Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Battle of Donetsk

Should we now create an article for the battle now that RS are calling it as such after the airport was taken?

Sources (To name a few):

(Euronews) (CNN) ("Battle at" used) (Reuters)

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about what to think about it... I would suggest waiting until more inside information is released. Dustin (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough the RS have said so far the DPR has asked residents to leave the city and Ukraine saying that it would firebomb "terrorist" holdouts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Such an article could be created. What happening at the airport has a ton of media coverage now.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You can if you would like, I think im going to wait it out another day and see if any more attacks or such come as the aftermath of the airport takeover. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

If you think there are enough sources out already, you could create a draft for the article if you wanted to. In that way, the article could be worked on a bit before being moved to main space. I think there is even a "draft space" that can be used for drafts, or you could create a user space draft. Whatever you do is up to you, though. Dustin (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Airport battle needs or warrants its own article (moreso than others we've made for skirmishes). As for the name, no sources are calling anything the "Battle of Donetsk", just some saying they are in a battle "for Donetsk". I'm unsure what the neutral media accepted title would be. "2014 Donetsk Airport Battle"?

I think a good title would be "Battle of the Donetsk Airport"--ArbutustheTree 16:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbutus the tree (talk • contribs)

Go for "Battle of Donetsk Airport". RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's a short draft i made about the airport battle, but it needs to be updated. Feel free to edit this--ArbutustheTree 17:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Draft:Battle of Donetsk Airport

Good of you for deciding to create a draft. Drafts allow for certain things to be better coordinated before actually creating the article. The only issue might be that thing where "other" editors are less likely to edit the draft if it's in user space. Dustin (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it to the draft namespace (Draft:Battle of Donetsk Airport), as that is more suited. I'm a big proponent of using the draft space. It makes life much easier, on the whole, allows for peer review before creating an article. RGloucester — ☎ 18:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester, do you mind if you could start this draft and enventually transform it into an article. I can help along the way.--ArbutustheTree 19:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time right now for anything more than cursory fixes, but I'll help when I do have time. RGloucester — ☎ 21:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft I started is about 75% done. Just needs a little more editing.--ArbutustheTree 03:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Draft:Battle of Donetsk Airport

I will also help, but as far as I can see, the draft is fine for the most part. Only thing I would point out is that the upper (higher) estimate of rebel deaths was in fact 50+, not 100. The original rebel claim was that around 100 people overall were killed, half of them being civilians, not just rebels. EkoGraf (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Allright. I'm going to transform the draft into an article soon.--ArbutustheTree 22:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. Looks like I copied the draft and created it into an article. However, i didn't see a "move" button. --ArbutustheTree 22:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There should be a button underneath a tab that looks like a star, assuming you are using vector. An admin will have to delete the page to make way for the move. Dustin (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Another chopper downed

On May 29, a Ukrainian government helicopter was shot down, apparently by pro-Russia separatists, near Sloviansk, killing 14. [1] [2] Sca (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC) The battle box state 12 killed but some sources put the number at 13 others at 14. What numbers should be used for the article??200.48.214.19 (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

200 children were taken hostage by the Ponomariov-led Russian terrorists

There are reports that the self appointed mayor of Sloviansk Vyacheslav Ponomariov decided to "evacuate" 200 children from Sloviansk to Artek, Crimea. Artek authorities reported that they know nothing about that idea, while the Ukrainian state authorities also have no such proposition made from Vyacheslav Ponomariov. The leadership of the anti-terrorist operation announced that is ready to create a corridor for refugees. (ATO leadership is ready to create a corridor for refugees from the Sloviansk. Ukrayinska Pravda) The fact and its possible consequences were discussed at live broadcasting on the political show "Shuster LIVE" (May 29, 2014) between several politicians and journalists. (Journalist Matvey Ganapolsky on Shuster LIVE provided information about the export in unknown direction 200 children from Sloviansk. Shuster LIVE). Also the director of the Development of Ukraine Fund of Rinat Akhmetov reported that the fund provided help to take away children from the region on petition of parents and already managed to export some 600 children from Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. (Director of Rinat Akhmetov's Foundation "Development of Ukraine" Anatoliy Zabolotnyi stated that since May 23, the Fund exported 600 children from Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. If parents call the Foundation "Development of Ukraine", the child and the mother can take out of the zone ATO. Shuster LIVE). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There are some talks of possible repetition of Beslan school hostage crisis. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah this news is circulating now, seems they were snuck out of the city and somehow smuggled into Crimea --Львівське (говорити) 17:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Change name of the article

Hello, as you all can see the situation in Ukraine has grown up into a war, this ain't anymore just "unrest" and can't be categorized as one, this article should be called "2014 Civil War in Ukraine" or something similar. I think it's a good idea. Let's see who will support this. Adnan Hz 97 (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Totally agree The number of victims on both sides is double-digit and the total amount of civillinas/armed groups/etc who lost their lives exceed 300. It is not a simple case of 'unrest' anymore. There even signs of full scale military conflict in the eastern part of the country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.172.113 (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it works. We go based on reliable sources, which do not describe it as a civil war. RGloucester — ☎ 14:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

correct. And honestly, given how low local support is statistically and how great the number of militants are from Russia, this is more of an interstate conflict that intrastate, which would not make this a civil war. I honestly don't know what to classify it as, but it's a war of some kind. Definitely asymmetric warfare and I think it would also be classified as a proxy war given Russia's prominence in the militia makeup and separatist leadership.--Львівське (говорити) 15:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Well then let's just wait for the situation to "escalate" even more or to "drop down" depending on what happens there will also change the whole name of the situation and also of the article. Cheers. Adnan Hz 97 (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think an easy compromise to the 'hawks' is to upgrade 'unrest' to 'conflict' which is still pretty broad --Львівське (говорити) 05:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/26/new-ukraine-president-petro-poroshenko-vows-stop-war Even Poroshekno calls the war with its name...WAR This seems not to be sufficient for usual biased canadian editors like lvivske... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.242.254 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Reminding me a lot of the Ukrainian–Soviet War. I guess that was the intention with the Ukrainian Front in Kharkiv, to start this there. The UKR-SOV war had Ukraine vs. Soviet Ukraine in a 'civil war' that was backed largely by Russian soldiers and white-Russian 'volunteers'. History repeats.--Львівське (говорити) 05:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

'My first decisive step will be aimed at ending the war, ending chaos, and bringing peace to a united and free Ukraine' http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27571612 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.242.254 (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

he didnt say civil war, just war. I think a 'war' article would need to be a split, since...would it cover crimea + luhansk and donetsk? or just luhansk and donetsk? and this article obviously covers the entire country and unrest in non-warzones. --Львівське (говорити) 20:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That quote is a primary source, which isn't what we use to determine what to call an article. We use reliable secondary sources. RGloucester — ☎ 21:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In case of Syria not all participants recognize the nature of the war as Civil ,but still wiki named it as Syrian Civil War In the case of Ukraine all parts recognize that there is a war, a civil one taking place right now in Eastern Ukraine...but still a couple of editors persist on the idiotic termunrest'...it is OBVIOUS that a full scale military conflict is taking place. Helicopters are being shot down, artilery and bombing ius used, people are dying but stilll.lvivske insists ...NOT

A full-blown civil war it is not, at least not yet. However, a simple unrest it is not anymore, it has evolved into an event of a military nature. Many have called it a war in recent weeks. I think the appropriate name (compromise for now) would be something like 2014 Ukraine conflict (conflict being a term that has also been used a lot) or something like that. For further compromise, the lead paragraph (first sentence) should hold something like The Ukraine conflict, also known as the Ukraine unrest, is a... etc, etc. (with appropriate sources of course). And yes, it should include the Crimea front because its all connected. EkoGraf (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC) *Moderate support, though it's too vague. A lot of English-speaking networks have described it as "Ukraine Conflict". I'd rather suggest "2014 Ukraine military conflict".Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary use of "the"

I don't understand why some people just affix "the" before "Ukraine," it is unnecessary, and I'm not even sure it is correct. The word "the" doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the nation's name, so I don't see why it is being included. I may be wrong, but I thought the name of Ukraine was only "Ukraine". I believe a similar situation occurs with "Crimea;" I thought that when saying it's full name, you would say "the Crimean Peninsula," but when saying its short name, you would leave out the "the" and just say "Crimea". What's the issue here? This doesn't seem consistent with the Ukraine or Crimea articles. Dustin (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Standard English usage until after Ukrainian independence used the definite article with both Crimea and Ukraine, and that usage has lingered among older people. It is no different than "the Argentine" when referring to what one now calls "Argentina". However, both are depreciated at this point. It was rooted in the fact that "Ukraine" means "borderland", and hence the country was called "the borderland", similar to "the Netherlands". RGloucester — ☎ 22:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

'the' isn't used anywhere in the article so not sure why it's brought up here. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 23:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

As of my earlier comment, it was definitely in the lead section of the article. It still says "the Crimea" in the lead section. Dustin (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I found two "thes" and promptly removed them. I don't think "the Crimea" is poor form, but I'm torn: Kuzio uses it, Magocsi does not --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 00:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay then. In any case, thank you for the response. Dustin (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

In personal usage, I say "the Ukraine", "the Crimea" and "the Argentine", as I'm rather conservative in diction. For the sake of Wikipedia, though, it makes sense to keep abreast of common usage, which has certainly dropped the definite article at this point. RGloucester — ☎ 00:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I will agree with your reasoning, but do think it is best to use the non-the version at this point. Dustin (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Vostok Battalion's putsch against Donetsk People's Republic?

According to this source[3] it could be so. --Nug (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaders of the DPR including Denis Pushilin have made statements to the effect that the Vostok guys are acting with their approval, against undisciplined people who have been looting shops. [4] [5] Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Free videos covering 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

British journalist Graham Phillips has shared some of his videos using CC license (to illustrate topics on 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine).

