicts (while also avoiding the problems of a term like "pro-Russian") would be to use the adjective "post-Yanukovych". Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Now that's a load of WP:OR. Please provide examples of the use of "post-Yanukovych" being used. As for pro-Russian, that's been thoroughly discussed already (please try reading discussions on this talk page before rehashing arguments already dismissed instead of wasting people's time). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR requires sources for content (i.e. facts, allegations), not for wording. As that policy page states: " Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material." Anyway, examples of the term "post-Yanukovych" are easy enough to find. See for instance the page FPI Resources on Post-Yanukovych Ukraine. It's on the website of the Foreign Policy Initiative, a mainstream/conservative American think-tank. Not sure what you think you achieve by saying "that's been thoroughly discussed already"? Right now there is no consensus about the page title, which is why we are having this discussion. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

A) The move in question (read the proposal) surrounds the use of "unrest" as opposed to "conflict". That is the scope of the discussion, full stop.
B) Read through OR carefully again. In this instance, there is a high profile WP:COMMONNAME being used by sources (pro-Russian/pro-Russia). The fact that you've found 'a' source is irrelevant as it is not commonly recognised. Should future scholarly analysis demonstrate that "Post-Yanukovych" has become the most highly recognised terminology, I'll be the first to vote in favour of changing that aspect of the title. The fact is that, notably, the source you have cited is from 28 February, and the resources used date between 23 to 28 February. Even the lead reads as, "Days after the formation of a national-unity government in post-Yanukovych Ukraine, pro-Russian factions have taken over government buildings and airports in the countries Crimean peninsula, heightening tensions between the Kremlin and Kyiv." In order to find arguments regarding why the use of 'pro-Russian' is the common sense option, run a quick find on this talk page using "economic".
C) What does "Post-Yanukovych" mean? Is there an inference that, had Yanukovych not been ousted, everything would have remained stable and nice (see "No OR: Pre-Christmas boycott". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Support . Just read all this. Its not an ideal choice, but of the two this is best for now IMO. However remember whats going on in the Ukraine cannot be viewed in isolation. Its a large geopolitical event whose flashpoint is the Ukraine for now, and it may morph to a point later, that the 'conflict' label becomes the better lexicon. SaintAviator talk 23:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Russian Sponsorship

Good morning, given the plethora of accusations that the Kremlin is directly and indirectly fueling the pro-Russian forces, it seems appropriate to at least dedicate some of the article to the subject. I realize that they are accusations and that Putin denies them. But many have accused him of supplying the separatists--including Obama and Merkel. --108.45.56.173 (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There are also accusations in the opposite direction (namely that USA is giving military support to the Ukrainian government). If we would dedicate more space to speculative Russian involvement, we would also have to dedicate some space to speculative American involvement.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Only if both sets of claims could be reliably sourced. We don't need to introduce fake balance. (I'm not saying either claim is true or false - just that we don't automatically need 'both sides' if only one side has reliable sourcing.) AlexTiefling (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but they're both speculative, and the IP user implicitly admits it, in what concerns to the Russian involvement, by talking about "accusations".AlexTiefling --Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, obviously if neither claim is well-sourced, then neither should be included. If something is unsubstantiated, but a major figure makes a public statement that appears to give it credence, I guess we can mention the statement, but we shouldn't report simple hearsay on either side. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There are allegations that the Russian Federation (as a state) has given material support to the rebels, but as long as they're described as allegations, they can be fairly included in the articles related to this issue (since there are no independent sources to confirm that). So, an allegation can be included, if it's described as an allegation! As a fact, of course it needs far more solid evidence.AlexTiefling --Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Even allegations should only be included if they come from a notable source and have a reliable citation. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Allegations concerning to both Russian involvement and American involvement (Der Spiegel, for instance) are coming from reliable sources, but they are regarded as allegations by those sources. And both of those allegations are already covered in the 2014 pro-Russian_conflict in Ukraine or in the 2014 insurgency in Donbass. As allegations, of course! But you have some useful information to add, of course you're welcome to do it (citing the source, obviously).AlexTiefling --Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

We also need to bear in mind what a reliable source is, given the month-long RS/N regarding the use of RT (Russia Today) (which has only just been closed off). The conclusion was, quite simply that, "No consensus that RT is or is not reliable for general purposes. If someone has a specific claim RT is trying to make about a specific article, they are welcome to request a discussion again, but otherwise this was a giant waste of time."

When there is an obvious propaganda purpose behind a report and the report is obviously absurd, it should obviously be discounted. There is nothing more the U.S. press would like to cover than a secret U.S. military force of !?400?! in the Ukraine. It would make top headlines, sell tons of newspapers and advertising. It is absolutely absurd for not a single major newspaper outlet in the U.S. not covering this. It's even more absurd when this is listed as the U.S. involvement when the actual U.S. involvement is left out. Please stop the vandalism.Hilltrot (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw the poorly sourced and highly detailed FBI, CIA claims and other 'content' you've removed, Hilltrot. Bild and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung are reliable sources? Even more ludicrous given that, at the end of the lengthy paragraph, Die Zeit states that the spokesperson for Academi denies the reports. Good catch! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

All media sources have to be treated with care, and there is no assumption that any specific source is always reliable. We also need to bear in mind the fact that Wikipedia articles are not journalism, nor are contributors/editors journalists. We are also under obligation to avoid WP:RECENTISM. This means that, until there is scholarly analysis, we don't project our own ideas, or speculate as to which allegations take precedence over other allegations. This sort of article is not subject to WP:BALANCE in the same manner that non-current affairs articles are. We glean the facts as best we can, but we don't read allegations unless they are very, very well supported by WP:RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RS Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

article about russian Propaganda on german Wikipedia

This article may serve to give some ideas especially regarding UNHCHR statements and supply links. Propaganda (not existing here) seems to reduce now, so it was time to save the memory... --Anidaat (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, Anidaat, I wouldn't even like to see an article title like that on English Wikipedia (i.e., blatant WP:POV; WP:BIAS). Whose WORLDVIEW does it serve? There are articles about US propaganda, but only where there has been scholarly analysis and common usage terminology, such as the Pentagon military analyst program article. You can, therefore, add WP:OR to my list of objections.

Incidentally, OHCHR information is already being sourced where, and if, it is appropriate in the many articles dealing with the current affairs issues surrounding Ukraine and Russia at the moment. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That article is suggested for deletion, for very good reasons, in the german wiki. Its like Banderas who make 35 mil of the ukrainian population and eat children, just the other way around. - Greets, Boris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.180.150.100 (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a really, really bad analogy... but not all that far off the mark. Propaganda about propaganda is not encyclopaedic. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Potential Move to '2014 Civil Unrest in Ukraine'

As this would be a very big move as I can see this page has a LOT of history and potential conflict, I wanted to see what the general consensus is on the move aluded to in the section title. '2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine' to me is not entirely neutral and self-promoting to one side. I saw other users express concerns here, went to make the move then saw it was potentially controversial. Please let me know what everyone thinks :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No. 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine would be better, which I think it was named originally. I'd like it changed back to that but I'm unsure how to do it myself. 175.28.15.91 (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I support this new proposed title. 'Pro-Russian' describes only one side in this business - it doesn't seem like a fair way to characterise the entire thing. (This is entirely aside from my views on the rights and wrongs of the unrest itself.) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a fair way, since the protests and RSA occupations were started by pro-Russian activists, demonstrators and so on, and because reliable sources consistently describe them that way. The qualifier "pro-Russian" is necessary to disambiguate the unrest during Euromaidan (early 2014) from the unrest as a result of the pro-Russian protests/RSA occupations &c. "Civil unrest" is impossible as a title. RGloucester — ☎ 13:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the existing title isn't neutral, but I'd prefer '2014 Conflict in Ukraine' over 'Civil Unrest.' The current situation is an armed uprising; our own Civil Unrest article mentions "illegal parades; sit-ins and other forms of obstructions; riots; sabotage; and other forms of crime", not an armed rebellion with heavy weapons used on both sides, hundreds killed, etc. Additionally, no RS's that I've seen have been using "civil unrest" as the term lately. Kiralexis (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You haven't paid attention to the discussion above. This is not the article about the armed insurgency. That article is 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk. This article describes the unrest overall. Most of Ukraine has not had an armed insurgency. There is only an insurgency in two oblasts, whereas various protests are ongoing elsewhere. "Conflict in Ukraine" is too vague. There was conflict during Euromaidan as well, and anyway, most parts of Ukraine are not experiencing a "conflict". RGloucester — ☎ 01:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think "2014 civil unrest in Ukraine" is such a good idea either. It must be clearly distinguished from the pro-European unrest earlier this year. L'Aquotique (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree also..::: there was armed violence in Kiev resulting in numerous fatalities, people burned alive Odessa... unrest is tame word with an obvious agenda to describe what has happened across Ukraine.. lets try and keep this article as honest as possible. Reaper7 (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This was already discussed a few weeks ago and an overwhelming majority consensus among editors was this is a conflict, not a civil unrest. I stood by the term conflict in that discussion, and I am still sticking to it. Besides, Wikipedia article names are designated per the common name rule. And the most common term to describe the events in Ukraine that is being used is the word conflict. Regardless of our personal opinions on what it should be called. EkoGraf (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've responded above, but most of the editors who supported this title, including, realise it was a mistake. Regardless, the main reason I agreed was because there was no independent article for conflict at that time, meaning that we had no place to put our insurgency information. Well, because of the split, now we do. Therefore, this article is merely about the unrest now across Ukraine as a whole, and not about the conflict in Donbass, which has its own article. RGloucester — ☎ 16:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

