Jump to content

Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Title makes no sense

How can a conflict be "pro-Russian"? The conflict is between pro and anti-Russians. FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The conflict was initiated by pro-Russian insurgents, therefore, the conflict is pro-Russian. The gallery isn't unnecessary. It includes pictures that would make the body too cluttered, but which provide useful information. I suggest you read the above move discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 18:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Any conflict has two or more sides. These do not have the same objectives. This conflict itself simply cannot be termed "pro-Russian". FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
It is a compromise title. It isn't ideal, but it is what we have. We've debated this ad nauseum. RGloucester — ☎ 19:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The number of civilian deaths was in the infobox along with the source but it seems someone has removed it. EkoGraf (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Just because one side is pro-Russian doesnt mean this is binary and other is anti-Russian; rather, the other side is Ukrainian (an historic antithesis to Russianness) but more accurately, anti-pro-Russian (that is, against the platform of the pro-Russian side and all their main goals) --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That changes nothing in regard to my complaint. Still doesn't make this conflict "pro-Russian". FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you have a point there, FunkMonk. Ec.Domnowal made a similar point immediately after the change from "unrest" to "conflict" in the title. That change was made because everyone seemed to agree that "conflict" is a better term than "unrest" to describe recent developments. Whether "pro-Russian" is the most appropriate way to characterize the "conflict" is another question, which I think does need further thought. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree with FunkMonk and Kalidasa. EkoGraf (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No! We just finished a discussion above (4 days ago) to move it to this title. We can't play musical titles, here. Let's give it some time, as is appropriate. Anyway, this article is not just about Luhansk and Donetsk, and "conflict" is too vague, and not WP:PRECISE. RGloucester — ☎ 03:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes! The new title just seems like a cut and paste compromise to get "conflict" in there, with little regard for the overall meaning. Yes, the old title was worse, so the move was warranted, but that doesn't mean the new one is good enough to keep. FunkMonk (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • When we say 'conflict', it is normally between two or more sides and "pro-Russian" reflects only one of them. Since the events are mainly centered around this particular side's campaign, then a title like 2014 pro-Russian insurgency in Ukraine would be more accurate. However, the protests and riots in Odessa as well as some in other different locations are not part of this 'insurgency', therefore I agree that a compromise title should be considered because the current one is simply erroneous in many ways. I myself believe that a title like Pro-Russian rebellion in Ukraine would be more appropriate since the word 'rebellion' is backed by tonnes of sources now ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Not this crap again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The current title is crap. There is no reason why we have to accept an inadequate title simply because it has replaced a worse one. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
'Crap' can change per WP:TALKEDABOUTIT, especially when there are some good points that haven't been previously brought up. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Last discussion ended four days ago. Give it a rest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't really care when and how it ended. There are issues that need to be addressed and it appears that the idea of replacing 'unrest' with 'conflict' came up solely as a compromise. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Tell you what, if you can come up with a really good candidate title then we can discuss it. Until then let's not waste any more of people's time than has already been wasted. Right now you're just at the "I don't like the present title!" stage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Tell you what, why don't you take a look at the pre-"Not this crap again" entry where I think I've made a clear enough argument. And I did propose a title, in case you haven't noticed. I also suggest you read more on WP:CIVIL because your unexplained confrontational tone is certainly not helping. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Neither of those titles are any good, as they preclude the inclusion of the events in Odessa, Kharkiv, and other regions. This article is not just about the insurgency. It is about the unrest/conflict as a whole, across Ukraine. If you want to talk about the insurgency only, please direct yourself to the appropriate articles at Lugansk People's Republic and Donetsk People's Republic. This article includes protests in Kharkiv which are not a "rebellion", and also protests in Odessa, which are not a "rebellion". Mr Marek is quite right in this regard. No new points have been brought up, and the previous move was just completed. I personally would've preferred to remain at "unrest", as more inclusive, but I compromised. Everyone else here should also learn the art of compromise, and not to overwrite previous discussion that took place less than a week ago. RGloucester — ☎ 14:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I was perfectly fine with 'unrest' as well. Compromising is not gaining consensus, and in this case it is apparently no more than a temporary solution. The insurgency part was just me thinking out loud, and I believe I made it clear that I wasn't proposing this title. As for 'rebellion', then yes, I was proposing this title but I clearly made a mistake by disregarding the same argument I used to oppose 'insurgency'. Rebellion clearly reflects the armed side of the conflict, so if unrest won't be restored, then we have uprising ([7] [8] [9] [10]) and revolt ([11] [12] [13] [14] but most sources use both: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]) and these two go both ways: civil conflict and armed conflict.
Regarding the current title, I simply oppose it the same way you didn't want to 'tolerate' the misuse of the word campaign back in the template discussion. Forgive my English language, but would you care to define the noun 'conflict' for me? Last time I checked it was a difference between two or more ideas, wishes, etc. An even more relevant definition can be found on the Wikitionary. Only one of these 'two or more' sides is pro-Russian, while the conflict as a whole is not pro-Russian, it is pro-Russian vs. Kiev. The unrest, uprising or revolt are certainly pro-Russian, so there won't be any problem defining them as such in the title. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Here are some good titles: civil unrest, civil conflict, uprising, etc.—Arbutus the tree (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Fine, move it back to unrest. I'm fine with that, as that is what I would've preferred originally. It is overall the most inclusive title, and can included armed as well as civilian turmoil. You are not wrong about the word conflict. This was merely meant to be a compromise, nothing more, and I'm not satisfied with it either. RGloucester — ☎ 22:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC) RGloucester — ☎ 22:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with "unrest" as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, only now am I seeing this; this title should not be moved even one more time without coming up with a final title. No more compromises, please. I did not agree to any of this. Dustin (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I mean, you should not have had the entire "move it back to unrest" part in less than twelve hours. You are only making things worse. Too many pages, categories, descriptions must be changed because of this. This action will not help. Dustin (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
How can you be so hasty? Some of the involved editors won't have even seen your "per talk" thing. Some editors will wake up and suddenly find that an entire discussion has occurred while they have been gone. This is not consensus. Dustin (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if it seems like I am going on a rant. I am just really frustrated by the actions which have been taken. Dustin (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
To go on, I just mean that there are some active users who I have seen on many of these pages who never had the chance to contribute to the move back discussion. We need to just give it a moment and think because the "pro-Russian" part will just keep on getting attacked. Dustin (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
It is called WP:BRD, dear fellow. It rarely does any harm. Anyway, usually the traditional process is to go back to the last stable title in the event of conflict, and that was the last stable title. RGloucester — ☎ 22:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, but I just think that it is too troublesome to take the time to move everything back. I think that we should just try to take a while and come up with an agreeable title that will stop being attacked. What will work, what words should be used in an optimal title? Words like civil and domestic (maybe) might be candidates, I imagine... but we should stop trying to make compromises, and attempt to find the final answer. I have seen an inordinate amount of discussions related to the title, and we need to just sit back and try to think of a title that will be a keeper. There must be one, but it just has not been thought of yet. Dustin (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The only title that seems appropriate at present, to me, is 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Having seen the almost instantaneous complaints after the move to "conflict", I realise that the move was a mistake, and that I should've stuck to my guns. RGloucester — ☎ 22:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Were not there complaints on "unrest" for which reason the "title needs to be changed" discussion began in the first place? Far from what I would call stable, at least. And also, can you really say that this isn't a conflict? Dustin (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with unrest. To be honest, I thought it too soon to define it as a conflict, but there were quite a few contributors (and observers) getting a little overexcited and pushing for 'conflict'. The fact of its getting a lot of media coverage drives a lot of new traffic to articles, and reasonable decisions tend to get lost in the enthusiasm. —Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see how anyone could plausibly say it isn't a conflict -- you might be confusing 'conflict' with 'war', which is a much more specific thing. In conflict studies, 'conflict' is generally taken to mean the entire cycle of social tensions of which war (if it happens) is only the most deadly and visible phase. --Nizolan (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Why have you placed your thread straight under mine after the discussion has developed further below, Nizolan? Are you trying to engage me in a 'conflict'? You're confusing the lexicology of a particular discipline with the standard use of language applied to this article. You can have a quarrel with your spouse and that would constitute a 'conflict' according to the specific lexicon you're drawing on. I wouldn't expect the neighbours to talk about about it the next day as, "Did you hear them having another conflict last night?" In the context, levels of 'conflict' don't adhere to the standards of conflict studies. We're trying to do justice to the level of 'conflict' according to how native speakers of English understand the nuances of the language. The fact that your area is political science is possibly an obstruction when it comes to parsing the use of language outside of your discipline. This isn't an essay, conference paper, or any other form of discourse directly related to to conflict studies, hence using the term in that context is WP:OR for the purposes of a current affairs article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I've provided the dictionary definition many times. It doesn't matter whether it is a "conflict" or not, as "conflict" falls under the term unrest, which means "turmoil". Unrest, however, also allows for things other than direct "conflict", and doesn't have the problem of feeling with odd with the qualifier "pro-Russian". It was stable at the "unrest" title for at least a month, which is more stable than any other title. We can't make everyone happy, here, that's clear. There are plenty of people who want "Ukrainian Civil War", others who want "anti-Kiev protests", and various other things. We need to fall back on policy, and I think that policy favours unrest as a neutral and non-judgemental descriptive title. RGloucester — ☎ 01:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to qualify the difference as far as I'm concerned: I agree with you wholeheartedly. The serious push for a conflict infobox began just before I went on a week's holiday IRL. A distinct push was coming from contributors to the List of ongoing armed conflicts who'd already designated it an armed 'conflict' on that article and were anxious that this article fall in line. I did post a message on their talk page asking for their definition (as no definition of 'ongoing armed conflict' exists in the article), but was greeted by silence while other discussions continued to be developed. The POV pushes will continue, but I'm fully prepared to push back for neutrality per encyclopaedic delivery of information. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there some way to work around the "pro-Russian" issue at least? We shouldn't waste an extensive amount of time moving this back and forth, and I guarantee there will still be users pushing for a name change if we just push the name back to unrest again. Dustin (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
This isn't very good, but just to throw out more balanced examples, a "2014 civil unrest in Ukraine" or a "2014 civil conflict in Ukraine". Dustin (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Not WP:PRECISE, as it could once again refer to Euromaidan. There is no way to get around using "pro-Russian", as far as I can see. RGloucester — ☎ 02:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, I have to agree with RGloucester on this one. I do realise that may not be desirable in terms of being perceived to demonise Russia/Russians, but it is the crux of the unrest. We have to clearly disambiguate the events and, well, frankly the English language press is using the term in a manner we can't ignore, and I'm finding it difficult to come up with any other common usage terms from reliable sources. Trying to create our own 'neutral' variant on the theme would be WP:OR. —Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, unless such a term comes to light, we're stuck. There is "Russian Spring", but that's so POV that even the Russian Wikipedia doesn't use it as its title. RGloucester — ☎ 04:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Given that Putin and Ukraine's Petro Poroshenko have agreed to ceasefire talks[20], perhaps the best title would be 2014 Russo-Ukraine conflict, otherwise 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine is okay too. --Nug (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If such a construction were to be formed, it would be "Russo-Ukrainian", not "Russo-Ukraine". Regardless, that is a matter of POV, and doesn't handle the nuance of the situation. This is not a direct war. RGloucester — ☎ 05:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 Russo-Ukraine conflict is way out of the ballpark per WP:OR, as well as implying full scale war. I find myself toying with some convolution of 'separatism'... but whatever variant comes to mind would need to be supported by secondary resources. It also doesn't reflect the fact that the fundamental aim is to be absorbed by the RF as none of these regions stand a chance of economic independence. I'm still definitely not happy about 'conflict'. It shouldn't have gone there in the first place. —Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • 2014 Russophile revolt in in Ukraine, pro-Russia-pro-Ukraine conflict in Ukraine, Russo-Ukraino-Separatist triangle turmoil in Ukraine, Russophile-Europhile crisis in Ukraine, pro-Russian anti-government Ukrainian unrest, 2014 Kiev-detesting anti-Euromaidan pro-Yanukovych protesters in some Ukrainian regions mixed with pro-Russian separatist Kiev-detesting insurgents causing a ruckus in Ukraine, Pro-European-Pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine, Pro-Ukrainian government-anti-Ukrainian government unrest in Ukraine, Russo-Ukrainian nationalist crisis, Russo-nationalist-Ukraino-nationalist extremists in Donetsk????? RGloucester — ☎ 05:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
If you toss in at least one more 'separatist', a 'knee-jerk reactionary', and a 'pinko conspiracy' into it, I'd vote for the whole slab. Any information in the body of the article could simply be tossed as being superfluous. By George, I think you've done it! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I vote for 2014 Russian Ruckus in Ukraine --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 05:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, before chaos seizes the last bit of control, let us just take a few hours' break from commenting, okay? Dustin (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll also settle for fracas or rumble --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 05:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, it seems that all of the people participating in this discussion apart from me have lost their minds. Really... I will give this some thought; maybe I can come up with just the right title. Dustin (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Nah, LeVivsky, no fracas. Gotta stick with the alliteration. Alternatively, I'll go with "Global community misinterprets traditional Ukrainian 'going away' party for Yanu.". Don't worry about it, Dustin. It's just a short-lived episode to clear the cobwebs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev suggested the names "2014 Conflict in Ukraine" and "2014 Conflict in Luhansk and Donetsk regions of Ukraine". Seems like a good idea to specify the conflict in terms of where and when, rather than trying to state in the title what the main issue (or issues) is (or are). But "in Ukraine" is not specific enough, while "in Luhansk and Donetsk" is too specific, in that it leaves out Odessa and Kharkiv. What about 2014 conflict in eastern and southern Ukraine ? That includes Kharkiv, because it is in the east, and Odessa in the south, as well as Donetsk and Luhansk, but not the massive conflicts in the center of Kiev. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