I've started commons:Category:Photos by Graham Phillips and commons:Category:Videos by Graham Phillips in Commons. First three videos are uploaded already. Ready to use.--Fastboy (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

do we have the one where he stumbles over the trip wire and sets off the flare which causes him to run off crying? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 04:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No, this video is not free (yet). I've posted some updates in wikicommons: Commons:Village pump--Fastboy (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Upgrading Civil conflict infobox to military conflict

Ukraine ordered military operations in the east. It officially war. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A war may only exist between two sovereign nation states. The current situation in Ukraine, where the military is suppressing (or oppressing) the citizens of Ukraine is an armed conflict but not a war. Don't get me wrong, it is messed up for any state to use the military against their own people... but that doesn't make it a war. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It makes it civil war. it's still a military conflict. Especially if it's a liberation/independence war Lugnuthemvar (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait until sources start calling it a war. We aren't allowed to judge whether or not conflicts are wars. 99.71.123.123 (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, all categorization should be based on sources when possible. Zkbt (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

“war. Hostile conflict by means of armed forces...” Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). “force. A group of individuals occupied with or ready for combat.” MW3. One interpretation (of many) could perhaps be that a conflict becomes a war when groups of people become “occupied” with combat — when it becomes their primary job. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The Economist calls it a “war”... --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Several other things need to be moved too

Timeline needs to be moved too. I don't know if you forgot, but... Dustin (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I already moved it to properly match. Dustin (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The categories for the unrest needs to be moved. However, it is kind of difficult to move categories... I made a nomination here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Category:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. If I made an obvious mistake in the nomination, please correct it. Thank you. Dustin (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I would just be WP:BOLD and move them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There are way too many pages affected in my opinion... I count a total of 78 pages in the affected categories. Dustin (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Have a bot then that can help? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that much about having bots on this sort of task... in any case, when the main category was moved from "Category:2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine" to "Category:2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine", I believe that it was initially nominated for speedy move which was turned down. I think that it is necessary for me to go through the process to most easily move the categories. I don't know though... since I've already made a nomination, I think we may as well wait for a brief period. If I am right in saying so, then if you supported the move, you can comment on the page I linked. I haven't moved any categories or participated in any category-moving discussions prior to this, so I don't know though. Dustin (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It was only a few days ago that non-bots became able to move categories. Moving them in this way is dumb, though, because it won't move all the pages currently categorised to the new name. It is best to go through the usual CFD process. RGloucester — ☎ 02:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I had figured something like that was the case. I noticed that one of the previous attempts to speedily rename the category ended in failure so I decided to go through the normal processes. Support when able, if you can. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox map's label

I am not completely sure about this, but should the text "2014 Pro-Russian Unrest in Ukraine" in the infobox map be changed to read "2014 Pro-Russian Conflict in Ukraine"? I'm not completely sure about this, so I thought I would bring it up here. Dustin (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I can do it when I have the time, but I don't think it is urgent. RGloucester — ☎ 04:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Putin's quote removed

Which is in fact mis-quote. BBC wrote that "Putin supports the initiative", but does not say he supports talks. What is more, the BBC article says that Putin insists on Participation of rebels in n talks. Wikipedia context speaks about talks without rebels. Hence the quote as was given conveys a provably false impression that Punit supports talks without rebels. -No.Altenmann >t 04:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The "OSCE initiative" consisted of the talks. The article says:

The talks in Kiev are part of an initiative put forward by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and veteran German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger was brought in to moderate. Those present included interim President Olexander Turchynov, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and several former Ukrainian leaders. The OSCE said Russian President Vladimir Putin supported its initiative.

You are referring to a different statement that does not having anything to do with Putin, but in fact was uttered by Lavrov:

But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov questioned whether presidential elections on May 25 should take place because Ukraine was on "the brink of civil war." In an interview with Bloomberg Television, Mr Lavrov said in the east and south of Ukraine "there is a war, a real war." He also called for the inclusion of rebels in the crisis talks, saying they would only succeed if there was "equal participation of all regions".

So, no, it was not a "misquote". Putin supported the talks, according to the OSCE. That has no bearing on his position about whether they'd succeed or not, which wasn't even his position, but Lavrov's. RGloucester — ☎ 04:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No. Putin supported the "initiative". "Talks" is your original research. Sorry about Lavrov. But do you really think Lavrov uttered non-Putin POV? Anyway, I fixed the text, with proper quitation and attribution. -No.Altenmann >t 04:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I hope the dust is settled. That's the problem with rendering of hearsay delivered by a hearsay ("BBC said that OSCE said that Putin said..." :-): one may never be too careful, especially in quickly changing political situation. -No.Altenmann >t 04:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

Have I assessed the importance correctly? (Per the respective project's guidelines.) I have set it 'top' for Ukraine project, 'high' for Russia and 'mid' for Politics. Dmatteng (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Move discussions

CLOSED

Moved to 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine by Anthony Appleyard. RGloucester — ☎ 23:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change the name to "Ukrainian Civil War"

Support Reaper7 (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose, it's terrorist activities conducted by the Russian spetsnaz Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, Borodai's coup d'etat with his Vostok Battalion makes this a proxy war with Russia. --Nug (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Abstain In my opinion, it has all the characteristics of a civil war now, but most of the media isn't calling it a civil war, yet. If you can justify your move with references, I'll support. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Neutral - You haven't actually given a reason for the proposed name change, and in discussions such as this, reasons cannot just be assumed. I might consider taking a position if you actually provide reasoning. So again, neutral for now. Dustin (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Neutral It is not exactly a civil war, and western media are not allowed to call it so anyway because of anti-russian propaganda. I've only found this: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/ukrainian-civil-war-started.html (Now let's see how soon will The Washington Post editor be fired, just like NY Times editor was fired recently). Civil war means confrontation of civilians versus civilians. A small civil war was in Odessa on 2 May. And now there is something similar to American revolutionary war for independence(no, there is no way for federalization anymore, nobody wants to live in a country ruled by cruel fascist scumbags bombing civilians, hospitals, kindergardens and Red Cross vehicles). The article should be renamed somehow though, because that's not "pro-russian" and not an "unrest" 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:5D77:51A9:5B9A:AFC0 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well of course Russian propaganda would like to portray the conflict as confrontation of civilians versus civilians along with the view that the country is ruled by "cruel fascist scumbags", but it is in fact a conflict driven by Moscow controlled proxies using terrorised civilians as hostages and human shields. --Nug (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A civil war is not a war between civilians Nug. Per definition, a civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or republic or between two countries created from a formerly united state, which can also include regular armed forces. EkoGraf (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well the appearance of the Vostok Battalion manned by Chechens who conducted a coup against other rebels at the direction of Moscovite Aleksandr Borodai, and fact that 30 dead Vostok fighters were repatriated back to Russia after the Donetsk airport battle and the downing of a Ukraine helicopter by a Russian MANPAD system clearly makes a war between Ukraine and Moscow backed foreign terrorists. --Nug (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Counter-proposal title - A full-blown civil war it is not, at least not yet. However, a simple unrest it is not anymore, it has evolved into an event of a military nature. Many have called it a war in recent weeks. I think the appropriate name (compromise for now) would be something like 2014 Ukraine conflict (conflict being a term that has also been used a lot) or something like that. For further compromise, the lead paragraph (first sentence) should hold something like The Ukraine conflict, also known as the Ukraine unrest, is a... etc, etc. (with appropriate sources of course). EkoGraf (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"Ukraine conflict" is much too vague. That could once again pertain to many different things. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Moderate support, though it's too vague. A lot of English-speaking networks have described it as "Ukraine Conflict". I'd rather suggest "2014 Ukrainian military conflict".Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Strongly oppose any change at this juncture – It isn't possible to call it a civil war at this time, as sources don't do so. Some vague mentions of "war" do occur, but that is more or less bluster. I would not be opposed to "2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine", however I'm sure people will object to that on the grounds that they dismiss "pro-Russian", despite my refutations. I personally think that "unrest" is still our best bet. As I've said many times, it is just vague enough to include all the events that occur, without overblowing the situation. RGloucester — ☎ 21:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In regards to your earlier assertion that "Ukraine conflict" is much too vague., that is your personal POV. While media sources are naming it as such [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. In any case, unrest cann't stay because its just not simply that anymore. EkoGraf (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It isn't my "POV" whatever that is.. We don't follow journalistic shorthand, as I've said so many times. There is a reason this article isn't titled "Ukraine crisis" or "Ukraine conflict". That's because this is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. We have to think about events from a historical perspective, and from a historical perspective "Ukraine crisis" or "Ukraine conflict" could refer to many, many events. "2014 Ukraine conflict" could refer to Euromaidan, perhaps, or various other things. Neither are WP:CONCISE or WP:PRECISE. As I said, I'm fine with "2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine". RGloucester — ☎ 01:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't follow journalistic shorthand, as I've said so many times. Actually, per Wikipedia policy, we do. Read Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names. Per that policy, we use the name that is the most common/frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. So, you may not like the name, but its the name that is mostly used in the mainstream media. And it can not be mixed up with the Euromaidan events, which were never called a conflict, but a revolution for the most part. P.S. An editor has proposed the title 2014 Ukrainian separatist conflict below, with which I would also agree to. EkoGraf (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't. We follow reliable scholarly sources, and consult the titles used by fellow tertiary sources as well. We take into account media usage, but if it is a clear case of journalistic shorthand which is either not concise, precise or neutral, we adopt what are called "neutral descriptive titles", per WP:NDESC. Also see WP:POVNAME:

Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later

Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious

RGloucester — ☎ 15:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You are aware that you just declared all of the reliable news sources (originating from countries that have nothing to do with the conflict) that are using the term as lacking neutrality? Also, it is obvious all of those media are connecting the particular issue with the name Ukraine conflict, so that is also contradictory to the quote you put out. P.S. I'm also fine with your title "2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine". EkoGraf (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose A civil war is between two or more parties within the same state, seeing fighters are coming from Russia I do not see how it can be labeled as such. In any case WP:RS are not calling this a civil war (At least not yet), I would be in favor of 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine though as at this point it is clearly more than just unrest. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter that fighters are coming from Russia. Foreign fighters in a civil war have always been present. Syrian civil war being a prime example, but still, 2014 Ukraine conflict is I think the most appropriate title (based on sources) since its not just unrest anymore. EkoGraf (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