For those unaware of where the RM is taking place, it is to be found here (as in above this new section). Please read the discussion before making new proposals. In doing so, you are probably bypassing the actual issues currently under discussion and wasting both your own time and that of other contributors who should not have to reiterate what has been said over and over again. Thank you for your co-operation and understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

How can "unrest" be pro-Russian? Can there not be "unrest" between members of both sides? In this case, it matters not which side "started" the unrest. I still would support replacing "pro-Russian" with "post-revolutionary" regardless of name because it is not as biased toward one side, and, far more importantly in my opinion, it makes more logical sense. How can a conflict or an unrest be "pro-Russian"? It appears that there is unrest on both sides, so therefore, this title would be under-representing the unrest among pro-Ukrainians, right? Dustin (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't about "unrest among pro-Ukrainians". This is about the unrest caused by pro-Russian protests/insurgency/demonstrations. "Conflict" is two-sided, and "conflict" cannot be "waged". "Unrest" can be initated by one side, whereas conflict cannot. RGloucester — ☎ 19:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Let us take a hypothetical situation; one side attacks another because it wants land. That side just initiated a conflict. That kills that "conflict" can only be initiated by one side. Also, you did not say much about my actual "pro-Russian" mention, and you said more about the unrest/conflict argument. Dustin (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one side started the conflict. However, both sides fought as a result. Unrest doesn't require two sides fighting, because direct confrontation is not required. RGloucester — ☎ 19:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to intervene regarding the WP:OR use of "pro-Ukrainian": where did that term come from? Unrest (and even conflict) has been about being pro-EU or pro-Russia on the economic front. I've seen those terms being used, but never pro-Ukrainian. Considering that this is taking place within the borders of the nation-state known as Ukraine, there is no question of whether it's pro-Ukrainian or not. There are a multitude of arguments surrounding self-identification, economic and peripheral allegiances, but I really can't find any instances of the use of "pro-Ukrainian" in the media. Is the inference that the denizens of Ukraine are anti-themselves? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Taking into account the figures of the Google researches mentioned above, I don't think it's a good idea to change the name of the article.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the sock puppet skewed discussion above, I do not think the title should be moved until that request is closed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

An eyewitness account

This interview given to RFE/RL by a former rebel fighter looks very interesting... My very best wishes (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Added to 2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine#Referendum section, part on airport siege. Someone migth also add his report on how they were trained in Rostov region and got into Ukraine. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to my last edits

I, myself, neither favor obvious Pro-Yatsenyuk blatant bias nor I favor blatant pro-Russian bias in an article that is supposed to be encyclopedian. If 2 German newspapers (one of them, I question it's relability - Bild, the other is certainly a reliable one: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung). If both, particularly the newspaper that is considered reliable, reported a possible involvement of the American agencies / corportations in the events in Ukraine, I think it is relevant to be included in the article, as an allegation of course (like an independent source claiming an alleged Russian involvement). Otherwise, remove a lot of the allegations about the Russian Federation interference in the 2014 insurgency in Donbass and 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, namely in the infobox - apart from Crimea, obviously, since a lot of them are allegations (particularly when the Russian Federation state is mentioned... If there are chetniks from Serbia, does it mean that the Serbian state is supporting the rebels in Eastern Ukraine??? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You were explained that Fran Alge just retold Bild. How retelling rumors increases their reliability beats me. -No.Altenmann >t 07:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I'll remove the rumours that the Russian Federation has been supplying material support to the rebels in the Donbass, then! It's just rumours! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

These are no longer rumours. Kurginyan and Gubarev are high rank representatives of the separatist side and they have confirmed that in a recorded press conference. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss that with RGloucester and Iyrina Harpy. I'll allow those 2 people to undo whatever I corrected. They're allegations, nevertheless. From the beginning I said that allegations would be acceptable as long as they were regarded as allegations (and any US claim, as any Russian claim, I regard them as allegations)... But since you don't accept allegations as being regarded as allegations, I removed them all. Discuss that in the Talk Page! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)(talk) 09:32, 10 July 2014

Americans never confirmed they supply arms or whatever to Ukraine. Russians and separatists have themselves confirmed that arms are supplied by Russia. This is the difference between allegations and confirmed facts. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Both newspapers you mentioned cut and pasted the article from RT news. So please stop the mindlessness that German reporters are in Ukraine verifying this information. From what I've been able to tell, there isn't a single German reporter in Ukraine. As for other things, be more specific. I do agree with your edit that anti-terrorist should be in parenthesis or even taken out unless one is trying to Ukrainian POV. Most Russian activity has been confirmed from multiple news sources with very clear video, soldiers discussing where they came from, homes in Russia being visited, etc. There is a large mountain of evidence showing Russian involvement. We have previous evidence in Crimea as well as Georgia about the Russian "playbook".Hilltrot (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of paragraph about the allegations of American groups involvement

A user deleted an entire paragraph about this issue, claiming that it was "absurd Russian propaganda", when in fact, the citations that were provided were from 2 German newspapers: Bild and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. They are considered as allegations, not as fact, in the paragraph. Anyway, I think that Bild may eventually not be considered as a reliable source. Other issue that I question, is if that is the right section to write that paragraph. Meanwhile I had to undo a contribution by Kravietz, in order to undo this particular edit, but I had the intention to undo my own deletion, since I proposed to discuss the deletion of the paragraph mentioned above, but now I reach the conclusion that I can't undo my own edit, when I had the intention to do it later. I'd like to ask the editors of this page, what shall be done to the deletion of that paragraph and to solve the question about Kravietz edit.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

My edit was purely technical for the sake of readability - I just moved two paragraphs about involvement of Russian politicians into one section with Dugin - so please feel free to restore it at any time. As for Bild, I'd say that we should try to keep as much information as possible if it's written in NPOV way. The Bild section seemed to be quite neutral and it included response from the government spokesperson. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I will try, now (though I'd rather find an easier way to do it)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This situation seems to have already been solved by RGlocester, now, so I'll let it stay as it is, by now.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Trying to start a new topic on this is inappropriate especially when consensus was already determined. Going against consensus and writing absurdity is vandalism. You can go back over the previous consensus on this. I have repeated some of what has been said about this before below since some seem to have problems finding it.