^ Sounds better to me. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 conflict in eastern and southern Ukraine is a brilliant and accurate title. I do hope wikipedians agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.137.147 (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the current title is terrible. I'm okay with "2014 conflict in eastern and southern Ukraine". How about 2014 separatist conflict in Ukraine? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"2014 conflict in eastern and southern Ukraine" could refer to many different events, and isn't specific enough (there were "conflicts" in eastern and southern Ukraine during Euromaidan). "Separatist" is inappropriate, as not all of the participants are separatist, and many of said they want various other things, such as decentralisation, federalisation, empowerisation, and what have you. RGloucester — ☎ 14:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree, "2014 conflict in eastern and southern Ukraine" is not precise and I also fail to see how "2014 separatist conflict in Ukraine" changes anything. To be honest I don't mind characterizing the unrest, uprising, revolt as 'pro-Russian', but labelling the conflict as such is wrong as it reflects only one of the sides invovled. Let's make it quick and easy, shall we? I'm OK with any of the following titles for now: 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, 2014 pro-Russian uprising in Ukraine, 2014 pro-Russian revolt in Ukraine, 2014 separatist unrest in Ukraine, 2014 separatist uprising in Ukraine, 2014 separatist revolt in Ukraine, 2014 separatist crisis in Ukraine. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I've made my preference for the former "pro-Russian unrest" clear. RGloucester — ☎ 15:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I still think that is a bad title because it does not properly convey the situation. I might have another idea, though. What is a two-word title that may be unquestionably used to describe Ukraine under its new government? Dustin (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll provide the OED definition again, I suppose, for assured success:

Absence of rest; disturbance, turmoil, trouble – [Oxford English Dictionary]

"Turmoil" is exactly what is happening in Ukraine at present. RGloucester — ☎ 16:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

'pro russian unrest has already been REJECTED. So please stop your nonsense POV obsession about that

I personally find the definition 'turmoil' to be as vague and as non-precise as conflict, but I'm willing to accept pro-Russian unrest for the time being per my above arguments. We still have common names like 'uprising' and 'revolt' that might meet Dustin's demands for "a more serious version" of the word unrest. However, I would completely understand if some here will disagree with these terms and perceive them as POV options for now. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Uprising and revolt feel like loaded terms, per WP:LABEL. RGloucester — ☎ 16:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Well they are still common names among many reliable sources. Even UN media outlets are using the term 'uprising' [21] [22] while HRW used 'revolt' [23] and I think we normally rely on these to appropriately name major events now. But like I said, let's move it back to pro-Russian unrest now and maybe later we can consider different solutions. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester: You never answered my question on a two-word name for Ukraine with it's new government. Dustin (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
@Fitzcarmalan: They aren't really demands, just my desire to stop having a major move discussion every week, as it at least seems. Also, "unrest" was another issue which I believe may be more easily addressed than the pro-Russian part (I see that as an issue now whereas I didn't previously because if possible, we should be able to come up with a better word to describe these civil conflicts). It's not just my opinion, but the opinion of several others as well (lack of strength). It doesn't say much about the actual fighting which has been occurring. Dustin (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't have an answer, because I don't know what you mean. The only name for Ukraine is Ukraine. "Post-revolution Ukraine"? RGloucester — ☎ 17:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
The reason I am asking is so that we can have a more understandable title; "2014 pro-Russian whatever in some less ambiguous name for Ukraine with the new government" might work out by cutting out some of the possibilities, and with that change, might possibly be cut down more in terms of its length. Dustin (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
How about "2014 post-revolution unrest in Ukraine" or "2014 post-revolution conflict in Ukraine"?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
That would help, although it would be better as "post-revolutionary". Any more suggestions would be helpful. Dustin (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, it must be "post-revolutionary" if we are to follow proper English, as we must. As an example:[24] RGloucester — ☎ 18:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Now that I think of it, I believe 'post-Euromaidan' would be more appropriate since the current events are also considered a revolt/revolution. I didn't follow much the events back in Kiev, but why is the Euromaidan considered ongoing as portrayed in the infobox there? I just don't want any mistake to be repeated so let's freeze the !votes for now. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) I agree with RGloucester; we need to use the adjectival form, i.e. "post-revolutionary". I am glad to see that we are finally getting somewhere. We should still allow for the discussion to go on for at least a day more (in my opinion), and beyond that, if we can ensure a more stable title that is not just a compromise, then we can take action based on the discussion we are currently having. Dustin (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
There is still an ongoing "Euromaidan movement". No reliable sources call the current events a "revolution". RGloucester — ☎ 18:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Some sources call it a 'counterrevolution' ([25] [26]) and leading partisan figures call it a revolution (partisan opinions are widely considered on Wikipedia as well but rarely for title). Reliable sources also call it an uprising, revolt or rebellion which are near synonyms of the word 'revolution' and the events are regarded as a 'revolutionary' process (P.S. I'm not suggesting a similar title change here in case someone wonders). The slightest hint that a word simply exists to describe something matters a lot. Refusing post-Euromaidan on the pretext that an apparently insignificant "Euromaidan movement" is occurring with an unclear impact that appears to be minor on the current crisis is an unneeded precision, since the February uprising is also widely called the 'Euromaidan Revolution'. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I would not say that "revolt" and "rebellion" are synonyms, as "revolution" implies that regime change occurred, whereas the other two do not. "counter-revolution" does not imply that the current events are revolutionary, but instead implies that they are "countering" the existing revolution. We don't use loaded sensationalist journalistic language per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:POVNAME, unless there it is absolutely clear that that would be the only possible name for the article. RGloucester — ☎ 19:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I will simply underline the parts you appear to have missed or intentionally ignored (as usual). And for the record, a revolution doesn't necessarily imply that a regime change took place (e.g. Spanish Revolution), just so you know. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Just fair warning, but prepare for "the usuals crowd" to edit it / start annoying discussions to change it to "post-coup conflict" or "anti-junta conflict" --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 18:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, some protestors are demanding federalization, not independence or union with Russia.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
@Nug: Well, I still prefer the current title over a move back to "unrest", although we should still give more thought before we pass judgment. Dustin (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
FutureT, even those who are pro-federalization (small in number, if we go by Dobkin's election results) are pro-Russian. The purpose of federalization would be for increased autonomy in foreign police to strengthen ties with the Customs Union, and are otherwise Russo-centric in economic, political, social spheres. Federalization to give Russian language official status, for example. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 00:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
FT, you've posited an argument against yourself. Global economic preconditions preclude any possibility of creating an independent federation which, despite political rhetoric, these spokespeople are well aware of. The only common denominator is a desire to align themselves with the RF as opposed to the EU. That being the case, Pro-Russian is the only logical title for the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I like "post-revolutionary" better. Dustin (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
None of these are as concise as "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine". RGloucester — ☎ 02:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