"2014 Ukraine conflict" is not clear enough; it could refer to other stages of the events which have been playing out in Ukraine in the past few months. If the article is to be renamed, the new name requires more clarity. Dustin (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Move to "2014 Ukrainian separatist conflict" or "2014 separatist conflict in Ukraine"

Sources:

"Ukrainian conflict": ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]
"Ukrainian separatists (or Ukraine separatists)": ^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]

Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

As with other discussions, I cannot and will not take a position unless some reasons are given. Dustin (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Support ether of the two. It has evolved from a simple unrest into a conflict of a military nature. EkoGraf (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - less informative than the current title. 'pro-Russian unrest' is more helpful than "Ukrainian separatism", especially since it quashes the entire devolution/federalization angle to boot as well as the root of the issue - Russianness (language, culture, politics, economics, etc.) --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 04:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- At some point, some sort of name change may become necessary; however, I currently feel inclined to agree with Lvivske on this point here (I'll say more later). Dustin (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree, unrest simply this is not anymore, and keeping the word in the title is out-dated and misrepresentation at this point of the events that are unfolding. EkoGraf (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Support Unrest indicates a low level event with strikes, protests. This is now a military conflict and has grown beyond the unrest level—MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose both - I would only support 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine at this stage. Both of these are vaguer than is necessary, and "separatism" doesn't capture all of what is happening. RGloucester — ☎ 15:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree on your suggestion ('pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine')--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 16:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I actually also don't mind the title 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine, its fine, just so long its not unrest anymore. EkoGraf (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That title sounds alright to me; it better captures the past situations as well as more recent developments. Dustin (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

We actually need to remove the pro-Russian part from the title, since these some of these people support federalism.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Federalists are almost entirely pro-Russian, these arent mutually exclusive terms —LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 16:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

How many times will I have to explain that "pro-Russian" does not mean "separatist"? It merely means they favour ties with Russia over ties with other parties, particularly the EU. Reliable sources continually use "pro-Russian". I have linked the dictionary definition before, but apparently that was not enough. I will do so again. The prefix "pro" means, according to the OED

Favourable, positive, supportive; favourably disposed.

RGloucester — ☎ 19:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per RGloucester. Willing to Support 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine.Patriot Donbassa (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Support. Word "conflict" is clearly preferable to "unrest". Word "separatist" at least gives a rough idea what sort of outcome these people are aiming for.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

"Rough ideas" are not what we look for in a title. We are going for WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. "Separatist" is none of those, and there are plenty of people involved who claim not to want to secede. RGloucester — ☎ 22:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The difference between "separatist" and "pro-Russian" is that "pro-Russian" gives readers no idea at all of the outcome the movement is aiming at. For instance, a movement which aimed for a unitary Ukraine with a government friendly to Russia would still be "pro-Russian". Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That's because there are many varied outcomes demanded by very many different people. The only thing binding these people together is their favourable view of Russia as opposed to other parties such as the EU. They are not all separatist. RGloucester — ☎ 00:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, clearly it is "pro-Russian", there is no evidence of "pro-Hungarian" or "pro-Moldovan" separatism from these respective sizeable ethnic communities living in Ukraine, hence there is no need to generalise the title. --Nug (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, we could separate the issues in Crimea, Donetsk/Luhansk (or Novorossiya, whatetever you prefer) and Ruthenia (Zakarpattia Oblast). Hungary has made requests about the rights of the Hungarians in Ukraine (I presume in Ruthenia). Let's not foget that the Ruthenia was the only region in Western Ukraine where Yulia Tymoshenko lost against Yanukovich in 2010. And take into account the regards of the Hungarian PM concerning the Ukrainian military conflict in what concerns to the Hungarian community in Ukraine. It's not just a Russian issue. Though, now, the insurgency is only pro-Russian (I wouldn't consider it pro-Union with Russia, but pro-ethnic Russian rights and pro-language rights in Ukraine)Mondolkiri1 (talk). 03:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Moderate View, what is happening in Ukraine is becoming a proxy conflict. For now, maybe the title can be "pro russian conflict (or unrest) in ukraine". In the early stages of this conflict, weren't the demands of the protests a federal state in ukraine (and many still support that), but now a lot these protests want reunification with russia.--ArbutustheTree 02:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Support It describes better the situation. "Unrest" is an euphemism. Is it necessary a couple of hundreds of people dead to describe as a conflict, let alone a "civil war"?Mondolkiri1 (talk). 03:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice that the objections are not to "conflict", but to either the lack of disambiguation or the imprecise "separatist". The alternate proposal is "2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine". RGloucester — ☎ 03:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, should the "Euromaidan" ever been called "pro-European Union Unrest"? And there wasn't a military conflict then. The separatists (and I don't talk only about the militants) in Ukraine have divergent objectives, some of them seek merger with Russia, others a closer approach with Russia, rather than with the EU (which I, as a Portuguese, sympathize, as I'd be Greek), and others are simply against a government that includes fascist members of the Svoboda Party, though many in the Russian side also share an opposite fascist ideology. I support again this change of title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondolkiri1 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)<!— Template:Unsigned -->

It may have well been "pro-EU unrest" if there had not been a commonly used name for the movement. RGloucester — ☎ 04:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think that the actual conflict itself should be separated from the unrest page. It appears as though the military conflict is limited to the Donbass region of Ukraine and I have seen several sites refer to these actions as conflict in the Donbas, operations in the Donbas and so forth. So perhaps it could be renamed to 2014 Donbas conflict in line with another internal country conflict like the Northern Mali conflict or if we want to consider it a full on war (which is limited to a certain region of the country) we could use an example title like War in the Vendée which occurred during the French Revolution and was limited to one section of the country. The fact of the matter is 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine is a long title, it is not easy to type into the search box, and really is not pleasant to look at. We don't need to mention who the war is between in the title or the reason for the unrest/conflict only that there is one occuring, and reader which checks the lead will figure out what the conflict is about... Cheers. —Kuzwa (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

We already have a "Donetsk People's Republic" page which deals with all the actions in Donetsk. This article is an overview (summary article) of the whole unrest, not just the military operations in Donetsk. The Donetsk actions are already covered in detail at Donetsk People's Republic, and various other sub-articles. This is why I didn't want the Donetsk article to be titled "Donetsk People's Republic", as it has a broader purpose. Regardless, if one wants to read a detailed story about the military actions, one should go to the Donetsk People's Republic article. That information isn't in this article. This article is merely a summary page. If there should be any split, it would be a split off from the Donetsk People's Republic article into a new article on the conflict, as I had proposed earlier with Draft:Donetsk crisis. RGloucester — ☎ 03:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Do we have consensus on going from "unrest" to "conflict"?

As far as I can see, no-one has opposed idea of using the word "conflict" instead of "unrest". If there is consensus that this one-word change would be an improvement, why not do it now? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Support by EkoGraf, MyMoloboaccount, Kalidasa 777, Mondolkiri1

Oppose by LeVivsky (Lvivske), PatriotDonbassa (RGloucester) and Nug Moderate view by ArbutustheTree. Until now, 4 in favour, 3 against, 1 neutral. I quote Galileo ("E pur si muove")... Whatever I say, it doesn't change the facts!... And in my opinion, this is, if less than the Bosnian war, so far, it's not less than the Croatian war at all! (a country where there has been an ethnic cleansing against the Serbs, by the way... maybe it's more difficult to clean 5 million Russian speaking Russians or Ukrainians from the Donbass, as the Svoboda would dream... sorry for this POV, I'm left POV, I support Tsipras) Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I count 4 opposed, not 3... But 3 of the 4 (Lvivske, PatriotDonbassa, RGloucester) have said they would agree to a one-word change, from "unrest" to "conflict". The other 1 (Nug) hasn't commented specifically on that part of the proposal, as far as I can see. So surely we have pretty good consensus in favor that one-word change, anyway? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The funny thing is that, by what I know, noone from either side is giving an opinion here (Lvivske is from Ontario, Canada, and curiously a supporter of the far-right Svoboda Party, not a Canadian party). Should we consult the Russian and Ukrainian wikipedias to see what they think about the issue? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske sympathizes with a party that, taking into account its platform, hates 30% of the population of his so-called country (though his country is Canada, not Ukraine). With people like that in the government what would you expect short of a civil war? Hey, Lvivske, Canadian pretending to be Ukrainian... tell me that!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Oddly enough the European far-right admires Putin for his dismemberment of Ukraine and his anti-gay stance[13]. Do you admire Putin too? --Nug (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, oddly enough, and I am a Portuguese who supported the self-determination of East Timor, I actually voted for S&D in the European Elections, and I support Alexis Tsipras in Greece (I hoped there was one here). One of the parties belonging to GUE/NGL in Portugal voted against sactions against Russia. I'm from the South... I think that plays a role (more anti-German economic supremacy, less against Russia). Mondolkiri1 (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't assume that personal issues are at play here (except possibly with the actual move). That kind of argument is mostly just made to discredit the other side. It's also bad on your part. Why don't I just start assuming that you are actually hiding personal issues for which you oppose? Dustin (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

For the record I also support the use of conflict here, unrest does not seem enough and more sources are using the term conflict to describe what is going on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I support the move to "2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine" as it is more encompassing of the whole of the current situation. I believe this would include both the events way back when it was just "protests" up to now. Dustin (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: Since the protection settings on this article are set to "sysop only" moves, I'll ping Anthony Appleyard, who often helps with these move requests. Please take a look at the discussion here, and move this page to 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 15:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Pro-Russian Conflict is a good name.--ArbutustheTree 15:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbutus the tree (talk • contribs)