"When there is an obvious propaganda purpose behind a report and the report is obviously absurd, it should obviously be discounted. There is nothing more the U.S. press would like to cover than a secret U.S. military force of !?400?! in the Ukraine. It would make top headlines, sell tons of newspapers and advertising. It is absolutely absurd for not a single major newspaper outlet in the U.S. not covering this. It's even more absurd when this is listed as the U.S. involvement when the actual U.S. involvement is left out. Please stop the vandalism."Hilltrot (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Aside from being completely WP:OR, the addition of "Pro-Ukrainian" was an exercise in pure absurdism. Pawel Krawczyk, please read the comment I left on Hilltrot's talk page regarding the content you wished to include. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like to point out that, having read the three articles 'sourced' (and I use the term 'sourced' laughingly), the "Bild" article is pure speculation and quotes no one except themselves. The "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" reports on the "Bild" article, adds a convoluted, speculative reiteration of the "Ria Novosti" allegations (already rejected for this article at the time of its being issued), and finishes its piece by elaborating on the role of Blackwater in Iraq. The information is finished off by citing the 12 May article in "Zeit" where Suzanne Kelly officially denies the allegation. This has all been cobbled together as a nonsensical tract of text constructed to look as though it were sourced from various legitimate official statements (read as WP:SYNTH). Patent nonsense is not even close to WP:BALASPS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

History will tell (or maybe not)Like we say here in Portugal... "mais depressa se apanha um mentiroso que um coxo" Iryna Harpy --Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

History has already told Mondolkiri1. There is no evidence of 400 U.S. Mercenaries in Ukraine. None. Zero, zilch. Three months have past with nothing. Hilltrot (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Future analysis may tell an entirely different story, Mondolkiri1. We, however, don't have a crystal ball and, hence, limit ourselves to current WP:RS. For the sake of WP:NPOV / WP:BIAS we even employ terminology such as 'insurgents' and 'separatists', not 'terrorists', etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with the Bild parapgraph not being there and not defending it. Not sure if I understand what you write about Pro-Ukraininan - what I have added was separate paragraph titled Ukrainian side and another one titled Russian politcs to make some order. Currently we have paragraphs on Dugin, Parubiy, Chechens scattered in random order across the whole section on Notable paragraphs Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sincerest apologies apologies, Pawel Krawczyk. I was skimming through all of the edits that'd been made overnight and misread your addition. Feel free to WP:TROUT me! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Photo bias

As per this edit, stop removing photos so that is prejudices only one side of the issue. Either remove all the photos (including the pro-Russian ones) or leave them both in. Inthefastlane (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictures from Euromaidan are outside the scope of this article. This article is about 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Pictures from December in Kharkiv do not have anything to do with this article, and belong at the Euromaidan article. Please stay within the scope of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 22:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI usually if you are reverted it helps to goto the talkpage first per WP:BRD, anyways it seems like a case of a wrong article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Tdl1060: Sorry! There was an edit conflict, and somehow my edit overwrote yours unintentionally. However, I do think those two can stay, as they are in the background section, which of course deals with Maidan and Anti-Maidan. RGloucester — ☎ 22:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester:, that's fine. You're right, those are acceptable for the background section, as they are clearly identified as being from the Euromaidan and Anti-Maidan. However, I agree with your concerns regarding clutter, and I do think we should avoid including images that are from outside the time-frame and scope of the article, especially if they are not clearly identified as such.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Inthefastlane, do you understand graphic design, by any chance? You are introducing a huge amount of clutter into the article, making it hard to read. We don't need fifty-thousand pictures. What's worse, this article is about the "pro-Russian unrest" and now we have more pictures of pro-Ukrainian protests than pro-Russian ones. Could you please take advantage of the gallery section, so that perhaps the article won't look like a cluttered mess? RGloucester — ☎ 22:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually no there's not more pictures of pro-Ukrainian protests than pro-Russian ones; that would have been obvious to anybody who happened to take a glance at the gallery section of the article. Also, can you by any chance explain why you chose to gallerize only the pro-Ukrainian photos and not the pro-Russian ones? Is it because you think that all the photos on this article should be pro-Russian just because the title of the article is about the pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine? Inthefastlane (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the pro-Russian unrest/protests, so yes, that's why I've gallerised them. Furthermore, pictures should reflect the text. The pro-Russian ones illustrate the article's content. Regardless, there are still pro-Ukrainian protest pictures in the article, and always have been. They are merely not included in sections that have nothing to do, by and large, with pro-Ukrainian protests. RGloucester — ☎ 00:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If the reason why you're removing the pictures is because the pictures create a false sense of balance, then you're not exactly right because the pro-Ukrainian protests against the pro-Russian unrest is not a minority view. Also, if you read the sections for which there are contrasting pro-Ukraine and pro-Russian images, you'll find that the content about the activities of the pro-Ukrainian protesters constitute a significant part of that section (with the exception of the pro-Ukraine photo in the Odessa oblast section, which, on further reflection, I'll remove) so you're not exactly on point when you imply that the content of article (sections) justify gallerizing the pro-Ukrainian photos. Lastly, despite the inclusion of the pro-Ukrainians photos, there are still more pro-Russian photos on this article, so on numbers alone, the pictures reflect the pro-Russian focus of the article. Inthefastlane (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Does it help the reader, though? To clutter the text, and to provide yet more pictures of people standing around with flags? The answer to that question is no. We could source thousands of pictures of people standing around anywhere in Ukraine during this unrest, but we don't need thousands of pictures of people standing around. The content of the article does justify it, because the article is about the pro-Russian unrest. Since I largely wrote the sections you are referring to, I'm well aware of their content. I'm also aware that playing tit-for-tat with pictures is bad for the reader and poorly represents the reality on the ground. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't help the reader that the text is cluttered (which could be easily rectified by a balanced gallerization of both pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian pictures) because of pictures showing people standing around with flags anymore than it helps the reader come away thinking all Ukrainians are ecstatic about hoisting the Russian flag on Ukrainian soil, so at the very least there needs to be some balance given to the contrasting perspectives about the pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Also, if you think that only pro-Russian photos reflect the reality on the ground in Ukraine, then I would urge you to read up on what is actually in happening in Ukraine. Inthefastlane (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course, if they read the text, which is the part of the article that matters, they'd know what wasn't case. Showing a picture of a few people with Ukrainian or Russian flags doesn't imply that everyone is "ECSTATIC". The reality on the ground is that the pro-Ukrainian protestors in Donetsk and Luhansk have had to go underground, for fear of reprisals (post-Odessa incident). This has been verified by the OSCE, and there have not been significant pro-Ukrainian protests in either oblast since the last honking horns incident in May. Pictures from February put next to prose that describes incidents in May are not appropriate. Once again, this article is about the pro-Russian unrest, first and foremost. Contrasting "perspectives" are dealt with in the text, as they should be. The article is text. Pictures only serve to illustrate the text, nothing more. RGloucester — ☎ 01:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this article is about the pro-Russian unrest which is why I don't have a problem with there being more pro-Russian photos. What I am against is having exclusively (or near exclusively) pro-Russian photos when the reality is the exact opposite. Yes, there has not been significant pro-Ukrainian protests in either the Donetsk and Luhansk oblast, but that's not the point of putting the pro-Ukrainian pictures there, which is to synecdochically represent the sentiments of what most of the people of Donetsk and Luhansk oblast think. I also agree that pictures should serve to illustrate the text, which is why having contrasting images in the sections for which they are included appropriately reflects the content of that section. Inthefastlane (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that write what "the sentiments of what most of the people of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts" are? Otherwise, that sounds like WP:Original research. Our job isn't to "represent" what people think. It is to report what reliable sources say. RGloucester — ☎ 02:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's the evidence showing what most of the people of Donetsk and Luhanks oblast think about the current situation in Ukraine.Inthefastlane (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Those are very old, and they are only polls. They can't be said to be representative of "most people in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts" at present. I've read the reports on each of them multiple times for the purpose of cleaning up that section. Regardless, per WP:CIRCULAR, citing Wikipedia as source is unacceptable. Do you have any reliable secondary sources? RGloucester — ☎ 04:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know long your time-frame is for classifying something as old, but I would hazard a guess that many (if not most) people would not call a poll that is only 2 months old "very old." Moreover, even if the polls were old, it's the most recent information we have about the topic that we are discussing. Yes, they are only polls, but the results are scientifically valid and the most reliable measurement for what the people of Donetsk and Luhansk feel about the situation in Ukraine. With regards to your question about reliable secondary sources, I don't see how it would be preferable to using primary sources as it (generally) raises more issues than it solves, but there's this article for starters. Inthefastlane (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That is fairly old, considering the events that have happened in the interim. Regardless, I'm well aware of the referendum's nature. Still, it can hardly be said that turnout numbers signify what these people "think". Furthermore, I find it hard to understand what this has to do with pictures of people standing around with flags. RGloucester — ☎ 04:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Inthefastlane:, I realise that you are a newcomer, but remember that WP:AGF works both ways. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before making assumptions about how Wikipedia works. The crucial policy you don't seem to be aware of is that of the structure of sourcing. Please read WP:PRIMARY. In fact, read as much as is possible about sourcing as you can before you continue with your WP:POINTy edits and talk page comments. Thank you for your co-operation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, like I said, they might be old, but it's the newest information we have regarding the issue we are discussing; if newer information comes out or if you already have newer information that has yet to come out, then we can use that. The numbers may not be the ideal but it's the best measurement for what the people of Donetsk and Luhansk think; if you have a better measurement for gauging what the people of Donetsk and Luhansk think about the current situation in Ukraine, I'd like to read about it. It has everything to do with people standing around with flags because it reflects the reality on the ground, which is that a majority (albeit it relatively silent) of Ukrainians in both of those oblasts are not crazy about hoisting the Russian red, white and blue on their territory. Inthefastlane (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Pro-Russian Casualties