How many times did you write this??? Anyone here understood that you support "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" as a name for the article but once again this name has been R-E-J-E-C-T-E-D...deal with it. For now it is better to leave the current name as it is and wait to see future events-escalation or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.151.227 (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no WP:CONSENSUS to change the current title to anything else. --Nug (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
In fact, "2014 Post-revolutionary Ukraine conflict" is seriously WP:POV. It inherently validates the RF military intervention in Crimea. It would also demand a reworking of the content of the article as it stands: it doesn't agree with the proposed title. Most importantly, it's WP:OR. There's nothing in the English language media sources to back this up as being an acceptable compromise, nor do we have the hindsight of peer-reviewed research as yet (and won't have any until the research quantum starts to get totted up in 2015). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Crimean crisis started before 27 Feb. SC takeover, but "post-revolutionary conflict" gives no idea on what (and why) exactly is taking place. Therefore, I'd like to retain "pro-Russian" in page title either way (regardless of "conflict", "unrest" or similar stuff). Seryo93 (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Considering that it's true, there is nothing "POV" I see about it, and it keeps out the trolls. And it was definitely after many revolutionary actions. "Unrest" didn't convey the entire situation either, but we still used it. Dustin (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Seryo93 and Dustin V. S.: I'd actually ended up writing a treatise on the matter but, rather than leave a wall of text, I redacted it too much. No, it is not extremely POV, but I'm actually thinking about how to keep the trolls out. I think Seryo93 gets the point of what I was trying to convey. The body of the article would have to match the text, meaning that it would become a green light for WP:COATHANGERS to introduce "what and why". It takes no long stretch of the imagination to tie Crimea, etc. into the events as a whole so, rather than keeping out the trolls, as you've suggested Dustin, I'd suggest that it would open the sluice-gates for POV pushers. My prime interest is in avoiding such scenarios (although I still prefer 'unrest' to 'conflict'). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind keeping 'pro-Russian' either, but it simply can't be next to 'conflict' since they represent only one side of the events and a conflict is normally between two or more different sides. I'm also fine with 'post-Euromaidan' instead of post-revolutionary as explained above. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What about adding one or two words to the title, like : "2014 conflict in pro-Russian areas of Ukraine" or "2014 conflict in Ukraine's pro-Russian areas". Ec.Domnowall (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Because the areas themselves are not "pro-Russian"; some people in them are. I know multiple from Donetsk who are not "pro-Russian", and we know that these people exist, as has been reported in reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 16:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the title 2014 conflict in eastern and southern Ukraine, which was suggested earlier would be a good one, but the title was already changed once. We can't keep changing the title every other day. If there are enough references to support that change, I wouldn't oppose.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not just call "2014 Donbass conflict in Ukraine"? "Donbass" is appropriate local name, both in Russian (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81_%28%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%29) and Ukrainian (http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%89%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0) and it covers exactly the conflict area in a single word, and the term is used in Russian and Ukrainian press. Then, the unrest part may be moved into separate article. This way, we'll get a clean structure that makes it easy to differentiate between relatively unarmed protests and the actual separatist conflict, not the huge mess there is now. Alternatively, it may be "2014 unrest in South-Eastern Ukraine", which again describes the area with few words and can include Odessa/Kharkov protests. 128.68.86.177 (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate the difficulties in finding a title that is not too broad, not too narrow, and perfectly neutral on top of it, I would like to echo the objection by FunkMonk that started this thread: "pro-Russian conflict" just doesn't make much sense logically and linguistically. A "conflict" can't be "pro"-something. Participants in a conflict can be "pro"-something or "anti"-something. The conflict itself is neither "pro" nor "anti"; it is, by definition, between two sides, of which one is "pro"-whatever while the other isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I still think it would be better to have a title like "2014 post-revolutionary conflict in Ukraine" or something similar that is more neutral, makes more logical sense, and which has the side-effect of nullifying the trolls. Dustin (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we all agree with Mr Monk in this regard. This was a compromise, at best, and one I'm now convinced was pointless. "south-eastern Ukraine" doesn't include Odessa. Odessa is in south-western Ukraine. The Odessa and Kharkiv events should not be moved. If you want articles on the "Donbass conflict", go to Donetsk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic, which handle that business. Anyway, that could be confused with earlier unrest during the Maidan. The best alternative is "post-revolutionary", but I'm not sure that's very good either. RGloucester — ☎ 18:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Any non-compromise alternatives? Dustin (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, here's the deal. Me and Lunch for Two are working on Draft:2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk, to be split off from Donetsk People's Republic (please assist at that draft, if you please). This will give people their Donbass article. After that's done, personally I'd favour moving this page back to "unrest". If "pro-Russian" is an issue, I'd accept "post-revolutionary unrest". RGloucester — ☎ 18:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah... this will be an important one. I'll help; I do a lot of reference work and other work most people consider not worth the time. In any case, once that article has been created, there will probably be a load of people starting to complain about the title of this article again, which will be no good, but I guess that'll be a problem for later with a new article in the works. Thanks for the notice. Dustin (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree on that "pro-Russian" is an inadequate descriptor of the conflict. Why not just state it in geographical terms without implying pro-Ukrainess and pro-Russianess? Sietecolores (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Because of Euromaidan, also a 2014 conflict/unrest/protests, which also had events take place in these parts of Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 20:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Absurdity of U.S. mercenaries involved in East Ukraine.

For some reason this has stayed well past its time.

This first statement that was deleted says that the FBI are involved in the eastern conflict when the article it sources specifically says otherwise.

The Second statement quotes a German Newspaper quoting RT news. RT news provides zero, zilch, Nada proof of this occurring. It uses the old name for these imaginary mercenaries. If the article were about something so important, you'd think they'd get the name right.

And then some stupid denial is tagged on as if that makes it POV. It would be as if I quoted some propaganda site written and Sanskrit and said the following:

"Putin has invaded eastern Ukraine and Crimea to collect as many pretty young boys as possible, because he really, really likes raping virgin little boys! Putin denies this."

Do you really think that adding that second sentence to something which might, slim chance in hell, maybe be true makes the first sentence ok??

No, it doesn't. And just because I might quote the "most popular" newspaper in Cambodia doesn't make this any more appropriate to write in a Wikipedia article.

400 Blackwater troops moving in to Eastern Ukraine is patently absurd. We are really talking the Russel Teapot Theory. First thing, this would be history. And I don't mean in the way you're thinking. "Blackwater", if you want to keep calling them by the old name, hasn't worked in a group larger than 20. 400? Seriously? This is absurd.

And nearly a month has passed with still absolutely no evidence. Am I surprised? No. You rarely find any evidence for absurdity.

As for the FBI, the FBI works with every country wanting to cooperate to catch criminals. They worked with Yanukovich for crying out loud. They're working with Putin. There are many criminals which "everyone" wants to catch including pedophiles, child pornographers, etc. http://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/legat/legal_offices/eurasia Look they're everywhere. They're in Moscow!! Does that mean they are planing to assassinate Putin? Seriously, this is absurd.

I could go on and on about the absurdity of this section. But can we please use the Russel Teapot Theory instead. You have to provide good evidence for something as important as this happening. Not some he said, she said B.S., real evidence. How do we know Russians are in Eastern Ukraine? Because reporters have walked up to dozens of them video recording the Russians saying they are Russians and where they are from in Russia and producing their passports as evidence. Video shows dead men being returned to Russia. The addresses of the Russians involved have been visited in Russia to confirm the story.

The evidence for the imaginary U.S. mercenaries - nothing.

This may seem like a lot of text for some to absorb, and I wouldn't write this much except that this has already been discussed on this talk page and IMO the argument won for deletion. Yet, somehow this absurdity remains.Hilltrot (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

None of that is even in the article. Dude, where are you coming up with this? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 04:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@Hilltrot: I really have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about. May you possible provide links? Dustin (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
It's what I've recently erased and hoped to stay that way. Several previous sections above have already talked about this.Hilltrot (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Hilltrot removed it at the same time as the current edit war broke out, so you may have missed the removed section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's an "absurdity" as it involves the letters U, S and A. Like in 2003, it would be unthinkable that Iraq wouldn't have WMDs because U S and A. said it had WMDs. Like Obama deserved more the Peace Nobel Prize than Putin (who was actually proposed to be) deserved to be! Join Angela Merkel, Benjamin Netanyahu, Xin Jinping, Kim-Jon-Un, Tayyip Erdogan and Omar Al Bashir!... I bet Erdogan would have a chance! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Hilltrot that wacky Russian propaganda, as entertaining as it is, should be removed. --Nug (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@Modolkiri1: Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing your opinion, no matter how true you believe it to be. You didn't need to say that stuff about Obama or any of the people in the final sentence. You haven't actually directly expressed any changes that should be made, even if you implied them, so your comment is not really helping. And regarding things that are just sarcasm, one cannot distinguish over the internet. Dustin (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@Dustin V.S.:I didn't say that there are American mercenaries in Eastern Ukraine, but I said it wouldn't be absurd. Actually there is a category in Wikipedia about American mercenaries ([[27]])Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[User:Mondolkiri1|Mondolkiri1]] (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
the evidence and presentation is absurd more-so than the concept. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
There are reports in the German and Russian media, about the involvement of Blackwater mercenaries. Of course they deny that. But what would you expect them to do, either if indeed they are in Ukraine or not?[User:Mondolkiri1|Mondolkiri1]] (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Possible involvement. There was no actual provement. Captured "mercenaries" turned up an OSCE mission members. 94.231.125.183 (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say that it is proven, rather I said that it's not absurd.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absurd I'd say it's absurd... Jersey John (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I guess the definition that is written in the dictionary applies more to the Flat Earth Society, no?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine template (again)

Resolved

Iryna Harpy already tried to solve this issue and she couldn't solve this issue. Anyoneone can fix this template? Please???? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2014 (WEST - Lisbon Time)