@Mondolkiri1 Tsipras and in general Left in Europe strongly condemns tha current Ukrainian authorities for its violent actions and murders against civillians in Donbas. Also, far-right parties in Europe tend to share this view.After the recent elections in EU...there is a respectable faction in EU parliament that opposes the bloodbath in E.Ukraine. As for this article...because of some stubborn canadian...wiki presents tha fact as if there is no military conflict between Ukrainians of different origins and political views...someone would believe there are only protests and demonstrations...A completely misleading name of the article.Btw i did not know Tsipras has supporters in Portugal ouside of Left Bloc :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.223.2 (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The irony of the far-left's support is that the far-right sees a kindred spirit in Putin whose actions in annexing Crimea on the pretext of protecting an ethnic exclave is eerily similar to what Hitler did in Sudetenland back in 1938. --Nug (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You guys need to stop bringing personal issues into this. Putin is an authoritarian, but arguing for or against issues invloving him or others should not become the point of this discussion. I may be going way off on the side to what you all are saying, but I am sure that you are bringing too many of your opinions into this. Dustin (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just one (late) remark : "pro-Russian" does not match with "conflict". "Pro-Russian" refers to one side, while "conflict" implies two sides or refers to a region. One does not speak of an "Armenian conflict in Azerbaijan" for example. It would have been more logical to choose "pro-Russian rebellion", "pro-Russian insurgency" or "East Ukraine conflict". Ec.Domnowall (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No, because the scope of this article is larger than the military conflict in Donetsk Oblast. It also includes the demonstrations and RSA occupations in Kharkiv, Odessa, and so on. Odessa isn't in "eastern Ukraine", and the insurgency is limited to two particular regions, those being Luhansk and Donetsk. Please see the Donetsk People's Republic article for more on the military conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 16:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right (but maybe some better wording is possible). Ec.Domnowall (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a word about Ukrainian forces' actions

The article looks like militants are just "offencing" and ukrainian government has nothing to do with that. Some information punitive operation must be added. Should it be done in a new section or in "Response"? 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:184F:AB9C:7766:8E09 (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

mostly covered in the donetsk republic article, this article is about the 'pro russian unrest' not necessarily the response (yet). Would be a lot of duplication so maybe we'll have to assess how to avoid a split of the content --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 18:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A small remark should be present anyway. I think 1-2 sentences in "response" with references to Luhansk and Donetsk republics will do the job for a while. 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:184F:AB9C:7766:8E09 (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Both Ukrainian Forces and Pro-Russian militants have been violating some types of laws.--ArbutustheTree 19:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Arbutus the tree: Hey, I hate to bring it up here, but are you aware that you have a talk page? You have not responded to what I have said, and you have not responded to what others have said either or even ever edited your talk page at all. For one, you still don't have a link to your page in your signature, so SineBot keeps on following you around. Dustin (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
@Dustin:, Sorry about that. I'm somewhat new to wikipedia, i'll try to do that the next time.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- That isn't a problem, especially if you are new here. I just don't think you were ever seeing my advice (and what others were saying either). Your talk page is at User talk:Arbutus the tree. If you have any questions about this, you can leave a message on my talk page (it's linked in my signature). Dustin (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Biased editors

Two pesrons - Yulia Romero and Львівське are keep working on this article. As we can see in their profiles they both are pro-ukrainian, which means they are unable to stay neutral. Because of it article full of intentional false and inaccurate information covered by most untrusted pro-goverment ukraianian media which were seen many times on lies. I suggest we should have someone who could edit from most objective point of view, considering all sources and trying to represent a real background of event without bias. I am asking to puy attention on this issue

Accusing one of bias is a pretty heavy load to swing around towards someone, do you have examples of what you claim with links to edits so that the ones you accuse can defend themselves? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well these people do not hide their pro-Ukrainian orientation. As can be seen by their edits, profiles, rejection of Russian sources and limited selective sampling of news resources in favor of pro-Ukrainian version. The whole article is written this way. On internet are many reliable sources that claim the opposite things from given here information. Such controversial theme cannot be given in hands of non-neutral authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrisska (talk • contribs) 01:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well can you post some of these sources here you say are reliable? We cant use blogs or forums and also keep in mind that every country reports things differently and at different speeds. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Couple links will not help. This article has become a mouthpiece of the Ukrainian government. Literally everything needs to be rewritten that to have at least some balance of neutrality. For now it is one-sided version, you can see the difference if look up Euromaidan article. I will try to back later with some sources. If you are interested i have some there, photos in general http://yrisska.livejournal.com/11744.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrisska (talk • contribs) 02:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Livejournal isn't an WP:RS. Posting a propaganda/conspiracy blog makes it even worse. I particularly love this picture saying that the national guard has a swastika hidden its logo and that it's an image of Lucifer himself. Awesome find.--Львівське (говорити) 04:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Just because I'm Ukrainian doesn't mean I am "unable to stay neutral", further your accusations of inserting false and inaccurate information...and untrustworthy media...oh hell, these are bad faith accusations - enough. This is all baseless garbage, if you have a problem with a source, point it out. Yulia is a great editor and very neutral and hard working. I'm just editing as I see it in the news and media that I read during the day. If you have a problem, be direct, don't start on conspiracy theories or accuse others of being dishonest simply because of their user pages.--Львівське (говорити) 04:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, what is going on? Why did you delete my edits? It was from relible sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrisska (talk • contribs) 05:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

the statements by russia and russian tabloids? i stated in the edit summaries that its unrelated to the protests themselves and clutter. The Lavros statement was a giant block quote that served no purpose. We're trying to thin the article out from bloat. Also, just pointing out now that those images you uploaded are copyrighted and will be deleted by wiki commons in 24 hours. --Львівське (говорити) 05:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You just deleted the whole quote and in the same time there are a lot of quotes from ukrainian goverments. That cannot be neutral, we have to have opinion from both sides. At least you could write fisrt it there, why you are so disdainful to other's work? Well you could just left couple words, but you just deleted. And about Dugin, there is no single proof that he has any connection with goverment, in Russia he is perceived as a crazy man, so why there was such disinformation like if he is someone so important. No need to delude people. I didn't touch your work, i added another point of view for the balance, but i see that no one care about any neutrality. Oh well Yrisska (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

where is there a giant quote from a ukrainian minister in the protests timeline? also, there isnt a weight issue, these are protests in ukraine, what a russian official says is irrelevant. --Львівське (говорити) 06:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And yes, this is what Wikipedia supposed to be, no matter russian, ukrainian or american media - they are equal there Yrisska (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

for other users, this is what i removed, can someone else weigh in of its its relevant to the timeline? --Львівське (говорити) 06:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called on the Kiev authorities to take urgent measures to build a national dialogue with all political forces and regions in Ukraine. He wrote in Theguardian: " Russia is doing all it can to promote early stabilisation in Ukraine. We are firmly convinced that this can be achieved through, among other steps: real constitutional reform, which would ensure the legitimate rights of all Ukrainian regions and respond to demands from its south-eastern region to make Russian the state's second official language; firm guarantees on Ukraine's non-aligned status to be enshrined in its laws, thus ensuring its role as a connecting link in an indivisible European security architecture; and urgent measures to halt activity by illegal armed formations of the Right Sector and other ultra-nationalist groups. De-escalation should begin with rhetoric. Belligerent statements such as those heard at the Nato foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on 1 April do not match demands for a de-escalation. It is time to stop the groundless whipping-up of tension, and to return to serious common work." [206]

"De-escalation should begin with rhetoric." fairly much clinched it for me. Aside from the inordinate amount of effort that would be required to copyedit this paragraph so as it actually makes a semblance of sense in the English language, I suspect that, "Belligerent statements such as those heard at the Nato foreign ministers meeting in Brussels..." won't translate terribly well as NPOV. Should I start at picking out more overtly POV content such as, "...illegal armed formations of the Right Sector and other ultra-nationalist groups..."; "... Russia is doing all it can to promote early stabilisation in Ukraine..."; is there anything in there that isn't tendentious? If that's to be the calibre of Wikipedia articles, I'm out of here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Can Yrisska please give us examples of my alleged (by him) wrongdoing in this article? Claiming "being pro-ukrainian, which means they are unable to stay neutral", does that also mean that pro-russians should not edit this article also??? I used the BBC a lot... Since when is the BBC "untrusted pro-goverment ukraianian media"... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Doing changes as adding Russia to the belligerents with no sources or removing other sourced belligerents from the infobox is a clear example of POV-pushing and politically-driven editing, wich cannot be allowed.--HC PUNXKID 22:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

what are you talking about? you added unconfirmed speculation and removed stuff that was widely cited. Let's not throw stones in your glass house here.--Львівське (говорити) 22:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is a cesspool of hate. Fortunately, the virulently nationalistic émigré editors of these articles are completely out of touch with the real Ukrainian people. Nationalism has no deep roots in the Ukraine, so Ukrainian soldiers are unwilling to kill fellow Ukrainians to prop up the illegal putsch regime in Kiev. – Herzen (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

A "cesspool of hate"? Ironic since you're the only one spewing hatespeech. It should also be noted that through all of your rhetoric, you've provided literally zero examples to back up your assertions. A whole lotta smoke coming your way. --Львівське (говорити) 21:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is so biased, it is not even funny. Also, quoting fabricated polls is irresponsible. If those polls were accurate, Crimea wouldn't be taken as it was and people's militia in South-West would not be supported by the local population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.235.72 (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You mad? --Львівське (говорити) 03:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yulia Romero and Lvivske, it is funny to see two being accused of being not neutral in your edits. I guess those editors do not check profiles of other participants such as me. I think it is kind of prejudice and maybe even racist to assume something about another editor just reading his or her profile. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, about being pro-Ukrainians, concerning to Yulia Romero, I have nothing against her, apart from a proven unfair accusation that she did against me, which was that I had deleted her post, when actually there was an edit conflict.... So, it was a misunderstanding. Concerning to Lvivske, I've more or less criticized him for being a supporter of Svoboda, though I've been threatened to be blocked from editing here if I kept saying that he is a supporter of Svoboda. I guess it's natural that every Ukrainian is pro-Ukrainian! But what Ukraine? a slave of Germany, like us in Southern Europe, or slaves of Russia?~~Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)~~Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2014

Luhansk

Ukrainina jets bombed the Luhansk RSA and border clashes are happening. Also, rebels tried to storm a base in Lugansk.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