I haven't seen this section updated in weeks and obviously that isn't because there aren't any casualties. Is it fair to say that separatist deaths are largely unknown? Could someone with the appropriate editing rights change the infobox to reflect this uncertainty. We could include confirmed casualties as well as a few estimates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.26.39 (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Its being updated. Just yesterday five separatist deaths from Mariupol were added (confirmed by both sides). The Ukrainian DoD also claimed to had killed 40 separatists in an attack on a militant convoy but this was denied by the separatists and not confirmed independently so those deaths were not added. 03:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)EkoGraf (talk)

I just added some claims from the government side and the separatist side. Made it clear they are estimates. One of the references states that the separatists themselves were unsure of their exact losses due to the situation on the ground, and this is before the ceasefire ended. Daithicarr (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems very fishily that government show less losses of separatists than their own estimates. Maybe this estimates include dead civilians? 94.45.129.180 (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Im not sure how it would seem fishy, they probably have a better estimate, considering its their own forces and they stated they were paying compensation. If the Ukrainian army conducts an artillery strike or air strike on a separatist location they cant accurately count how many were killed. The Separatists can make a better count. The Separatists own estimate was around the thousand mark prior to the ceasefire, it seems the number has been reduced in the info box and the link removed. Anyone know why. if they claimed 1,000 casualties before the current heavy fighting it stands to reason the number must be more now, not less. Daithicarr (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

MOS, tense, parliamentary vs. check and balance and my single sentence.

Perfect tense is the proper tense for my sentence since it is past event that has an effect on events happening now. Perfect tense has been used more than several times in this article and there is no reason to single out this sentence for special treatment. There is also nothing about verb tense in the MOS.

Saying American president is offensive to many American governments who also have presidents. It is appropriate to say US President to specify the correct country. President should be capitalized according to MOS because it is a title.

In a check and balance system of government, the president holds actual power separate from the legislative. The US legislative branch did not give any specific aid to the Ukrainians. The aid given to Ukraine was from small contingency funds set up before the conflict and completely under the power of the presidency. Hence, US President Obama approved of the aid himself. He was not a passive watcher to the event, he personally set it in motion with his approval. In addition, the House of Representatives is diametrically opposed to the President and is actually in the process of suing him.Hilltrot (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The money isn't Mr Obama's personally. It is the government's money. We don't care about "offending" anyone in frivolous complaints. We use "common usage", which is "American". Perfect tense isn't appropriate. The event happened in the past, and hence, it should be written in past tense. Perfect tense is problematic, because we look from a historical perspective. We are not a newspaper. RGloucester — ☎ 21:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

My edit does specifically state that the money comes from the US government. Please stop making up stuff about my edit.

American president is not "common usage" anywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War Please stop being contentious.

Perfect tense does refer to things which have happened in the past. Please look it up. In addition, your insistence on only correcting my sentence shows that you are being contentious about this and obviously have an axe to grind.Hilltrot (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC) GrammarHilltrot (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

May you missed it but I did keep a lot of your changes. The ones adding links were especially helpful. I did change my original text to refer to the assistance coming from the government. This was different from my very first edit which I revised the second time round.Hilltrot (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Please don't mistake my edits for those of the sockpuppet, RGloucaster (talk · contribs), who has been making a mess on your talk page. I assume that your hostility is rooted in the sockpuppet's attempt to sow discord, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. "American president" is common usage. We use the word "American" to mean "person from the United States of America". "US" is not an adjective. The problem with the perfect tense is that it implies recentism, as in, it implies that the event is still going on. This causes problems, as our encyclopaedia looks at events from a historical perspective. I've been copyediting this whole article, and I've consistently removed perfect tense, as it is highly inappropriate for encyclopaedic style. RGloucester — ☎ 02:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, U.S. can be used as an adjective [10], and it is used as such all the time. Furthermore, there are 145,000,000 Google web results and 23,600 news results for "U.S. president Barack Obama" compared to 7,400,000 web results and 159 news results for "American President Barack Obama", so it is clear "U.S. President" is the common term. Additionally, most of the results for "American President Barack Obama" were articles from publications in countries where English is not the native language. —Tdl1060 (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It "can" be used, but then again, "anything" can be used. What is correct for an encyclopaedia is another matter. Journalistic shorthand may demand a short form, but encyclopaedic writing does not. "President" should not be capitalised, as neither "United States President" or "American President" are proper nouns. The proper noun would be "President of the United States", which is therefore capitalised. Please note MOS:JOBTITLES. The proper adjective for person from the United States of America is "American", always has been, and always will be. Unless we start writing "Canada prime minister", "U.S. president" will always be incorrect. RGloucester — ☎ 03:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have an academic source for your claim that "U.S. President" is always incorrect? I will concede your point that American is a commonly used acceptable adjective for a person from the United States of America. However, in this context "U.S." is the preferable adjective. Regarding the capitalization of the word "president", it should be capitalized when it is immediately followed by the president's name.[11] --Tdl1060 (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it should not be capitalised. If one were to write "President Obama", that would be capitalised, because "President" in that phrase is a title. However, if one writes "American president", the "president" should not be capitalised, as it is not a proper title. Other manuals of style don't really mater here. Only our house style guide does, and it says that it should not be capitalised, per MOS:JOBTITLES. RGloucester — ☎ 04:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No, MOS:JOBTITLES states that "president" should be capitalized in this case, as it is immediately followed by a person's name to form a title. In the case in question "U.S. President", the title, is directly followed by the name "Barack Obama". This is the same as the examples given in MOS:JOBTITLES; "Chief Justice Warren Burger", "Vice President Ford", and "President Nixon". The adjective "U.S." does not change the fact that it forms a title any more than the adjective "White House" does in "White House Chief of Staff", which is given as an example of proper capitalization in MOS:JOBTITLES. —Tdl1060 (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it would be capitalised if it was just "President", as Mr Obama is entitled to that style by his status as President of the United States of America. He, however, was never granted the official style "US President", which is nonexistent. Hence, there is no capitalisation, as it is not a proper style. "White House Chief of Staff" is the proper title for the job post, and hence, it is capitalised. Regardless, I've implimented a comrpormise removing the "US/American", as it is redundant since we use "the United States" anyway. RGloucester — ☎ 04:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there is no official title of "U.S. President" does not negate the fact that the title "President" is preceding Barack Obama's name. The question as to whether "U.S." is part of the title would only be relevant if we were questioning whether "U.S." should be capitalized. Either way, I am fine with the compromise, so it is a moot point. --Tdl1060 (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Had I not been aggravated to death by some idiot posing as RGloucester on my talk page, I would have posted something like this sooner.

United States is an adjective (demonym) used to describe the various parts and people of the federal government of the United States primarily but less commonly people. U.S. is the most common American English abbreviation and US being British English abbreviation ans sometimes the American English abbreviation. Let me give you some examples of it clearly being used as an adjective.

US Army, US Navy, US House of Representative, US District Attorney, US Marshal, US Senate, US Capitol, US Department of Education, US Marine, US Marine Corps, US Soldier, the US paralympics, etc.