What is the issue exactly that you are having problems with? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I think this is the show/hide issue again. Dustin (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
@Mondolkiri1: Are you talking about the show/hide issue again? Dustin (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
For the footer template or the one below the infobox? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I was talking about the footer template. I believe that there was this issue where the show/hide button wouldn't display so the template couldn't be collapsed. Dustin (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Wait, that wouldn't make any sense... Dustin (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
@Mondolkiri1: What exactly is the problem you are concerned about? Dustin (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Excuse my edit summary with this diff. That was partly a mistake. Dustin (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, as I told to Iryna Harpy and as she tried to solved it but she said she could not, the problem that I explained to her was "There is something wrong with this template, because is doesn't even allow to access the "show" link. I tried to fix it, but with no success. Anyone could try to fix it, please? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)". And it's not solved yet. Anyone can solve it? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2014 (WEST - Lisbon Time)
The problem is that there are two templates called 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine I looked at both and saw no recent edits by Iryna Harpy on either one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion is probably referring to {{2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine}}. I cannot be sure, though. I can see the show links on both templates, so I am kind of confused here. Dustin (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I have un-collapsed the template (I need help getting rid of the space below) does this help? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that won't help, Knowledgekid87. It's the article's main infobox that's corrupted (see the discussion above. I confirmed this by swapped the two infoboxes below, and the Post-Soviet Conflicts box did the same thing (i.e., lost the link and couldn't be opened) when I moved it directly underneath the article infobox. I'm still trying to sort it, but I'm having to troubleshoot my computer simultaneously. Sigh. Hopefully, I'll find enough consecutive time in which to work out what's going wrong with the main infobox by Tuesday. It's been 'broken' for ages, so a couple more days won't make much difference. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait, I am confused. The infobox works perfectly fine for me, and I am not having any problems. Is it a browser-specific issue, maybe? Dustin (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Its working fine for me too and im using IE11. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I also got the boxes to open using Google Chrome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Found the problem, using firefox has the letters over the "Show" box it is a browser issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agree, with Google Chrome. It messes up with my Firefox browser. I haven't updated my IE, though, so I cannot say there. Dustin (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I just upgraded to the newest version and it does no good, I would use a different browser other than firebox as a solution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
It has been resolved for Firefox now... but suggesting another browser is not a solution. Articles, infoboxes, etc. are supposed to be accessible using as many platforms, OS's and browsers as possible. They're written for readers, not just for contributors. Given that Firefox is one of the most popular browsers, trying to dismiss the problem with "use another browser" is not on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Igor Strelkov

Is this the wiki page where we can write about Igor Strelkov the recently outted Russian spy operating in eastern Ukraine? http://www.google.com/search?hl=ru&gl=ua&tbm=nws&q=Igor+Strelkov&oq=Igor+Strelkov Thank You, Anonymous

NB:Dimitry Kolesnikov is'nt part so far as I am aware from Other Russia, he was not arrested by Ukrainian but by russians being the former head of the Financial brigade of the ministry of the interior I think. Another Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.194.35.141 (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2014

Hi. Please add American mercenaries under the left column of the "Parties to the civil conflict" section. Sources include the following among others: [28], [29], [30], [31]. Also add a "Supported by" section under the same column and put "Central Intelligence Agency" and "Federal Bureau of Investigation" in it. This is supported here: [32], [33], [34], www.infowarscom/cia-fbi-and-now-academi-mercenaries-on-the-ground-in-ukraine/ [unreliable fringe source?].

119.254.66.7 (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. Mercenaries are not generally included in lists of belligerents, mostly because there will be mercenaries from many countries in Ukraine, not just Americans. DJAMP4444 09:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Igor Girkin

Hi, could someone copy-edit and/or update this article? Thanks. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What? If you think the article needs work, why don't you do it? Also, asking for other people to work on an article from another article's Talk page is bizarre. – Herzen (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 Not done per Herzen. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, and you're on the wrong talkpage. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No one in the media is using: 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine, to describe the conflict

So why are we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.8.83 (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

According to http://censor.net.ua/ there has been already tanks, grad and military batallions from Chechnya. It is far from pro-Russian right now - it should be called Russian intervention in eastern Ukraine.

http://censor.net.ua/news/289913/posle_obstrela_terroristy_brosili_rossiyiskiyi_grad_prinadlejaschiyi_18yi_gvardeyiskoyi_motostrelkovoyi (Grad, who belongs to Russian army division from Chechnya) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.248.229 (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are only in Crimea, not in Eastern Ukraine, the most you could call the article, according to your explanation, would be "Chechnya intervention in Eastern Ukraine"Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Chechnya is part of Russia. However the problem is actual. According to this: http://aco.nato.int/statement-on-russian-main-battle-tanks.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.248.229 (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) But the name is recognizable and makes it quite clear what the subject is. If you are advocating that we change the name, then I would suggest that you find more source, make sure that the proposed title is not too long, and make sure that it could not possibly be confused with anything else. Regardless, I think that the currently proposed name "Russian intervention in eastern Ukraine" is not clear enough. Dustin (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It should be made 2014 Ukrainian insurgency or 2014 Donbas insurgency because that basically describes what this is... practically all media are now calling it an insurgency. --Kuzwa (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree the name should be changed as this one is not the WP:COMMONNAME but to what? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
This article isn't just about the insurgency, and it isn't just about eastern Ukraine. It also includes Odessa, and many protests. The article that deals with the insurgency specifically is Donetsk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic. As far as WP:COMMONNAME, that cannot be applied. We are using WP:NDESC, and for good reason. RGloucester — ☎ 03:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV would point us toward not characterizing or impling what one side wants to do if they 'win' the conflict. Specifically, "pro-Russian" is a propaganda term that implies that union with Russia is the goal of the 'separatists', and this conflicts with what many of them say, which is that their goal is a deeply federalized Ukraine. "Pro-Russian" also implies that 'pro-Russianism' is the basis of the war, also propaganda against one side. On the other hand, obviously the propaganda term is quite common in the mainstream and RS media. Finally, when describing a conflict, the WP:COMMONNAME term is typically something that is general enough that it can describe both sides. In the US, there was the 'Civil War' and the 'Revolution', and the Mexican–American War, not the pro or anti-slavery war, the anti-British war, and the 'US-expansion war'.Haberstr (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

How about 2014 conflict in Eastern and Southern Ukraine ? —Tocino 13:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to remove the important qualifier "pro-Russian", so as to avoid reference earlier conflicts in 2014. RGloucester — ☎ 14:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that before another name change will become necessary, the conflict will either have to escalate further or we will have to finish the discussion at "#Title makes no sense, which will probably never happen until another event occurs, at least the way I see it. Dustin (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Only time will tell. RGloucester — ☎ 15:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine is in the state of civil war in the East, de facto. The most appropriate name would be "Ukraine separatist" war or conflict. Pro russian conflict is a bland name and does not show that the insurgency is heavily in reject of Kiev and Maidan. This is very similar to the early conflicts in ex USSR republics where abkhazia and Ossetia broke away after a separatist conflict. --Usual and Chronical (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC) WP:DENY sockpuppet. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

East Ukraine conflict would be better. Most media outlets seem to have 'East/Eastern Ukraine' and 'Conflict' or 'war' as a description. Although it's also often referred to as a crisis. DylanLacey (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
It isn't just in "eastern Ukraine". It also includes events in Odessa. If you want information on the events in eastern Ukraine (not including Kharkiv, where there is no conflict), see 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk. RGloucester — ☎ 16:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk

So... 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk is just the next stage of these events... Should we request a change be made to the Main Page where it currently says "Ukrainian conflict"? Perhaps ask that it be modified to include a link to the new article? Dustin (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