At least five people died. Minimum two of them are civilians including minister of health Nataly Arkhipova. Militants report that cluster bombs were used. 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:184F:AB9C:7766:8E09 (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That's some very sneaky super Ukrainian jets there, that can fly through the middle of a park, under and in between trees, and then magically disappear into thin air [14] (0:14). Media other than Kremlin propaganda outlets are already reporting that RT and VoiceofRussia are full of shit. Sort of obvious on this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

At this video we can see effect of cluster munition 94.45.129.180 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If you didn't know planes fly a little bit higher than trees...and drop bombs from above 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:184F:AB9C:7766:8E09 (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

it would appear that the explosion on the RSA came from inside and blasted outward, IMO [15] --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You didn't posted any link to an explosion, just a photo of damaged building from the air bombing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A video of aftermath https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM2uG9evNlo Ballistic trails, tree branches and debris are faced to the building. Trails are directed into the ground. Video of the bombing itself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QngNPNtSCk Explosions came from the park and were moving towards the building. So this is not a self-bombing by air-defence weapon, as someone is speculating 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:184F:AB9C:7766:8E09 (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The explosion wasn't from an airstrike / bombing, it came from inside. The video you're showing shows small impact craters from a canon, clearly out of wack from what happened at the upper floor. Why are we even discussing this? Wiki isnt a forum. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 23:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned ballistic trails and moving explosions intentionally. Debris cannot fly towards an explosion. Watch carefully. Here's the aircraft that probably did it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUUsIzLqTG4 And yes, this should be at least in another talk page...2A02:2698:6424:94AD:184F:AB9C:7766:8E09 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no canon on any video.There is a plane firing missiles though.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The "airstrike" was the result of an insurgent mis-firing his Russian supplied MANPAD when attempting to shoot down a Ukrainian aircraft, these images shows the missile was fired from a park opposite, hit a tree, skipped across the road and slammed into the building. --Nug (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What is this movement advocating, opposing, saying?

At present the page doesn't go into much detail about what the movement has been advocating, or about what it says it is opposing, or what terminology and imagery it has used... Some issues are already mentioned in the infobox, but it needs to be fleshed out in the body text of the article. Perhaps a new section with a title like "Slogans, symbols, demands, policies"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That's because it isn't clear, and I'd hesitate to call it a "movement", are there is very little unity. Many people are demanding many different things, and isn't clear what anybody particularly wants. Regardless, the information you seek is in the body. If you read it, you will find it. RGloucester — ☎ 15:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be clear what people "want", if many people are "demanding" different things, shouldn't the article specify what some of the demands are, and who is putting them forward? I'd suggest also some more attention to slogans, which are not necessarily quite the same as demands. E.g. Opposition to what they perceive to be "fascism" is frequently visible on the separatist/federalist banners, to anyone acquainted with the Cyrillic alphabet. I've read through the body and found one sentence only referring to this anti-fascist position, and that was under the heading "media portrayal". Is one sentence enough? And is "media portrayal" the right heading? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not the people they oppose are "fascist" is disputed. The only neutral presentation is that they are "anti-government", and that is detailed in the body. RGloucester — ☎ 23:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Their slogans and symbols may not be neutral, but does that mean we can't or shouldn't say more about these slogans and symbols? NPOV means we can't present the slogans of one side in a conflict as if they were slogans of Wikipedia itself. But does it mean we should avoid talking about political slogans and symbols altogether?? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

We can't interpret the slogans and symbols without secondary sources and context. That's WP:OR. Unless you can find non-POV sources making sense of the meaning and objectives, they don't belong here. We're not journalists. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WP policies such as WP:OR apply in the same way to what we say about their slogans and symbols as to other topics about them, e.g. methods used, names of leaders, whether protestors have been paid etc. But does that require or justify saying a little as we currently do about slogans, symbols, demands, and policies? Aren't we effectively ignoring an elephant in the room? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It is all in the article. What isn't in the article that you seem to want to be in it? What "elephant"? I do not see the problem. RGloucester — ☎ 03:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm stumped. Perhaps we ought to rename this section as, "What are you advocating, opposing, saying, Kalidasa 777?" It seems that you're suggesting that the invisible "elephant" is a lack of WP:ADVOCACY on behalf of the protesters. I'm fairly certain that the lack of such discourse is self evident: or are you suggesting that a section dedicated to such advocacy should be included in the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look at the essay Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent, which discusses application of NPOV principles to severely controversial political topics. As that essay puts it "it is possible to explain Nikita Khrushchev's view of the USA, without either agreeing or disagreeing with it... Editors must present both sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's point of view." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what it is that you are claiming we have "left out". RGloucester — ☎ 05:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. I will try as soon as I can to present examples of the sort of info I'm talking about.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

We all understand what writing for the opponent means. Where is the POV content that needs to be balanced out by presenting 'the other side'? You appear to be working on the assumption that content is being presented on behalf of the 'other' side. All I'm able to see is a balanced account of the events with every care taken to use neutral language and not tip the scales in anyone's favour according to personal POV. Would you care to point out precisely where the purported lack of balance takes place in this article. There's no point in bringing any form of examples to the table when you haven't been able to point to direct examples of shortcomings in the article as it stands. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester asked what we've left out? Iryna asked what we've said that needs to be balanced? OK. What do we say right now about the motives of the separatist/federalist protesters and militants? What is their casus belli?

Well, we do have a section about allegations that protesters were paid, which is certainly one possible motive. Allegations about paid protests are a staple of political debate in many countries... true or not, they come from a movement's critics rather than its supporters... has anyone ever held up a placard saying: "I'm only here for the money" ?? If we give information only about this criticism of the motives of separatist/federalist protesters, are we presenting an NPOV? Not when there are other motives, mentioned in mainstream news reports, which we don't now mention.

Some of the other reasons people have been protesting and taking up arms are mentioned in a report from Donetsk by Luke Harding in the Observer which explores viewpoints of separatists and federalists there:

Post-Febuary Kiev government seen as illegal, illegitimate.
People felt driven to oppose Kiev government because of destruction of war memorials in west of Ukraine.
Conflict with Kiev seen "as a re-run of the second world war, of Moscow against the Nazis".
Barack Obama compared to Napoleon Bonaparte.

A further factor, identified for instance in a report from Horlivka by Noah Sneider in Aljazeera America is that deaths from Kiev's military actions have been increasing the anger and resolve in the east. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Anything of importance that you've mentioned is included, such as the bit about the "illegal" government of Ukraine, and of military actions increasing anger. RGloucester — ☎ 02:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

At present, the notion that the Kiev government is illegitimate gets a sentence in a paragraph about an opinion poll; and the point about Kiev govt action increasing tension is mentioned (in a highly specific context) in the section "Government building seizures". One of the few places in the article where separatists' slogans are actually quoted is in the section "Referendum", which cites some things separatists said about Rinat Akhmetov, the businessman who has identified himself as a federalist. But where do we quote their slogans about their primary enemy — the post-February government in Kiev? Are slogans expressing differences between separatists and federalists considered more noteworthy than slogans expressing differences between militant separatists and militant Ukrainian nationalists? Why shouldn't there be a section with a title like "Motives", or "Grievances and demands", where readers curious about the reasons for the movement can find sourced information at a glance? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

We are not a WP:SOAPBOX. The grievances are mentioned. They are opposed to Euromaidan, and the overthrow of Yanuk. They favour varying degrees of ties with Russia, as opposed to ties with the EU. They support Russian language rights. This is in the article. RGloucester — ☎ 03:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Kalidasa 777, I've already pointed you in the direction of WP:ADVOCACY as being your interest in the content. Please familiarise yourself with this + WP:POV + WP:OR. You don't seem to have a grasp of what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia is not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What specifically have I said which you think goes counter to the well-known WP policies you have mentioned, Iryna? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Airstrike

2nd of June airstrike video(non-Graphic one), shows moment the fighter attacked from the air, [16].Most likely unguided rockets S-8KOM were used.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Second video(Warning Graphic later), shows the fighter releasing missiles against the city(first 10 seconds)[17] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Third video showing air fighter releasing rockets on the city[18] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

These youtubes are useless, we're not here to conduct original research / analysis or forensics vicariously. It does appear that there was an airstrike with small radius rockets, and also an explosion from inside the RSA that caused the debris to kill some civilians. We should wait for reliable sources to cover this, though. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this source reliable enough for you? This pro-junta Ukrainian report clearly says that the Ukrainian air force fired upon the Lugansk government building. This should settle the matter for good. There is no longer any point to your continuing to repeat disinformation. – Herzen (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I stopped reading at junta.—LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 02:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of legitimate criticism or dislike of the government, "junta" is wholly inaccurate. It refers to a military-led government, when the military isn't running the government in this case. Can we stop with the nonsense? RGloucester — ☎ 02:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You're totally wrong. Concise OED:

junta ▪ n. a military or political group that rules a country after taking power by force.

The word "junta" is the word that most precisely describes the Kyiv regime; that is why Russian sources regularly use it to describe that regime. Your finding the use of the word objectionable here just further reveals your marked anti-Russian bias. To repeat, Russian media have shown themselves to be much more reliable than Anglophone sources when it comes to the Ukraine crisis, and yet you go on with the conceit that Ukrainian and Russian sources are equally unreliable. – Herzen (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I will not dignify your libel with a response. Remember to assume good faith, eh? RGloucester — ☎ 03:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You do not make it easy for me to assume good faith, if you are not willing to admit that you were wrong about the meaning of the word "junta". Also, the only way I can make sense of your accusation that I engaged in "libel" is that you have changed your mind, and now believe that Russian sources such as RT or RIA Novosti are inherently reliable, whereas pro-putsch regime Ukrainian sources are inherently unreliable. – Herzen (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

So let's have an example of a "civilian junta"? And let's be honest here, words like "tyrant" "propaganda" "dictator" "regime" also don't necessarily have negative meaning, at least not in their original context. But nobody who uses these words these days wishes to convey anything positive. So when you and Kremlin propaganda uses the word "junta" they mean something else then the definition you provided. And it is something which is bullshit. It's called equivocation, a rhetorical (that also used to be a not-necessarily-bad word) trick.