US Declaration of independence. (Incidentally, the "official" title of the document is "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America" kinda like how President of the United States becomes US President.)

United States Army, United Kingdom Army, France Army, Spain Army

Which one of the above is different from the others. Hopefully, I don't have to tell you. United States has traditionally been used as an adjective for over a hundred years. People from outside the US find its use difficult and awkward - for good reason. In their own countries, such a use of their country's name would make absolutely no sense. So when a Texian or is it Texan comes around to say otherwise the foreigner says he must be some backward hick. I brought up Texan and Texian for a reason. There was no official book that said Texan was the right demonym and Texian was the wrong one. It is the overwhelming use of one word over the other that made Texan the "proper" use.

Overwhelmingly, US is used as an adjective throughout Wikipedia and the title U.S. President or US President is also used. In addition, Encyclopedia Britannica uses U.S. as an adjective. Although at first reference to the President in World War II, they use "U.S. president Franklin Roosevelt." They make the name a parenthetical element but have no problems with U.S. being an adjective. Columbia Encyclopedia also uses the title "United States President George W. Bush" in its article on the Iraq war. Funk and Wagnals used "U.S. President Harry Truman" in its article on Vietnam. So, even from an encyclopedic standpoint, your viewpoint is fringe.

Though, as I said before, I can understand why you could have this viewpoint because you do not have a similar reference point in you own country.

To make things more confusing, when referring to U.S. citizens without a title, one commonly says American. This goes back to the revolutionary war. "Common Sense" was a pamphlet with popularized the term American before the country even existed. Before that, everyone considered themselves to be British. Regardless most Americans refers to themselves and each other by their state as it wasn't until the latter half of the country's history that "the U.S. are" became "the U.S. is". So in informal speech American eventually was as a noun primarily and as an adjective rarely. However in very formal writing American is more rarely used and in legal writings - never used.

If you want some more specific proof, I guess I could try to find it for you. I'm sure I've given more than enough to convince most people. In any case, I am "ok" with it the way it is - when I started writing this a few hours ago as long - as you don't run around Wikipedia trying to change everything to something fringe. The wording change from "approved" to "said" has it problems (Another few hours to explain and not really worth it.) but as long as the wording doesn't cause it be deleted I'm fine with it.

I mainly did put this in primarily because people kept on wanting to know or have something written about U.S. involvement. So I thought having something put down would be better than nothing so that people wouldn't feel the need to add something absurd. I did spend some time writing the above because I felt I would have contact with others overseas who might have the same difficulties and I could just cut and paste.Hilltrot (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC) grammarHilltrot (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Like I said, "US" is used in some titles, such as in"United States State Department". However, its usage should be discouraged when not an official use, as it is not an adjective. Most usage of "US" as an adjective is journalistic shorthand. I endorse Mr Fowler's opinion in this regard, and am quite opposed to the idea. Like I said, unless one says "Canada prime minister", or "Australia queen", it really doesn't make sense. It helps to be consistent in our usage. If we followed these standards, we could call the Mexican president "US" (or maybe "EU") president too. That's not how it works. Adjectives are derived from the geographic place-name in the title, not from the description of the state. We don't call Czechs "Republicans", for instance. Regardless, this is a horse that is very dead, so we'd better not beat it anymore. RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

I strongly oppose converting the infobox here to a military conflict infobox, as I have done in the past. This article isn't about the military confrontations, as described by 2014 insurgency in Donbass. This is about the unrest across Ukraine, the vast majority of that unrest being rooted in protests. RGloucester — ☎ 18:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support Change to military conflict infobox. The vast majority of that unrest being rooted in protests??? 2/3 of the events that this article covers are military in nature. 1. Russian military invasion of the Crimea (military in nature). 2. Insurgency and counter-insurgency military operations in the Donbass (military in nature). 3. Protests against the Kiev government and counter-protests (civilian in nature), which have by the way mostly stopped since the conflict evolved into large-scale fighting in the east. EkoGraf (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Not true. There are ongoing protests in Kharkiv, and in other oblasts, such as Mykolayiv. Regardless, both the Crimean events and the Donbass events have a military conflict infobox at their appropriate articles. However, the overall unrest is not a military conflict. The military conflicts in Donbass and Crimea are merely two subsets of many events that are part of the overall unrest, which is rooted in civilian protest and unrest. RGloucester — ☎ 22:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I said mostly. And ongoing protests still occurring doesn't actually mean much. For example, you have the Syrian civil war article which has a military infobox, despite the opposition and Assad's government still organizing protests and counter-protests. And as you know, that conflict is also rooted in civilian protests and unrest, but you don't see it using a civil unrest infobox. And there are no other subsets beside the three: Donbass (military), Crimea (military), protests (civilian). So its 2/3 military. Doesn't matter if it had its origin in civil unrest, the conflict has evolved since than. EkoGraf (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Think of this article from a historical perspective, rather than from a recent one. This article chronicles the unrest as a whole, how it started, and where it ended up. Articles like 2014 Crimean crisis and 2014 insurgency in Donbass chronicle the children of the unrest. The two violent children are covered in their respective articles, but this article remains about the parentage of those children. A summary article. RGloucester — ☎ 23:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support Change to military conflict infobox. It's been months since the political demonstrations and general unrest turned into a bloody civil war. No doubt we are dealing with thousands of dead militants from both sides and civillians...Pretending nothing changed since February or March...is a foolish thing to do. The situation now is a Military Conflict between two different armed sides — Preceding unsigned comment added by O Grego (talk • contribs) 00:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)<!— Template:Unsigned -->

You are at the wrong article sir: the "civil war" is covered by 2014 insurgency in Donbass. RGloucester — ☎ 03:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Support converting to military conflict infobox - based on the most recent news: there was allegedly an open attack by military forces by Russian Federation under Russian flag during last night. My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose If we did change this to a military infobox then wouldn't it be the same as 2014 insurgency in Donbass's infobox? What other regions aside from Donbass has come under military fighting? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Crimea (military invasion). And like I stated, two out of the three things that make up the unrest are military in nature. EkoGraf (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose As stated above, the military aspect of this conflict is already being done in a different article. This article is for the entire situation, military and civilian. Avion365 (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If its for the entire situation, military and civilian, than why should the civilian infobox overrule the military one? EkoGraf (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Because this article is about the protests and unrest that initiated the whole thing, the "basis" for the child articles. It functions in the same way that 2014 Crimean crisis does, as that also uses a civil conflict infobox. The article on the military conflict is separate, at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 03:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Because this article is about the protests and unrest that initiated the whole thing Seems you are contradicting yourself. Earlier you said this article is the umbrella article for all of the mayhem going on in Ukraine at the moment. But if you want this to be only about the protests, than it should be only about the protests and not the military invasion and insurgency. EkoGraf (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is contradictory at all. This article is a summary article for the whole chain-of-events. Most of that chain is made up of protests, and other various kinds of civil unrest. The two sub-sets that ended up as armed conflict, Crimea and Donbass, have their own articles. To put a military conflict infobox here is to imply that the protests in Kharkiv are part of a military conflict. They're not. RGloucester — ☎ 05:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is a summary article for the whole chain-of-events. You just said this article was about the protests, not all of the events. Which is it? If you want this article to be exclusively about the protests than we should remove the armed forces and militias from the infobox, remove the casualties that were caused due to armed conflict and leave in only protest-related things. Because leaving in military-related stuff in a civil-related infobox is a contradiction in itself. EkoGraf (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a contradiction. The events, on the whole, are a matter of civil unrest. They've evolved into an insurgency in some areas, but they haven't in others areas. The insurgency has a spin-off article. We don't have a "one-drop" rule, which says that one drop of military action suddenly converts all actions that are not military actions into military actions. RGloucester — ☎ 15:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