My conception is this: this article remains the overview for the unrest across Ukraine, whereas that article only deals with the armed conflict. I imagine it would be wise to ask them to change that. I've restored the old title here, as it makes more sense as an "over-arching" title, now that the armed conflict has its own article. RGloucester — ☎ 19:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester: Since the military conflict is more "in the news" than the unrest (from what I can gather), would it be a good idea to request that Ukrainian conflict be changed to Eastern Ukrainian insurgency or at least add the latter (or something similar)? Dustin (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The title of the "insurgency" article is up for debate, if anyone has a better title. That was just a working title. As far as the main page is concerned, I'd recommend making them aware of the split. RGloucester — ☎ 19:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't debating the name of the article; that's just how the Main Page would pipe it. But yes, it would be good to mention it. Dustin (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester: I brought it up here: Talk:Main Page#In the news: Eastern Ukrainian insurgency. This will hopefully draw some responses. Dustin (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Schematic of our coverage of these events

This is our present schematic. RGloucester — ☎ 19:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

'Unrest' a ridiculously tame word to describe the conflict

It has been voted several times that 'unrest' is a joke name...still a couple of obsessed wikipedians apply their biased POV http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21604563-violence-eastern-ukraine-may-abate-while-russian-meddling-could-crank-it-up Even according to a hardline pro-western media like Economist the civil war is descreibed as 'Civil War' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.220.119 (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You can't just impose your personal bias…you can't just change the structure and the NAME fo an article in wikipedia just because you think so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.220.119 (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not imposing any bias. The split was discussed in multiple venues. There is now an article for the armed conflict specifically. If you'd like to change that article to meet your needs, go ahead. RGloucester — ☎ 18:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Or it could be called "2014 pro-Russian insurgency in Ukraine" or possibly "2014 pro-Russian rebellion in Ukraine." Palmsandshells (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the insurgency article. That article is 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk. If you'd like to change the title of that article, please discuss at that page, not here. RGloucester — ☎ 21:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with RGlouster. As the map indicates, the insurgency is currently occurring only in two eastern oblasts. This article is discussing the entire pro-Russian movement as a whole, which in some areas only includes riots and protests, rather than armed rebellion by local militias. Therefore, the naming organization of this series of articles should remain, at least for the time being. Q5W5 [discussion] 11:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It was restored with an informal discussion, above, where many participants noted that "conflict" didn't make any sense along with "pro-Russian", and agreed to a restoration of the previous title. Splitting off the "insurgency" article makes this even more relevant, as this article is not about the "conflict", but about the overall "unrest", including areas where there is no conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 16:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
One your own post in not equal "discussion". Such renaming of important, most-viewed, eponymous articles must be discussed not outside of WP:RM process. Restore original title and start WP:RM discussion if you want, because there are many arguments against. NickSt (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't my "own" post, please read #Title makes no sense. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. There is no "must not". We do what we have to do provide adequate coverage. Please also note that the move to "conflict" was also done through an informal discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 16:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
There was no any consensus for "unrest" in that section. It was discussion about "pro-Russian" word only, not about conflict/unrest. NickSt (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe that means you didn't read it thoroughly. RGloucester — ☎ 16:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm... it seems that the article has been moved back. Dustin (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have restored the status-quo (majority votes for "conflict" here). Anyone can start WP:RM and try to reach the consensus for renaming. NickSt (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Once again, you modified the redirect, making it impossible to revert your bold move. That is quite horrid behaviour on your part. There was not a majority of votes for conflict, and anyway, votes don't matter here. Clearly you didn't read the discussion section, and now, we have a title that makes no sense at all, as said by various people above. The status-quo is "unrest". RGloucester — ☎ 16:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • During last month article had name with "conflict", and only one day (since yesterday) is "unrest". What is problem to open WP:RM section? If you can't, I will try to do it instead of you. NickSt (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no problem. However, there was an ongoing discussion here, which you just ignored, and also modified the redirect in bad faith. If you'd been paying attention to this talk page for the period since "conflict" was agreed to as a compromise, you'd be aware that most of those supported it as a compromise realised that it was a poor idea, and said that a move back to unrest made more sense. Meaning, of course, since this only an informal discussion which established "conflict", that the move to "conflict" against the status-quo was inappropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 17:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
We never finished that discussion. I want a non-compromise title, which "unrest" would still be. I think it is only a matter of time before more trolls arrive (although there are still good-faith editors in opposition). Dustin (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Please say your arguments and show reliable sources for "unrest" in the section below: #Requested move 22 June 2014. NickSt (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Spare me. I have no desire to participate in another drawn out RM discussion. You've accomplished your goal of being disruptive. I'll take my leave. RGloucester — ☎ 17:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

At this point I feel that since the title was moved without move wars being done or the like that we do not need a move request at this point. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

This article title makes no sense at all for the scope of this article. This article is not about the conflict. The "conflict" is 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk. Not to mention the problems with characterising a "conflict" as "pro-Russian" as mentioned by people above. Unlike "unrest", "conflict" doesn't make sense when modified by an adjective in this manner. RGloucester — ☎ 18:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
If you are unhappy with it then why don't you want an official move request made? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Because it is pointless, that's why. We're stuck with this now. It's done. I'm not going to waste hours arguing why this article isn't about a "conflict", or anything else. It is a waste of time, as these discussions have continually been. So fine, we're stuck with a title that makes no sense. I accept it. Better to be nonsense than sense, I always say. RGloucester — ☎ 18:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Once again, we have Nickst tampering with redirects in bad faith upon moving articles, meaning that they can never be moved back by a non-administrator. Despite being warned multiple times, even by an administrator, about his move at the former Federal State of New Russia, he continually does this, now at Media portrayal of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, and Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. I'm tired of bad faith. I'm tired of working on articles, only to be stymied by disruptive editors. Notice that when I move a page, I don't mess with the redirect making it impossible for it to be moved. You know why? Because I assume good faith. Clearly that's a waste of time here. RGloucester — ☎ 18:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
First, yesterday you renamed similar articles to "unrest" without any consensus or discussing. Second, it is absolutely not {{R from move}}, it is {{R from alternative name}}, read about rendering of the redirect page here: Help:Redirect. Also I don't understand why you removed WP:RM section created by me. It is a clear, don't delete my posts! [35] [36] NickSt (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
There was a discussion. Don't give me a bunch of nonsense about "rendering redirects". You moved the page. That makes it a "redirect form a move". Regardless, you didn't add the alternative name template until afterwards[37], to cover your tracks, so that hardly qualifies as a reason. RGloucester — ☎ 18:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, first I removed wrong template only. And when I have remembered correct template, you already reverted my edits. In this time you removed my posts two times (!) in this page. NickSt (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Right. Right!? I'm sure that's why you did it. Not to prevent a move back!? Despite having done this multiple times before. You expect me to believe that? RGloucester — ☎ 19:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

CIA and FBI in infobox

This whole discussion was twisted by sock accounts but the content was removed - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:53, 29 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.

Re: [38]. This is pretty ridiculous. If you actually bother reading the source (which is a bit of sensationalist tabloid which likes to make unsupported claims based on their supposed sources within "German security services"), what it actually says is that there are FBI agents who are providing advice to the government on how to fight organized crime and corruption. The "CIA agents" is just John Brennan paying a visit to Ukraine. Even this sloppy source explicitly states that these "agents" are NOT involved in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. They even underline a part of that statement.

This is a straight up misrepresentation of a source to push a POV. Don't restore it.