Also, are you gonna at least stop using that term after June 7th? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Russian media is a clown show. The fact that you're rambling about a "junta" shows at minimum a lack of understanding of language and definitions; talking about Russian media being 'reliable' is just sad. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 03:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yanukovych was overthrown by force, and positions in the new cabinet were allocated on the basis of how instrumental the the group a politician is a member of was in overthrowing the existing legitimate government. Textbook case of a junta. (Andriy Parubiy was made Secretary of the Security and National Defense Committee, even though his Svoboda Party has always done abysmally in elections. Thus the current cabinet was formed on the basis of the use of violence, not any kind of electoral or democratic process. – Herzen (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yanukovych was not overthrown by force, he fled in the night prior to any force taking place.
Positions in the cabinet were not done that way, you're making things up.
GlobalResearch.ca is a hoax site known for Holocaust denial, I'm not even going to click that.
Parubiy isn't even a member of Svoboda...
Did you miss the elected parliament appointing positions and democratic presidential elections that just took place? ("not any iind of electoral or democratic process")
Thus, everything you just said was a steaming pile of misinformed youknowwhat. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 03:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I actually do know an example of a "civilian government" that was termed a junta, the Whig Junto, though that was in the 17th (!!!!) century. That's irrelevant with regard to the contemporary connotations of the word. and the way that it is being used as an epithet. RGloucester — ☎ 03:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thailand is an example of a real junta, with the military ruling the country. That's an actual coup with an actual junta, which conveniently happened after Russian propaganda tried using the term incorrectly to define Ukraine. Unfortunately, with a live real parallel, people who parrot Russian state/media keep using it, oblivious to the actual meaning. You'd think with the real junta in the press they'd feel silly continuing on. -LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ)

No matter how much one hates the government, or how much one views it as "illegitimate", one cannot properly term the present Ukrainian government a junta, plain and simple. RGloucester — ☎ 04:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"we're not here to conduct original research / analysis or forensics vicariously" then why have you stated above "it would appear that the explosion on the RSA came from inside and blasted outward", which btw is contradicts every video of the air bombing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Just replying to the discussion, not starting something new. It also does not contradict anything, the only video available shows ground level action from a cannon. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no canon on any video.There is a plane firing missiles though.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No missiles were fired, you're misinformed. Missiles don't leave small potholes, high caliber cannonfire does.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 23:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Cluster air-ground missiles contain a lot of small explosives. They disassemble before impact 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:184F:AB9C:7766:8E09 (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking this out of genuine curiosity. What are some "cluster air-ground missiles"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever he's describing clearly didn't happen, as the only video of any strike shows a clean strafing line, not a random cluster spread. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 23:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems you don't know a thing about types of weapons and how they shoot. "Cluster" doesn't mean a random spread. And cannons stopped being used in the beginning of XX century. You just refuse to accept clear facts. Poor TV washed mind... 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:7CDD:B830:5FE3:77CD (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If you think cannons are something used by pirates then...oh god, here: Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-301 --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 05:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That's just difference between English and Russian terms. "Cannon" is only used for WWII flak guns in Russian now 94.231.125.183 (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so what's an example of a "cluster air-ground missile"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Kh-38 94.231.125.183 (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Missiles were clearly fired in the videos from the plane. And small air to surface missiles like https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/S-8_rocket can leave holes in the ground.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thailand has a junta as Ukraine has had, Lvivske! A minority supported by an establishment, which is supported from factions of the Armed Forces. The so-called democracy protesters had an election in Thailand and they lost! Now, they're supported by an illegitimate junta. Well, in Thailand, at least in terms of language they're more homogeneous. But not in terms of society. Most people clearly expressed, in elections, that they wanted another option. I'm trying to be polite now and not calling anyone... you guess what you wish to guess. I'm sorry for Thailand, because it's a country that I praise a lot, since I've got friends there. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There are literally zero parallels to Thailand and Ukraine. Keep fishing.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 06:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is a video of the missiles exploding. And these are the people that Kyiv kills with its "anti-terrorist operation" (WARNING: very graphic). How Wikipedia editors can continue editing articles to hide from English readers the nature of the regime is beyond me. – Herzen (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a form for you to vent about youtube videos.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 03:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The "airstrike" was the result of an insurgent mis-firing his Russian supplied MANPAD when attempting to shoot down a Ukrainian aircraft, these images shows the missile was fired from a park opposite, hit a tree, skipped across the road and slammed into the building. --Nug (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Everybody can take some frames from a video, write some text, post it on their fancy twitter and serve the result as a "reveal". A bunch of full uncut videos were provided already showing there was a sequence of small explosions. And you, Nug, stop treating your dreams as it was reality. If Russia had supported militants, Yarosh, Turchinov and company would already have been where they deserve to be — six feet under. Jill Abramson paid with her position to tell you that, but you don't listen. It's talking to a brick wall. 94.231.125.183 (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Atleast Jill Abramson wasn't murdered like 165 journalists shot dead in Russia. Why is it that Europe's far right, from Vlaams Belang to Jobbik, have fallen in love with Putin[19]? --Nug (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Most of these journalists died of crossfire or were murdered by orders of "businessmen" (actually criminals). The rest was exterminated by government, yes, but that doesn't mean USA and EU don't have any censorship. By the way, I haven't found any western news telling that ukrainian forces are doing anything. Just about militants, separatists or "terrorists" attack this or that. Because NATO want you to think that "poor defenceless" ukrainian army is suffering terror from militants but bravely endure and "not responding back". Why did you even mention that? Russia is not a part of this conflict. In advance of you responding with russian citizens fighting there: a lot of russians have families in Ukraine, they can live and work there, some have citizenships of both Ukraine and Russia, and they do not need visa or foreign passport to enter Ukraine so they stay there legally. But they are not an army and do not represent government. 94.231.125.183 (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"The rest was exterminated by government, yes, but that doesn't mean USA and EU don't have any censorship." <-- Does this even need commenting about? Yes Russian government kills reporters but.... Western media is biased so it's just as bad! Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That's you who tell it's just as bad. I've just told I know about journalist homicide, but that can't justify western censorship. By the way, this is the way of western propananda: make one's words to look like it has some particular meaning, which is actually doesn't exist. 94.231.125.183 (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Pravda has a good article on it with lots of video and analysis. I'm not even going to respond to the above IP who likened "extermination" of journalists to US censorship, or the other pathetic whitewashing of Russia's actions. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 14:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM - if you people want to discuss youtube videos (that are not RS), then there are various internet forums suitable for that, wikipedia talk pages are not such forum.--Staberinde (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

OSCE report. "Based on the SMM’s limited observation these strikes were the result of non-guided rockets shot from an aircraft. The number of casualties is unknown.". I guess, it's a reliable source. Seryo93 (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Can someone at least change "Donetsk" to "Luhansk" in the article? This explosion did not happen in Donetsk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I just rewrote the paragraph. RGloucester — ☎ 19:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Proxy war

Not suggesting a name change or anything like that, but wanted to document that the Luhansk militia leader does consider it a proxy war, not a civil war.

“Everyone understands that this is a war between Russia and America, and we must be for one side or for the other,” Mr. Khodakovsky said in a confident, flowing monologue.

[20] --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 03:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Syrian civil war is also called a proxy war by both sides but we still call it a civil war. Same goes for the Afghan civil war of the eighties. The terms proxy war and civil war are not mutually exclusive. But, its a moot point since per Wikipedia procedure we go with the common name, and for now we have settled on conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

CNN:CNN investigation in Luhansk has found clear evidence that whatever detonations hit the building and the adjoining park came from the air

[21] Key points:

Point 1:Munition expert30-millimeter ordnance, he said, which is standard equipment on the Su-25, a ground attack fighter, and the Su-27
Point 2:both combat aircraft operated by Ukraine.
Point 3:It's thought to be the first time that civilians have been killed or injured in an attack by the Ukrainian air force
Point 4:Europe editor of IHS Jane's Defence Weekly, told CNN he believed the Ukrainian air force "used their Su-25 'Frogfoot'

I think this settles the discussion about what caused the deaths of the civilians.Basic information can be added to this article and others about the conflict. I will add details about this attack on civilians by Ukrainian air force to an article I am writing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a part in the pro-Russian conflict article called "attacks on civilians", or maybe it already has that.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean this piece of POV tripe you're writing? Good luck with getting that through! WP:NOTNEWS, WP:POV, WP:RECENTISM +++ every other policy and guideline you'd be violating. If you're not a Ukrainophobic WP:SPA, you're certainly doing a good job of looking like one. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You've mentioned a bunch of WP policies and essays, without showing how they apply to what you talking about. Proving what? Only that you know the names of a bunch of policies and essays... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be one. I was only making a suggestion. Plus, i had no idea about the draft and a different user wrote that, not mine. When I was talking about having a part of the article contain that attacks part, I was referring to both sides.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

she wasn't talking to you Arbutus, she was clearly talking to the guy who made the draft who also commented above you. As for the draft, wow, that'll obviously get deleted if ever pushed for an article. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 02:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

- Okay, I was just a little confused--Arbutus the tree (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for confusing you, Arbutus the tree. I was definitely not directing the comment at you! There are just seconds between your post and my post, so we avoided an ec, but I was unaware of your just having gotten in a fraction before me. I should have checked my comment after posting it. My bad. I can see how you could have interpreted this as me biting you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's okay--Arbutus the tree (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Casualty calculations

I'm wondering if anyone is actually monitoring the WP:CALC for casualties in the infobox. I've been watching the figures jump back and forth at inordinate rates citing various sources for the figures, but haven't been able to establish any consistency in the calculation process. Is there anyone monitoring these calculations in case of double-ups, etc. If so, what system have they implemented and are minimum or maximum casualties being used? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I know people are cautious about using Russian sources, but RT is reporting that 181 people have been killed of which 59 are Ukrainian troops, the source also contains other estimates. [22] Lunch for Two (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Also to mention that two more helicopters were downed on 03 June here is the source(confirmed by the government) [23] .Daki122 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, two helicopters where shot down according to a rebels spokesman on June 02 but a Kiev Official denied it the same day, now another official acknoledge the loss. The number of killed and wounded have risen dramatially, but there is a problem with the number of wounded there is no information of combatants wounded in the battle box. Another Issue an Antonov and a Mi 8 are considered damaged in the Siege of Sloviansk page and lost at this page, is there any concenssus????200.48.214.19 (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