One drop of military action So a full-blown military invasion and an insurgency that has left potentially over a thousand people dead in just 3 months is just a one drop. Marvelous. EkoGraf (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose This has already been discussed to death. As a parent article, it acts as an umbrella for various aspects of and levels of 'unrest' (including child articles dealing with conflicts). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel like taking a stance here because I personally don't care, but if the military conflicts become a serious and major focus which is the main point of all of the unrest, and it overrules the protests/other civil unrest in importance by over 200%, it probably should be changed in my opinion. Dustin (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't "overrule" anything (history doesn't get "overwritten"), but this article will become entirely historical in the event that some kind of "war" breaks out. Essentially, this article will become a historical article about the unrest, and the Donbass article will escalate into an article about the war. Think of it, once again, as a chain of events. We have stages, here: Euromaidan → 2014 Ukrainian revolution → 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine →2014 Crimean crisis/2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine → 2014 insurgency in Donbass. This is the schematic… A bit WP:CRYSTAL, but it provides some clarity. RGloucester — ☎ 03:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

As an analogy, WWI and WWII could be merged by picking common factors that were unresolved and further fuelled by outcomes and by-products of WWI. Instead, it is treated historically as it should be: an inter-war period with new factors (such as the rise of industrialised USA as a leading economic power), the Great Depression, the death-throes of old Empires, plus a multitude of other factors giving rise to pre-war conditions. There is no overall header for "World Wars I and II". As much as there may be linear connections in the evolution of the events in Ukraine, each phase does not automatically and conclusively give rise to some form of inevitable next stage. Attempting to lump everything together into a convenient, easily digested mass is self-serving, simplistic WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

What I was saying had nothing to do with original research. I still understand what you are saying, though. Dustin (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately, until such a time as we have some serious (scholarly) research to take our queues from, we're flying by the seat of our pants to avoid making subjective decisions. Keeping the incidents separate, but amalgamating them under a neutral title (as the current title is) seems the best method for handling the information. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay. As a read through my original comment, I realize that it most likely made very little sense... My wording wasn't all too great. Dustin (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose till something very heavy happens, some threshold is needed, like the Spetsnaz go in and do some direct approved serious damage followed up by a T 90 armoured wedge from Russia with love: Leading to the protests covered here directly morphing into open conflict, maybe causing another 'child' article. SaintAviator talk 04:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

like the Spetsnaz go in They already went into the Crimea. the protests covered here directly morphing into open conflict They have already morphed into open conflict/an insurgency. EkoGraf (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not in Kharkiv, and not in Odessa. RGloucester — ☎ 05:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

So? Protests didn't evolve into conflict in Suwayda province in Syria, and still haven't today, but we are still calling it a war. P.S. Odessa debatable due to the one-day street fighting and massacre of people in Odessa. But better not to go there. EkoGraf (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Syria, and I don't care about Syria. I care about this article. Comparing these events to the Syrian Civil War is a nonstarter. The events have no similarity. RGloucester — ☎ 15:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Syria...The events have no similarity. Hm, obvious you don't know anything about it, you should brush up on Syria circa 2011. But protests turning into conflict, that's a no-brainer. EkoGraf (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

From what I can tell from multiple situations, Syria is not RGloucester's area of interest, so it isn't super-great of an idea to use that kind of example when speaking to him. No offense intended there, of course (I always try to say that if I think thre is even a slight chance of offense). Dustin (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

My point is, I was trying to provide an example of a protest unrest turning into a military conflict (which still has ongoing civil protests in conflict locations and ongoing civil protests in non-conflict locations). But I am obviously not going to get anywhere in this discussion with RGloucester so I'm dropping the debate with him, and lets see what others think. P.S. No offense taken Dusty. :) EkoGraf (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a Eurocentrist at heart. Arabs mean nothing to me, at least not at the moment. RGloucester — ☎ 04:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester... the way you put that doesn't exactly convey a very good meaning... "Arabs mean nothing to me". Saying "any group mean nothing to me" like that doesn't really sound the best. I just thought I should say. I still think I understand what you meant. Dustin (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, they don't. I have no interest in Arabs, no interest in Arabia, and no interest in classical Arabic. Therefore, they mean nothing to me. If I had interest in Arabs, I'd be writing about Arabs. However, I'm not. My traditional interests lie in central and eastern Europe, along with a smattering of the British Isles and the Far East. As far as I'm concerned, the Near East is a black hole. Therefore, I ignore it, as is my prerogative. RGloucester — ☎ 05:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Dusty is right, your language really isn't conveying good meaning. EkoGraf (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Language is language. You can interpret what you like from it, but I always mean what I say, regardless of the interpretation of others. I call a spade a spade. RGloucester — ☎ 16:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps pro Russia strength should be revised to also include pro Russia source besides Western source?

Pro Russia leader Gubarev claimed to master about 20,000 fighters. The link is http://en.itar-tass.com/world/739790. I notice rebel casualty given by rebel source is given in the casualties section. Methinks it would be fair to also quote rebel strength from rebel source in the strengths section. It is in my opinion that western sources such as BBC and USAToday are biased and inflate Ukrainian strength while underestimate rebel strength. Western sources are currently the only ones cited in the strengths section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Goverment Losses/Ukranian Forces Losses.

The way of citing the Goverment Losses have changed a bit from the last version I saw some days away, it have over 176 dead plus two paralell tolls(One from soldiers other from guards), however it´s updated until 7 July. Today(11 July) more info comes from DW and KyevPost from more losses on 10 July(23 dead + 100w) and 11 July(Over 30 dead).
Here are the links, http://www.dw.de/ukraine-official-rebel-rocket-attack-kills-dozens-of-government-troops/a-17779563
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/twenty-three-ukrainian-troops-killed-nearly-100-wounded-in-past-24-hours-military-operation-spokesman-355669.html
.200.48.214.19 (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The reports for 23 dead and over 30 dead are for the same incident. EkoGraf (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it becoming close to a conflict? Lots of casualties here. [[12]] SaintAviator talk 01:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The article was named a conflict and we had a discussion on this issue up above when an editor wanted to rename it to unrest (personally opposed to this). The opinion of the participants in the discussion was split right down the middle with 6 in support of the move and 6 opposing it. But than the closing admin expressed support for the move and, despite the opinions being split (which would mean the status quo should have remained), he decided to proceed and rename the article to unrest, which I think was not proper considering the lack of consensus and was somewhat unilateral. EkoGraf (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

For the final time, this article isn't about the armed conflict. There is an armed conflict, but that article is 2014 insurgency in Donbass. This article is about the unrest across Ukraine, not the violence in Donbass. Move discussions are not votes. Consensus is found in policy, and policy supports the current title. Regardless, this horse is dead, so I shall back away. RGloucester — ☎ 03:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is found in policy. Actually, consensus was never reached in this dispute and policy would dictate that the status quo remains for the time being. What happened here was that one admin decided to make a move based on his personal opinion and not per what was agreed or not agreed during the discussion. EkoGraf (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:Local consensus. A local consensus cannot override policy or guidelines, and the "conflict" title did not adhere to policy or the MoS because it was linguistically incorrect. That's why he moved it. It has nothing to do with "PoV". RGloucester — ☎ 15:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Guess we should than ignore COMMONNAME (Wikipedia policy) because the common name in the notable media outlets is linguistically incorrect. EkoGraf (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukranian Losses on infobox indicate over 300 killed and 250 captured, however the source claims only 50 captured and 258 killed, dont know if that 7 guard killed plus 47 killed have caused this problem. The same kind of source should be used when updated, using 2 or three different sources to add and create a number its a problematic way of reporting the death toll.200.48.214.19 (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Army servicemen do not include border guards, National Guards etc. This source shows this http://zik.com.ua/en/news/2014/07/02/ukraine_death_toll_amounts_to_200_killed_and_619_wounded_502473. According to this source http://en.itar-tass.com/world/740757, 258 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed, which I would assume do not include border guards, National Guards etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, I think 258 is the total number of servicemen killed. On July 2, the number of servicemen killed hit 200. It is not even 2 weeks since that time, so methinks 258 servicemen killed is the right number, and not 316. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The 258 number is for soldiers only. First, it came from a military spokesmen who stated the number of wounded as well (the only other stated number of wounded servicemen earlier had been for soldiers only). Second, doesn't matter if its only been two weeks, because more than likely that 100+ soldiers died during that time considering that the Ukrainian military has been reporting 5-10 soldier deaths per day, with the exception of one day on which as many as 30 died in total. Guardsmen, policemen, secret service agents and border guards are not part of the standard armed forces. EkoGraf (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Very serious development