And oh yeah, if User:Chessplayer2 isn't a sock puppet of a banned user then I'm a brother to a person who has a Cercopithecidae as an offspring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Calm down, calm down! We don't need to be throwing around accusations of sockpuppetry here. I understand what you are saying above but I think that's the reason it was labelled "supported by". Meaning that the agents are advising the Ukrainian government on how to fight the insurgents. That's the way I take it and based on the way other war infoboxes are done, it seems appropriate to me. What do you think? L'Aquotique (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
This is an article about the pro-Russian conflict, not about who advises the Ukrainian government on fighting organized crime or anti-corruption. The source in fact explicitly states that the "agents" ARE NOT involved in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. How much plainer can that be? (And like I said, it's a sketchy source) Which raises the question of why you're restoring a blatant misrepresentation of a source.
This source [39] is repeating the Bild story except they just add a whole bunch of spin.
You just don't have support in the sources. And this is POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Any news source is going to have bias. Whether it's CNN, RT, FOX, Wall Street Journal, or whatever. You're pov pushing because of your distrust for certain news sources. Anything reliable is acceptable. L'Aquotique (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
None of this is relevant. There's no simpler way to say it: the source doesn't support what you and that Chessmaster account are pretending it says. And that's on top of any questions of reliability. And yes, this is POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Or to put it even simpler: conspiracy theories don't belong in a Wikipedia article, much less the infobox.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not a conspiracy theory, nor does it come from a conspiracy site. It comes from a reliable news source. Any news source will be at least somewhat biased, but that doesn't make it untrue. Anyone who keeps up with the news knows that. Now you need to stop not assuming good faith and cease with your accusations of sockpuppetry just because you can't get your way. You're being very uncivil right now. L'Aquotique (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the source does not support the contention. How many times have I said that now? What does this have to do with whether any source is biased or not? Where you're getting that from? And I made no reference to sockpuppetry in my comments except for the first one. Why are you protesting so much about it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I apologize about my protesting, as I have a bit of a temper sometimes. Okay, what I meant about bias is the fact that you seem to be saying that this isn't worth mentioning in the infobox (or the article at all) just because of the slanted way it's presented. I'm saying that any news source will have a bias, whether it's Kremlin bias, American conservative bias, corporate bias, Islamic bias, or whatever. It's downright impossible to keep up with the news without taking in someone else's bias of the story. What I'm saying is that Bild and The Moscow Times should be considered generally reliable, thus they are relevant to the article at hand. Just because they present a true story in a slanted way doesn't make the story a conspiracy theory. Just find a different source that covers the same thing from a different pov. And I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this in the future. Do you see what I'm saying? I don't know where you're getting the idea that this is some sort of fringe theory. Could you explain your position more thoroughly, please? L'Aquotique (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
If you want to list everyone who visited Ukraine recently as their supporters you should probably also list European Union, World Bank and a dozen of other organisations. Actually, Putin and Lavrov also have met with Poroshenko recently, so you should probably list them on the supporting side as well? Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not trying to list everyone who travelled to Ukraine to express vocal support for the government. These articles say that actual CIA and FBI agents are active in assisting the Ukrainian government track down and fight rebels. That's no different than us listing that India assisted in the Korean War with medical aid while not actually sending combat troops. Same thing here. The U.S. Government is actively assisting the Ukrainian government fight a war even while not having troops on the ground engaging in direct combat. L'Aquotique (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(Deindenting this thread as it's becoming unreadable) But US government is not assisting Ukraine in fighting the war, they are doing it fully using their own military forces. Note that even Russian Federation is not mentioned as "side of the conflict" for their involvement in Donbas (which is likely but unproven for now), but for Crimea, which they officially confirmed. Also, even the "Bild" article does not claim CIA involvement in the conflict with Russia (Die Agenten seien aber nicht direkt an den Kämpfen mit den prorussischen Milizen in der Ost-Ukraine beteiligt. Ihre Tätigkeit beschränke sich auf die Hauptstadt Kiew.) and mentioning FBI as "side of the conflict" is just plain manipulation (Die FBI-Agenten helfen der Kiewer Übergangsregierung zudem dabei, die organisierte Kriminalität im Lande zu bekämpfen) Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry, but I can't read German. I'm going by what the articles that referenced it said. But if you really insist, I do have a few more sources that mention this and other similar things. L'Aquotique (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, come on just use Google Translate and you'll get the point... Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and I totally disagree that the U.S. isn't assisting the Ukrainian government. If they are sending federal agents to help track down and fight pro-Russian rebels, then they are a supporting party to the conflict no matter how you look at it. It's kind of like how the DEA, FBI, and CIA assist the Mexican and Colombian governments in fighting drug cartels even if they never actually send troops. Or how the U.S., Qatar, and Saudi Arabia arm the Syrian opposition. They're still part of the conflict if they help one side fight the other (and we label them under "supported by" in these articles). This is absolutely no different. L'Aquotique (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Even if they are assisting, they are not side of the conflict. You are free to add the "supporting" reference further in the article, but not in the "sides of the conflict" section. European Union is also helping Ukraine, but no one is claiming it's side of the conflict, because then it would be a conflict between European Union, USA and Russian Federation, which is not. Also, please do not restore these claims sourced by an article in language which you do not understand as declared above. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
As said above, I'm not talking about countries, people, and organizations that have merely expressed verbal support for the Ukrainian government. I'm talking about parties actually participating in the conflict itself. And what the CIA and FBI are doing is not different than what they are doing in the Mexican Drug War, in which they are considered a supporting party to the Mexican government and military. See what I mean? L'Aquotique (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Russia is supporting Syria with arms and advisors, but it doesn't make it a side in the Syrian Civil War. Same story here, even if the Bild story was true. Do you understand what "sides of the conflict" means at all? What you are effectively trying to say in the infobox is that it's armed conflict between Russia and US, which is not true. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I know exactly what sides of the conflict means. And I'm attempting to do this infobox the same way we've done all the other war infoboxes. I never said this was a war between the U.S. and Russia and it doesn't have to be. If you look at Korean War, numerous countries supported the war effort even if they never fought each other. The U.S. and USSR were both belligerents to e conflict even though (if you know your history) they never actually fought each other directly during the war. So the war in Ukraine is the same; nobody ever said it was a Washington-Kremlin war; they just said the former is aiding one side and the latter is aiding the other. And that's the way a lot of wars are. You demonstrate a lack of knowledge about how war and politics actually work. L'Aquotique (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This does not belong in the infobox, at all. It is WP:UNDUE, and potentially poorly sourced propaganda. The infobox only contains the most CRITICAL parties to the conflict. The burden of proof is higher in the infobox. You've provided very little evidence. 15:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
You're still not addressing what I have pointed out above. L'Aquotique (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I have heard rumors also of Mossad being active in support of Ukraine's government. That's just a rumor I think, but the CIA and FBI stories are established beyond reasonable doubt to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.96.134 (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, looking into that, these rumors do seem exist and the idea that Mossad is active here as well seems highly likely. But yes, it does appear to differ from the thing about the U.S. government, which is covered in multiple reliable sources. I don't think we should insert anything about Mossad (at least not until it seems better established), but the I'm still for the CIA and FBI thing because everyone here seems to be missing my above points. L'Aquotique (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@Kravietz:, @Volunteer Marek: Okay, regardless of what you guys say, it's clear that the CIA and FBI are parties to the conflict. Yes, the sources do say that their activities are limited to Kiev and that they are not engaging in direct hostilities with the rebels. But it still says that they are advising and helping the government to quell the rebellion and fight the insurgents. That sounds like involvement to me. I still plan to restore this info eventually, so if anyone has any further objections, please come up with them now. L'Aquotique (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
They are not parties to the conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 01:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester: You're going to have to come up with a better argument than that. Is that really all you can say? L'Aquotique (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
No, he's not. It's already been explained to you several times. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Whatever then. Even with two other people agreeing with me, everyone still wants it their way. Very well then. I guess some people just never grow up and continue to act like dumb two-year-olds with their outlandish selfishness and ego. If that's the kind of uncivilized world you people want to live in, then that's perfectly fine with me. Perfectly fine with me. I'll be moving on now, but maybe one day when more info about this becomes available, you'll be kicking yourselves over why you didn't listen to that dumb blonde Czech girl on the Wikipedia talk page. I mean, seriously, is that really the way you choose to interact with other people? Freaky retards. L'Aquotique (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Once the "information becomes available", then we can report it. Not prior. "Available" meaning reported widely in reliable sources that the CIA and FBI are "parties to the conflict", to the point that they must be in the infobox. RGloucester — ☎ 02:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity then, exactly how many reliable sources does something (anything, not just this) need be widely covered in before it can be mentioned on Wikipedia? I've seen things cited here before that were reliable, but likely weren't reported very widely. L'Aquotique (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
This is explained here Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also, insulting people who are trying to explain why the CIA/FBI nonsense is not verifiable is not the best way to go in Wikipedia — Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you feel that our arguments are invalid and this information should be restored, please do not restore it yourself, but follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution instead. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
@Kravietz: I apologize for my intimidating behavior and I am willing to properly work with the community to settle this. I would certainly be willing to go for a dispute resolution, but unfortunately, it appears that most everyone has lost interest at this time. Would you be willing to further discuss this elsewhere? L'Aquotique (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we can continue on my discussion page if you like. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I am glad this foolishness was removed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