RT is reporting that 181 people have been killed of which 59 are Ukrainian troops Actually, RT is not the primary source. The figure (181 dead of which 59 soldiers) was reported by a pro-government Ukrainian official. I'm personally monitoring the numbers of casualties on both sides as they are reported and/or updated and updating the infobox accordingly. The number of wounded was tracked by me and other editors for some time but it simply became something that wasn't able to be properly tracked anymore. EkoGraf (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that you're happy to continue monitoring the estimates, for the sake of not misrepresenting casualties, would it be better to transfer changes and sources made directly to the article to this page, EkoGraf? Perhaps a dedicated section here, on the talk page, would allow you the opportunity of comparing the sources in order to avoid double-ups and overestimates? All regular contributors to the article would know to post reports here rather than try to work out the calculations for themselves. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. If you check the references, all of the sources for government forces fatalities are already there. As for the rebel fatalities, the three large standoffs/sieges and the large airport battle are linked to, while the other rebel fatalities are referenced as deaths in other Donetsk or Lugansk incidents, with links to the respective articles on the two self-proclaimed people's republics since the incidents are archived there. You want me to link you the references from those incidents here? EkoGraf (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I think the references here is a good idea. For the moment, the other cited sources can be left in place in the casualties box, but I'll keep my eye out for changes not being made by you and revert to your figures until you've had a chance to update the figures yourself. Obviously, we can't stay on top of events on the hour, every hour, but this is a Wikipedia article and WP:NOTNEWS. It's ridiculous having casualties suddenly leap up to spurious figures. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

13 killed in other Donetsk incidents: 1 (22 May),[24] 6 (23 May),[25][26] 6 (30 May),[27]. 21-34 killed in other Lugansk incidents: 7-20 (22 May),[28] 1 (28 May),[29] 2 (31 May),[30] 5 (2 June),[31] 6 (4 June),[32]. EkoGraf (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, EkoGraf. That gives me a solid idea of where we're up to when other contributors start popping in figures. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Eko, the number of dead of the May 22 Ambush its at 18 dead right now. Check! 200.48.214.19 (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

These are the numbers for rebel dead, not military dead. A reference for military deaths during the entire period of the conflict (including those 18 from 22 May) is already in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

For future edit (at time I wrote this page was protected and could be edited only by administrators):

For National unity talks Kharkiv separatist (although not representing an armed insurgent group) was invited but he refused to participate. The man also claimed Kharkov Oblast will hold a regional independence referendum (but did not give date). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Done just now. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

OSCE mission now confirming air strike

OSCE mission is now confirming that Kiev forces bombed Luhansk in an airstrike [33]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

On Tuesday, the OSCE's monitoring mission to Ukraine said the building was hit by rockets. It added that - based on the mission's limited observation - "these strikes were the result of non-guided rockets shot from an aircraft".

--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 19:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I should also stress that this is based on "limited observation" (looking at the same videos as us?)

The SMM has not re-established contact with the 4 monitors from the Donetsk team and 4 monitors from the Luhansk team with whom it lost contact on 26 May and 29 May respectively.

The Luhansk team is missing/kidnapped, meaning the OSCE isn't even there to observe on anything.—LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 19:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That isn't the whole Luhansk team, but the OSCE hasn't been out of their offices in Luhansk and Donetsk much lately, for the past week or so, because of "security reasons". RGloucester — ☎ 19:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh? I thought it was "THE four members" as in, all four of them. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 19:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This happens over and over. Russian media tell one story; pro-junta Ukrainian media tell a completely different story. When the smoke clears, it turns out that the Russian media were right all along, whereas the Ukrainian media were spinning lies out of thin air. Maintaining articles on the Ukrainian crisis would be much easier if some editors did not repeat ad nauseum pro-junta lies. Please stop the endless pro-junta advocacy. It makes things difficult for editors who want to maintain Wikipedia as an objective source of information. – Herzen (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"repeat ad nauseum pro-junta lies", yawn. --Nug (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I stopped reading at hunta. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 02:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The correct word is junta, but it's read as "hunta" in Spanish Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Junta is just one of labels used by critics of the current gov't of Ukraine. Let me present other case: 1993 Russian constitutional crisis was resolved via what was pretty much coup d'etat (illegal dissolution of parliament; tanks shot at parliament building, all this was followed by President-organized referendum, for announcement of which he (President) had no constitutional authority). And critics of the new government (mainly Communists, but also certain other anti-Yeltsin parties) often used words such as "хунта", "клика", etc. as labels for a new government. But no serious publication (and we attempt at writing serious and neutral encyclopedia :) used these labels as a reference to constitutional order established in 1993 (which, if I'm correct, still persists, see Constitution of Russia). In short: using contentious labels is strongly discouraged. Seryo93 (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do some people think that the current government in Kiev is a junta-even though new leaders will be put in to place after the May 25 election.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The president doesn't have the power to change the cabinet, as far as I know. There has been no indication that "new leaders will be put in to place after the May 25 election". – Herzen (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

He does, just as Yanukovych dismissed the Azarov government. Doesn't matter though, all positions were appointed through democracy. So much democracy that a bald eagle cried. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 04:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the interim government was voted in by a majority of the Verkhovna Rada, which means some of Yanukovych's own Party of Regions members voted in support of the interim government. --Nug (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was just as constitutional as the way Mussolini took power in Italy in 1922 with the backing of armed demonstrators. The word "junta" (which I don't use myself) expresses the alarm some feel about overthrow of an elected president, and the alarm some feel about the way Ukraine's militia-backed government has reacted to emergence of competing militias in the south and east. Of course it is a contentious label — using it in WP's own voice in mainspace would be as inappropriate as calling the DPR guys "terrorists".Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The elected president was not "overthrown", he abandoned his post when he scurried off to Moscow with suitcases of cash and a truck load of looted art. The Verkhovna Rada lawfully appointed an interim president per the constitution pending Presidential elections, which have since been held. --Nug (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"Alarm" doesn't make it a "junta". Perhaps one could call it illegitimate, but never a "junta". RGloucester — ☎ 14:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

So anyone using terms like "junta lies" on this talk page should be asked to say "lies from the illegitimate government" instead? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Steelworkers retake Mariupol

It appears that the people have risen up against the separatists here driving them out. [34]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

was included in the DPR article --Львівське (говорити) 04:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd hope to read that from a French or Spanish-speaking newspaper, actually. I've also read about miner workers against the present establishment in Kiev. Well, let's see.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The latest development is being welcomed by the Voice of Russia [35] The man behind it, Rinat Akhmetov, does not think Donetsk should become an independent state or a part of Russia; but he has also said that the model with "Kiev in charge... has run out of steam and is not right for the future"; instead he wants a new constitution with decentalized government [36] Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

he's priming himself to be the new governor of donetsk, probably unofficially. He obviously has his own interests in mind. His holdings being held in a Transnistria like failed unrecognized state would be bad. In Russia or independent, all exports would die and he'd lose money. He wants to be in Ukraine and open to keep making money, but he doesn't want to get sent into exile like in 2005. --Львівське (говорити) 23:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Correct. This isn't an action of "the people" as much as the action orchestrated by an oligarch with his own interests and ambitions.70.192.130.229 (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Luhansk Developments

I'm going to create a draft that will be about the developments in Luhansk, such as the seige of the Border Guard Base. Allthough it has signifacant media coverage, I am not going to publish it due to wikipedia's notnews policy. It will remain a draft for the time being.

Here's the draft: Draft:Ukrainian Border Base Seige

It needs editing, however, so feel free to edit this.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As with other articles created on relatively minor events, does this really need a stand alone article? Can the information not just be condensed into a few sentences and put onto this page? We can't have a separate article on every single thing that happens in Ukraine. As with the Volnovakha article, these things are briefly reported on and then the media moves on 2-3 days later. Unlike the Odessa incident which was indeed appropriate for a separate article, minor skirmishes do not appear to be sufficiently WP:NOTABLE. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

True, but how come the volnoakha wasn't deleted? This event has signifacant media coverage.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

German "Bild am Sonntag":Kiev forces are supported militarily by USA and Academi/Blackwater operators

[37] Since Spiegel and "Bild am Sonntag" are reliable sources I believe this can be added to article. They also mention this was reported by German intelligence service to German officials. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Better sources are required, if it turns out to be true. Spiegel actually reported what the Bild am Sonntag wrote, it didn't report the fact itself. And it added that Academi / Blackwater denied its involvement.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

so what we have here is a tabloid reporting on something that was officially denied. Si there a link to the original tabloid article? What is their source, some anonymous tipster? Speculation? --Львівське (говорити) 21:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the source is the Bundesnachrichtendienst.

And Bild am Sonntag is the the largest-selling German national Sunday newspaper. The Bild-am-Sonntag-article is not available online.

But all newspapers in German-speaking Europe reported. All newspapers in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Belgium and Luxembourg...

Should I check the other Western European languages?

It was not _officially_ denied. Suzanne Kelly is not an official, within the meaning of a government official. She is only an Academi employee. The affiliated structure of the Blackwater/Xe Services/Academi is obscure. Has Suzanne Kelly spoken for the Barbados-registered company Greystone Limited?