See here - looks like the war with Russian Federation has already started. My very best wishes (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not until there are confirmed conflicts, statements from officials that war has been declared, etc. via WP:RS. It's tiring everyone out having to go through the WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL several times a day. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Many wars start undeclared. Even Germany attacked Soviet Union in 1941 without declaration. This is also in Financial Times (I can not read FT without subscription): [13]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything in terms of an undeclared war, if there were then English sources would be all over it by now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You are at the wrong article. The armed conflict has its own article, at 2014 insurgency in Donbass. I echo Ms Harpy's comments about WP:CRYSTAL, however. RGloucester — ☎ 03:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, possibly another page. But the ungoing war (military "aggression" in western sources [14]) involves Russian tanks, artillery and aviation [15]. My very best wishes (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Plane

Does that plane that just got shot down have to do with this? I couldn't figure out who exactly shot it down. Dustin (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Just look up "Plane shot down over Ukraine". There is a large number of reports from withing the past two hours. Dustin (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this source says 295 people killed. from Reuters: 295 killed, as quoted directly from the news article: "Ukraine has accused Russia of taking an active role in the four-month-old conflict in recent days and accused it earlier on Thursday of shooting down a Ukrainian fighter jet - an accusation that Moscow denied." Dustin (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There's already an article created a mere two hours ago: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Dustin (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Where you talking to someone, and if so did they delete their edits?68.204.234.240 (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to start a sort of discussion, but nobody ever responded. Dustin (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll respond. I would say that it does if it is confirmed to have been shot down by rebels. I'd hold off until then. United States Man (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I've already added a small blurb at the appropriate article, 2014 insurgency in Donbass. RGloucester — ☎ 00:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: (Sorry for the late response) Okay, thanks. Dustin (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukranian army losses

The official count has been published. Twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyKaan12 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Dated July 9-15. Also it`s not official document from reliable source94.45.129.180 (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing "Anti Maidan and payed protests" from Background

The section should be placed elsewhere since it doesn't belong in Background (plus, the Background section is too long without it). It's also got wrong info, such as claiming protesters were payed $500 when by it's own source it is 500 hryvnias.

This way it just looks like a hastened contribution from someone who felt the article did not support his side strong enough.

151.252.229.237 (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

is this article partly to be blamed for the shotdown of Malaysia-Airlines-plane MH17 ?

I really have to criticise the name of the article because almost 300 people died and yes i blame this name of the wikipedia article giving them a little bit of fault at least. Even back then i knew this article should be called civil war instead pro russian unrest and later you changed to conflict. But i was silent since i thought people in charge here knew what they were doing. Sorry guys for all of you but you did a horrible job with the name giving. Yes its only wikipedia but a lot of people go this site reading it and getting influenced by the perception in whats going on, and remember this is the biggest site when people want to get facts. And this article influenced people in believing this was just conflict not a war zone, maybe even stuff of malysia airlines itself who approved the plane flying over this war zone. The article name should be changed to Ukrainian civil war.--Crossswords (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• You are at the wrong article. The correct article for the military conflict is 2014 insurgency in Donbass. This article isn't about the military conflict. You can't fault us if you can't read the hatnote at the top of the page that informs one about that article. RGloucester — ☎ 04:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Where in WP:RS do you see the term "civil war" being used though? I do not think it is the WP:COMMONNAME. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid, this is not the appropriate venue for discussing naming about the armed conflict. The appropriate place is Talk:2014 insurgency in Donbass. In fact, there is an open requested move there about moving that article to the civil "war" title. Why not comment there? RGloucester — ☎ 04:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) We do the same thing with other aviation incidents as well. Also, the header of this section is misleading. Dustin (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

well but this is the most popular article right now if you search for east ukrainian war and its also the oldest. It doesnt need to be called civil war but its clear its a war right now, it should be called up like that.—Crossswords (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't about the "war", so if you're searching for the "war", you're in the wrong place. Please direct yourself to 2014 insurgency in Donbass. RGloucester — ☎ 06:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Is a Wikipedia article to blame for a shotdown of an airplane? Wouldn't the insurgency (or war, as you prefer) not exist if Wikipedia didn't exist? And we've tried hard to mantain this article as balanced as possible, disregarding unfounded edits (without proper sources - and some here are from RT, actually), both biased in favor the Ukrainian government and biased in favor of the separatists.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the silliest things I've read about all day. Wikipedia is not the UN. We're not that important. Next, we're going to read that the American Civil War started because European newspapers refused to take a strong enough stand on slavery. Or maybe we'll read that the Irish civil war was because American newspapers were neutral. Go home, you're drunk. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Article title - unrest, insurgency, civil war

According to a notable political scientist,[16], this conflict has reached the point where it is a civil war. This is new since the last discussion.

Our infobox already refers to this as an "insurgency", a stronger word than "unrest." I think it is time to move the title to 2014 pro-Russian insurgency in Ukraine. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Magog the Ogre: Wrong article, Mr Ogre. The correct article for what you are looking for is 2014 insurgency in Donbass. This article isn't about the armed conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 04:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The insurgency is part of the unrest. This article is about the wider unrest, so therefore is about the armed conflict as well.—FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't "about" the armed conflict. That article is 2014 insurgency in Donbass. This article is a summary article that covers the whole unrest. So, while there are bits about the insurgency in here, the article itself is not "about" the armed conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 15:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@FutureTrillionaire, Magog the Ogre: There is already a discussion at Talk:2014 insurgency in Donbass discussing a possible rename to War in Donbass or something similar. Perhaps you should go there instead. Dustin (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: - if you want to get our attention, you'll want to ping us via a link to our username, as I did with you, or like this: User:FutureTrillionaire. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't figure the priority was high enough, or I would have done so. Now that I give it thought, though, I guess high-count editors such as you will be less likely to see this on a watchlist. Dustin (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: You're quoting a blog associated with the Washington post.[17] Blogs are not considered reliable sources.Hilltrot (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre (and FutureTrillionaire), suggested reading (and re-reading): RM 22 June. The same fundamental principles for moving the article back from "2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine" to "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" still apply. As an umbrella article, the title remains valid. Insurgency/conflict/war belong in this article only as subsections or allusions... unless, of course, peaceful protests carrying placards qualifies as conflict. Applying 'insurgency' to the title of this article is WP:OFFTOPIC. The alternative would be to create an unintuitive, WP:OR title contravening WP:TITLE such as "2014 pro-Russian protests, conflicts, could be sort of civil war-ish types of slightly unpleasant altercations, name-calling and blowing things up a bit in Ukraine". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well, now the Red Cross has called this conflict officially a Civil War ([18], [19]). In the Syrian conflict article, it was the Red Cross' position that settle the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.157.1 (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Dates

The article contains dozens of dates showing the day and month only. Sometime within the next five months it is going to be necessary to add the year to all of them. Ex nihil ^(talk) 09:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it won't. You may notice that the article title specifies the year. RGloucester — ☎ 14:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Map of the theatre?

The Ukrainian armed forces currently releases a war map on a somewhat frequent basis <http://mediarnbo.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/28-07-eng.jpg>. Should this map in some edited way be included in the article? - Bruzaholm (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong article. Please see War in Donbass, where such a map exist. RGloucester — ☎ 15:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Civilian losses have source reference that doesn't actually list civilian losses

550 Ukrainian civilians killed (15 April – 16 July; not including Crimea and Odessa)[43] 43. At least 270 soldiers killed in Russia’s war against Ukraine (and the article behind the link also doesn't talk about civilian losses). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:105F:3:11BB:8BFE:4C50:8C23 (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That's because the original article's content was changed by the KyivPost. I will try and find the original version. EkoGraf (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Oleh Babayev

Why is not included the assassination of Oleh Babayev in the article if he was the mayor of the Ukraine town of Kremenchuk and he supported various activists who opposed Yanukovych's government during the Euromaidan?