If FBI and CIA really are there, it might seem reasonable to add something about it here, but just maybe not in the main box. Maybe it should just be somewhere else in the article and say something like, "Bild and the Russian media have accused the American intelligence agencies of helping the Ukraine junta". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.148.82 (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a fairly reasonable option to me. L'Aquotique (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
How is including anything about a "Ukraine junta" reasonable? RGloucester — ☎ 04:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the possibility of mentioning this later in the article per Kravietz' comment made above at 11:41, 20 June. Simply mentioning that German and Russian news sources are claiming that the CIA and FBI are helping the government and leaving it out of the infobox for now, unless it becomes more relevant in the future. L'Aquotique (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. The "accusations" used to be in the article under the "notable participants" section, I believe. Seems to have been removed. RGloucester — ☎ 04:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

After sifting through this lengthy discussion, I actually have to voice my support for L'Aquotique, despite the fact that her arguments are rather repetitive and trending toward being disruptive. As Volunteer Marek has pointed out above these U.S. agents are not involved in the eastern insurgency as L'Aquotique continues to imply. However, as I and RGloucester have also pointed out two sections down from here, this article concerns not only the insurgency in the east, but rather the entire pro-Russian conflict as a whole. Therefore, listing the CIA and FBI as parties to the pro-Ukrainian movement in this article does seem reasonable to me, since the eastern insurgency, of which the CIA and FBI are not part, has it's own article. Q5W5 [discussion] 12:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Q5W5 has made a pretty good point. Although I oppose the idea that I'm really being disruptive by asserting a particular viewpoint. L'Aquotique (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
@Q5W5: But how CIA and FBI (especially the latter!) can be sides of this Ukraine-Russian conflict at all? Where are reliable sources for that and why not European Union or Poland, even though they had well documented presence in Ukraine in the past months? Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@Kravietz: I'm finding [40], among numerous others to support the CIA and FBI claims, while for Poland, I found [41]. However, I'm not currently seeing anything regarding EU presence in Ukraine, as it appears that the EU is simply supporting Ukraine verbally as of now. As per the way other conflict infoboxes are constructed, I would support adding to this infobox a "supported by" section, under which the CIA and FBI would be placed. Poland's involvement, on the other hand, appears to have thus far only been helping the coup against the government, so I would not add Poland here, but rather to 2014 Ukrainian revolution's infobox. Q5W5 [discussion] 10:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The Bild and RT claims were discussed in details above, including detailed analysis of original German text of Bild article. There is nothing there to support claim about CIA or FBI being sides of the conflict, quite contrary. The fact that CIA and FBI officials visited Kiev does not prove any more support or involvement as the support received from UE and other countries. Ukraine had many meetings with high UE[42][43] and Chinese officials[44] and I think even someone from Israel recently visited it, so using your logic the sides of the conflict should now include CIA, FBI, Israel and China. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Why didn't you guys just direct me to that in the first place? You see, now you're starting to make sense. You drug this discussion on and on and on and on when it really didn't have to be that way. Okay, maybe it doesn't belong in the infobox, as it's not very well established (at least not now). But could it at least be mentioned ever so briefly later in the article and say something like "Bild accused the CIA, FBI, and Blackwater mercenaries of aiding the Ukraine government"? L'Aquotique (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought you might've educated yourself before posting. My apologies. As far as it being "mentioned", that still confuses me. It was mentioned in the notable participants section, under its own subheading, but it was removed at some point unknown. I'd be fine with restoring that section, if it can be found in old revisions of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Good points have been made here. Now, even I am beginning to see why this may not have been such a good idea after all. Although this does raise one more question: does this mean that Russian news sources are always unreliable? I mean, we cannot necessarily ignore eastern sources in favor of western ones since that would effectively give Wikipedia a pro-American and pro-European bias. Q5W5 [discussion] 20:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course not. We can't "ignore" anything, nor can we outright declare a whole class of literature as "unreliable". But we've got to verify stuff through cross-referencing and attribution, as any good fact-checker does. There have been very extensive discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard on this subject. There is one ongoing now, and there are more in the archives. Take a gander. RGloucester — ☎ 20:51, 23 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.

Another helicopter downed

I'm terrible at editing so that's why I haven't updated the infobox myself. See here --92.232.49.38 (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This means that there are 4 MI-8 lost for the Ukranian Army? or 3? Last time y checked the battlebox an MI-8 crashed with 3 dead.200.48.214.19 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Where was it downed?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Slovyansk Helicopter downed

Another copter was downed today, killed all 9 people--Arbutus the tree (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Source:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28002993

As this is part of the 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk this information really belongs there. This article is a sort of summary of the broad saga which is unfolding, whereas the minutiae should be mentioned at the relevant sub-articles. Lunch for Two (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Per this sockpuppet investigation, it's been discovered that an individual was using multiple accounts to skew consensus on this talk page. I've struck the comments of the checkuser confirmed accounts and IP addresses. (If I missed any, please feel free to strike them.) I've also semi-protected this page for 10 days so that discussion can continue in an honest manner. Mike V • Talk 00:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Could we start calling this a "civil war"?

I mean, honestly, what else has to happen?Psubrat2000 (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

How about some WP:RS "happening". That's what has to happen. —Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, you said "has to happen" i.e. future, which would be crystal balling and original research. Dustin (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
seems to be a strategic question that appeared also in the german wikipedia - and declined. --Anidaat (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Civil war The definition is fulfilled already. There is nothing missing.Psubrat2000 (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources are missing. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/06/19/ukraine-crisis-fighting-idINKBN0EU0S320140619Psubrat2000 (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The same happened during the 2010 Libyan.. what Wikipedia now calls civil war, was called by the nicer term "conflict" or "crisis" for months. Don't worry, the Wikibureaucrats will eventually concede once the International Organization on Declaring Civil Wars publishes a PDF through ReutersCNNBBC officially stating we have a civil war on our hands. Maybe a few more downed planes, some civilian casualties, and the time will come. --82.0.28.198 (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Most awkward name ever

Change it to "East Ukraine conflict" or whatever. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@SNAAAAKE!!: As numerous editors have stated in above discussions, this is already covered. L'Aquotique (talk) 09:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
It is an awkward name and one that very few people would use. However there is an even more ridiculous title nearby - check this one out: 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk. Reaper7 (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually this one is okay. And now check this out: "Category:Pro-government people of the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine" (actual category). Jesus Christ. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine/Archive_5&oldid=1090467858"