Söldnern aus den USA = Mercenaries from the U.S., the exact private military contractor is unclear. And it is not clear who commands the private military contractors and pays for their services. --91.10.20.56 (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You have to be careful about what the actual source is. The actual source is RT news http://rt.com/news/158212-academi-blackwater-ukraine-military/ . RT news is directly controlled by Putin and all news by them should be suspect - especially when not supported by any evidence. These are not German reporters witnessing and reporting on this. The first article quote which I erased on this is specifically stating that the FBI is working only in Kiev on problems in Kiev. It says nothing about them working on the Eastern problems. The only real U.S. involvement so far has been diplomatic and 300,000 MREs. I don't think this requires a special section in the article however. Hilltrot (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

To 79.131.223.2 concerning to Tsipras, the Left in Portugal, and related issues

Well, The left in Portugal (the real left) acctually supports both the Ukrainian people who are a large portion (one of the 4 largest immigrant communities), mainly from the Western Ukraine (the others being the Brazilians, the Capeverdians and the Romanians) and the right for self-determination, which Portugal supported not only in 1974 and 1975 for the former colonies, but also during 1980s and 1990s for East Timor... Unfortunately, not for Macau, which was delivered to China without any self-determination. I've worked mainly with people from Western Ukraine. But also with people from Eastern Ukraine. But even from people from Western Ukraine I've got the sense that they think that Ukraine has been going in a wrong direction. Maybe they're not so naif, having worked for so many years in a country belonging to the EU under austerity measures. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

English speaking foreigners (Blackwater soldiers)

What do we know about the participation of English speaking foreigners in Ukraine? Shall we mention them in the article? According to Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin: "He rounded on Kiev and its Western allies, accusing the United States of “blatant” double standards and claiming that English-speaking foreigners were interfering on the ground." [38][39] Fakirbakir (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Several German-speaking media ,Bild,Spiegel,Die Welt reveal the presence of 400 US mercenaries of Blackwater(Securiti Academy). http://www.standartnews.com/english/read/bild_am_sonntag_400_elite_us_commandos_help_kiev_in_ukraine-3612.html http://www.naftemporiki.gr/story/807351/oukrania-kai-amerikanoi-misthoforoi-stis-maxes-enantia-stous-filorosous (Greek speaking media covering the same story ) The infobox should change to show the presence of US foreigners actively engaged in the war at the eastern part of the country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.172.110 (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The German sources and Russian media are fake. My understanding now that I've gone over this ad nauseam is that there was a German security press conference, Bild reported on it (and questions were asked about what RIA / Russian media was saying about Blackwater involvement, which were rebuked by Germany) and then DW/DS reported that Bild reported on it (Bild has no record of this article on their website). Russian news them picked up on it citing that it's in the German press. Really ugly game of telephone. Even if we had this original Bild report, would a tabloid like Bild pass the reliable source sniff test? --Львівське (говорити) 15:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's a copy-paste of a convo we recently had, more appropriate having it on this article's talk: Does this source check out? [40] --Львівське (говорити) 19:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say so, yes, as long as attribution is given. RGloucester — ☎ 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

the more I look the more the IB Times India link above the more it looks like an RT copy paste job. No article in the US or UK editions is suspect to me..UK says "Russia Today is repeating claims made in the German Bild am Sonntag newspaper that US mercenaries from Academi (formerly Blackwater) are helping Ukrainian forces around Slaviansk." and here is the RT article the IB Times India one is based on it seems. Your thoughts? --Львівське (говорити) 19:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to retrosearch for the Die Welt article that the original sites, I found this [http://www.welt.de/newsticker/dpa_nt/infoline_nt/thema_nt/article127870199/US-Sicherheitsfirma-Academi-bestreitet-Einsatz-in-Ukraine.html - Academi denies and they deny the report from the "Bild am Sonntag" tabloid. --Львівське (говорити) 19:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that, given the coverage in the IB Times, regardless of sourcing, it would be worth it to discuss the claims in the article, along with the original German source and the denial by Academi. RGloucester — ☎ 19:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

even though IBTI lied? Does the India Edition have the same "RS" factor as the US/UK version would? —Львівське (говорити) 20:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Presumably it does have the same "RS factor", though that's not a question for me, but for the RS noticeboard. However, I'm more thinking that the best way to deal with this that keeps cropping up is to place it in the article and provide adequate refutation, rather than to keep removing it. RGloucester — ☎ 20:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the original source for this story so I have nothing to directly source or quote. Bild.de has no mention of it but Google is showing up for "bild academi" mostly things like infowars and voiceofrussia. Reddit thread seems to denounce it [41] as coming from a "notorious tabloid" that should come with a grain of salt. It's clear to me now that this original story got spun out and re-sourced to give it credibility (DW or DS, or as RT called it "German media" altogether) but do we credit a tabloid article second hand in a wiki? —Львівське (говорити) 20:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the best way to deal with it is this:

American mercenary firm Academi denied reports that they had been operating in Ukraine.

With a link to [42]… RGloucester — ☎ 20:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm being told now that Bild didn't start the story, it came from RIA originally [43]. So Russian news started the story and then through a game of international telephone, RT reported "German media" was the source. Clever. —Львівське (говорити) 21:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You're confusing two seperate instances of these claims. In april it was reported in Russian sources that Blackwater was involved, without giving evidence and it not being picked up in Western sources. Then in may, over a month later, Bild reported on German intelligence stating Blackwater involvment, which was then reported in pretty much every Western-European newspaper. It's not a case of circular attribution, it's a case of Russian claims without evidence not being picked up in Western sources and later the same claims by German intelligence that has been picked up by Western sources. The original Bild article on German intelligence claims is not available online (not all their articles go on the website), which is why you're not finding it, as has already been stated in the section on it above. Plenty of other sources reporting on it though, as has also been stated in that section.B01010100 (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

My understanding from one who has read the article is that it was BS. Surely its available somewhere? Bild makes no mention of this overbearing claims in its more recent article I posted below, and admits its speculation. --Львівське (говорити) 15:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Bild is not the same as Bild am Sonntag, Bild am Sonntag is a sister newspaper to Bild (Bild is the daily newspaper, Bild am Sonntag is the weekly sunday newspaper). They are seperate organisations, Bild am Sonntag is not available as an online edition.B01010100 (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Someone reading it may think it is BS, but the fact is that the story has been carried by essentially every newspaper in Western-Europe, and we are supposed to go by the sources. If major reliable sources consider it reliable enough to reprint it then it's not really up to us to second-guess that.B01010100 (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Bild am Sonntag is nontheless a Sunday tabloid and does have a website. --Львівське (говорити) 19:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Its website just redirects to the normal Bild website, but it doesn't seem that its articles are available there either.B01010100 (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Tricky on their part. This whole thing gives me a headache. RGloucester — ☎ 21:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The White House categorically denies these accusations, however the the chancellor’s office and the German intelligence service have declined to either confirm or deny (the allegations) [44]. Anyway some says the number is not 400 but only 100 mercenaries.(e.g. [45]) Fakirbakir (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Bild article

This was released yesterday so now we have something to work with [46]: "Since the release of the videos is speculated time and again that mercenary support the pro-Western Ukrainian government." Bild seems to only discuss their previous article [47] from March where they speculate on internet rumors and a video. --Львівське (говорити) 15:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I wish you have the same reluctance to incorporate any single BS in written in nationalist papers of western Ukraine...You are easy at rejecting the incorporation in this article info from western and other media just because you do not like the content .Also this expression I'm being told now that ... is at least ridiculous....

Situation is easy.Russian media claim this to be true. This of course does not necessarily means...it is true.

However when western media repeat the same claim...guess what? It is TRUE. Deal with it.

Now what about this demonstration in Lvov http://sunskay.com/post324519902/ . Is it anti-gov? Or should be classified as 'pro russian too?? (i hope you do understand the irony...)Because the whole term pro-Russian is a huge mistake. Many people dislike the current Kiev government but this does not necessarily implies that they want their country to disintegrate... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.243.88 (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. --Львівське (говорити) 04:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

US OSCE response

This has now been addressed [48]

This is categorically false. We have been able to trace this rumor to a series of Kremlin-sponsored websites that put out a photograph that is indeed either of police or private security contractors. The Internet is a wonderful thing, and eventually people can find out where photographs come from; so it didn't take long for somebody to produce the original photograph, which was actually taken in New Orleans, Louisiana, and had been doctored to remove the fast-food signs and make it look like it might be in the street in an unnamed place. But the allegations that there are somehow "U.S. mercenaries" operating in Ukraine are false.

--Львівське (говорити) 04:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

He isn't an OSCE fellow, just to be clear. He is the American ambassador to the OSCE. RGloucester — ☎ 04:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

correct --Львівське (говорити) 15:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Pro-Russian organizations are terrorists

On May 17, 2014 the office of General Prosecutor of Ukraine recognized the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic as terrorist organizations.

Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

At the moment this is POV. Almost all statements that they are terrorists have been made by the Ukraine government and no one else. Not U.S. or EU. Just Ukraine. Hilltrot (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

^ "Ukraine conflict: Donetsk and Luhansk vote in 'self-rule' referendum". BBC News. 11 May 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
^ "Why Israel should monitor the Ukraine conflict closely". Jerusalem Post. 17 May 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
^ "Dozens dead as Ukraine conflict spreads south to Odessa". Euronews. 3 May 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
^ "Ukraine's conflict plays out at Cannes". Al Jazeera. 22 May 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
^ "Ukraine Conflict and Deteriorating Investment Climate Hit Russia's Economy". CNBC. 13 May 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
^ "Ukraine and its separatists have passed the point of no return". Haaretz. 30 May 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
^ "Ukraine separatists down army helicopter, 14 killed". Reuters. 29 May 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
^ "Ukraine separatists seek union with Russia". Al Jazeera. 13 May 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
^ "As Ukrainian separatists claim victory in self-rule vote, fears of all-out civil war mount". Washington Post. 12 May 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.

[1] "Ukraine conflict: Donetsk and Luhansk vote in 'self-rule' referendum". BBC News. 11 May 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.

[2] "Why Israel should monitor the Ukraine conflict closely". Jerusalem Post. 17 May 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.

[3] "Dozens dead as Ukraine conflict spreads south to Odessa". Euronews. 3 May 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.

[4] "Ukraine's conflict plays out at Cannes". Al Jazeera. 22 May 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.

[5] "Ukraine Conflict and Deteriorating Investment Climate Hit Russia's Economy". CNBC. 13 May 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.

[6] "Ukraine and its separatists have passed the point of no return". Haaretz. 30 May 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.

[7] "Ukraine separatists down army helicopter, 14 killed". Reuters. 29 May 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.

[8] "Ukraine separatists seek union with Russia". Al Jazeera. 13 May 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.

[9] "As Ukrainian separatists claim victory in self-rule vote, fears of all-out civil war mount". Washington Post. 12 May 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]