Would you please answer my question, the questions added below have been answered and mine isn't answered yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.69.107.211 (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The simple answer is that no one has been caught; no group have claimed responsibility; no reliable sources are linking it to the events in Ukraine described in this article directly. The Reuters article also reports on attacks on other political figures but draws no conclusions as to who is responsible. While logic may dictate that the murder and attacks are part of the 'unrest', there is nothing to say that his shooting wasn't related to a personal dispute of an entirely unrelated nature. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor we engage in original research or journalism. If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia, please familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Over counting of Ukrainian military loss

Actual number of Ukrainian military loss in Donbas, as of yesterday, was 363 killed, not 476 as listed on wikipedia.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/at-least-363-soldiers-killed-in-russias-war-against-ukraine-358839.html

11 more were killed today, so number of loss should be 374 as of today.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukrainian-army-loses-11-soldiers-in-past-24-hours-358812.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Read the sources in the infobox. 363 is the number of dead SOLDIERS only. You also got a source there for the number of dead border guards, dead policemen, dead SBU agents, dead National Guardsmen. Different branches of the Ukrainian security forces. Overall when including them all the number is almost 500. EkoGraf (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Border guards, various territorial defense battalion fighters, national guards are included, as listed in the first source. Donbas battalion is part of national guards. http://www.kyivpost.com/multimedia/photo/donbas-battalion-trains-for-war-as-newest-members-of-ukrainian-national-guard-351182.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

When that Ukraine spokesman stated the 363 number (the original source) he explicetly called them members of the Armed Forces, which the National Guardsmen (Ministry of Internal Affairs) and Border Guardsmen (independent law enforcement agency) are not. EkoGraf (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah Ekograf its ok, the Same KyivPost have an article stating that border guards killed since the start of the uprising/war/conflict stands at 30-40 aprox and are considered a different branch.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you please link me that article? EkoGraf (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I double checked all of the reports on the dead, and it seems you were right, we were over-counting. It seems up until July 10, the Army members were counted separately, at which point, their figure was 173. Before that 13 guardsmen, 9 border guards and 7 SBU agents were reported separately, with an additional 27 policemen. However, when the military spokesman next reported the overall number of fatalities in the operation on 15 July it was 258. In the period between 11 July and 15 July in their daily reports the spokesman reported 49 fatalities (including 4 border guards). If you add those 49 to the 173 soldiers, 13 guardsmen, 9 border guards and 7 SBU agents previously reported you get 251. Which is really close to the 258 figure. Also, when the figure of 332 was reported on 27 July, three days later they reported a figure of 363 (31 more). During that time, no deaths were reported in the daily reports on 29 and 30 July, while 33 deaths (23 guardsmen) were reported on 28 July. So it would seem that the spokesman is counting guardsmen, border guards (also listed on the KyivPost list) and SBU agents in his overall toll. The only ones that don't seem to be included are the previously reported 27 policemen from early July. EkoGraf (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I am confused by the 27 policemen toll as well. AFAIK, no policemen were killed nor were policemen involved in any combat. Throughout the takeover of police buildings in Donbas, no police casualties were ever reported. The only source that reported policemen killed is this one http://zik.com.ua/en/news/2014/07/02/ukraine_death_toll_amounts_to_200_killed_and_619_wounded_502473 and it is worth noting that the wording changed from servicemen in earlier reports to soldiers in later reports, so it is not known if the reported number of policemen killed were included in the later reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

When comparing their summed up totals with their daily totals I am pretty convinced they are not including the policemen. So I will leave the 27 confirmed policemen in the reference until if and when they make a breakdown again of all branches that have suffered fatalities. EkoGraf (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The unrests in Ukraine is Civil war

Slovak, Hungarian and German sources claim that this conflicts not only unrests but civil war (battles, modern weapons, operations). For ex.: hun: Ukrán polgárháború: így állunk most (Ukrainian Civil War: the current situation); sk: Vojenská situácia v Doneckej a v Luganskej oblasti (občianska vojna na východe Ukrajiny) (Military situation in Donetsk and Lugansk (Civil war in Eastern Ukraine); de: Ukraine Bürgerkrieg: Der Alptraum von Donezk (Ukraine Civil war: Nightmare of Donetsk). Doncsecz^talk 14:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong article. Please direct yourself to War in Donbass. RGloucester — ☎ 14:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Unrest in other parts of Ukraine

According to various sources http://rt.com/news/178612-maidan-clashes-police-activists/ , http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/07/remaining-maidan-activists-clash-with-ukrainian-forces-in-independence-square_n_5658630.html , http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11018714/Clashes-in-Kiev-as-Ukraine-moves-to-clear-Independence-Square-protest-camp.html , http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/50-police-injured-about-ten-activists-arrested-in-maidan-clashes-359768.html etc there are clashes, unrest and wounded people in several parts of Kiev. Morover according to http://lb.ua/news/2014/08/08/275558_uzhgorode_praviy_sektor_shturmoval.html and liveuamap there was a wounded police offices in Uzhogorod (Zakarpatska oblast)... It is obvious that this unrest can't be classified as pro-Russian but it is not clear if it is part of the maidan movement...Give opinions...perhaps a renaming of this article as Unrest in Ukraine could work in order to incorporate the increasing unrest across Ukraine...between different groups etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.140.38 (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It is quite clear that that belongs at the Euromaidan article, as it is a direct continuance of the problems of Euromaidan. RGloucester — ☎ 15:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2014

Pro-Maidan oligarch and newly appointed governor of Donetsk, Serhiy Taruta, alleged that rallies in Donetsk contained ex-convicts and others who traveled from Crimea. Ukraine's security forces and border guards have, since 4 March, denied more than 8,200 Russians entry into Ukraine (as of 25 March). On 27 March, National Security and Defense Council Secretary and co-founder and leader of various radical nationalist organizations, Andriy Parubiy, said that between 500 and 700 Russians were being denied entry daily.

"alleged that rallies in Donetsk contained ex-convicts and others who traveled from Crimea"... So you compare Crimeans to convicts? And by mentioning Crimeans, do you really mean "they're not actually Ukrainians"? No wonder Crimea separated from Ukraine, if Ukrainians don't aknowledge them as Ukrainians! Are you going to say the same now about the UKRAINIAN people (either Ukrainian or Russian speaking, either ethnic Ukrainians or Russians) living in Donbass? My friend, even, if Ukraine (or the current Ukrainian establishment, since only the president was elected) win this war (I guess it will win), if Ukraine has that attitude towards them from now on, Donetsk and Lugansk Oblasts (majority Russian speaking UKRAINIANS) won't belong to Ukraine for a very long time!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Public Opinion

A poll funded by the European Union, MATRA programme of the Kingdom of Netherlands, International Renaissance Foundation, and the National Endowment for Democracy (USA)and conducted by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) from 8–18 February 2014, assessed support for union with Russia throughout Ukraine...

...In an opinion poll funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development and conducted by Baltic Surveys/The Gallup Organization on behalf of the International Republican Institute from 14–26 March by the International Republican Institute, 26–27% of those polled in southern and eastern Ukraine viewed the Euromaidan protests as a coup d'état.[69]

...A poll conducted on the initiative and funding of "Europe Without Barriers" by the Institute of Social Research and Policy Analysis analysed the identities of Donetsk inhabitants.

A comprehensive poll funded by the politically conservative US non-governmental organization Pew Charitable Trusts and released on 8 May by the Pew Research Centre surveyed opinions in Ukraine and Crimea on the subject of the unrest.

To editor: I have requested you change X to Y in order to reveal the biases in your sources so that the reader can critically assess the information given. Sorry if I have not done this correctly. Suggested edits are in bold type. It's the first time I have ever done this. Maybe you could show me how this should have looked?

Mij Swerdna (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

We have no need to right great wrongs, here. The polls are from reliable sources, and one can find out where they are from if one links on the link. RGloucester — ☎ 14:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, Right Sector casualties

It's being reported today from a variety of sources that at least 12 armed members of the Right Sector were killed near Donetsk today by rebels, with more captured. This has been confirmed by the Right Sector. Can someone add this to the casualty figures, with mention that these fighters were fighting for the Right Sector? It's important to document this because so far mention of their involvement has been mostly political.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28768746

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/08/nationalist-fighters-killed-ukraine-201481382842666260.html

http://un.ua/eng/article/526504.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.91.55 (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia, 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)