Jump to content

Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by O Grego (talk | contribs) at 00:39, 14 July 2014 (→Infobox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Army of the South-East

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

Should be considered for edition

Groundless detention of number of journalists by the Russian FSB

FSB detained the Polish journalist of Gazeta Wyborcza in Crimea Vatslav Radzivinovich (Waclaw Radziwinowicz) who is of mixed Polish and Russian heritage was groundlessly detained for six hours and threatened at a gun point by the Russian officials (Radziwinowicz z Krymu tuż po uwolnieniu: Jeden z funkcjonariuszy mierzył do mnie z broni). FSB also arrested Ukrainian filmmaker a native of Simferopol Oleh Sentsov on terrorism charges (Russian FSB arrested Ukrainian filmmaker Oleg Sentsov on terrorism charges).

Pro-Russian Casualties

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

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

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

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

Requested move 22 June 2014

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

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


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

Survey

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

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

  • Support move (back to what I understand was the original title). As pointed out numerous times in several discussion threads above, "pro-Russian conflict" is simply nonsensical linguistically and logically, so pretty much anything else is better than it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with a move, as you are presumably aware, this RM isn't formatted properly. Wouldn't it be best to close this and restart a proper move discussion with a proper argument for the proposed title? RGloucester — ☎ 20:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see a procedural problem myself. You mean because the editor who filed it isn't supporting it himself? That is hardly an issue, as soon as there are other good-faith supports. It's just like some AfD's that get filed on procedural grounds by editors who themselves declare neutral. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so. I'll strike my comment. RGloucester — ☎ 21:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Strong oppose – If we have to move it, I would be against simply returning to what was already an awful compromise in the first place. We should at least attempt to finalize the title because there are too many people in opposition to "unrest" by coming up with a third, new title. Dustin (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Unrest" was never a compromise title. It was stable at unrest from 14 April, per a move made at an informal talk page discussion. It was "conflict" that was the compromise. RGloucester — ☎ 22:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not it was a "compromise", it is not a good title in my opinion, and there are many others who oppose it as well. I would prefer a third title. I don't really know how you could consider that title "stable" when it was being attacked all the time. Dustin (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every title that we've had has been "attacked". This article started at Russian Spring, moved to 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine, then to 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, and now to 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. No title is perfect, and no title will be not be "attacked" given the nature of these events. The fact of the matter is, this article was stable at the "unrest" title for quite a while, and that's the most fitting title for a summary article in this instance, unless someone can provide something better. At present, I've seen no such alternative that offers a good "summary" title for all the unrest across Ukraine, including insurgency and protests, without using words like "conflict" when this isn't the conflict article. RGloucester — ☎ 22:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I don't see why you have such low limits before outdenting. Personally, I do not like it because if you think the indent is becoming too high, you can just use {{outdent}}. Also, what ever happened to our previous discussion? I always have preferred "post-revolutionary", but that idea seems to have been forgotten. I disagree with the proposed title. Dustin (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pragmatic. I indent depending on what I feel looks better. Regarding "post-revolutionary", Iryna Harpy provided analysis in that discussion as to why it isn't really suitable. RGloucester — ☎ 00:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I said how I disagreed. Even if you have 80% in support, that should not be enough. Dustin (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I don't think percentages matter. Adherence to title guidelines, on the other hand, does. Given that the present title isn't even proper English, I don't think it really can be defended. As far as "post-revolutionary", I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree. RGloucester — ☎ 00:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - Very immature idea. Unrest sounds like a few riots. This is more akin to civil war and conflict gives more of that impression than the watered down 'unrest.' Reaper7 (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The current title isn't a common name either. We are using WP:NDESC (yes, making up a title) as there isn't one sole unambiguous common name that we can use. The only thing we can do is refine our neutral descriptive title to match the scope of the article, and the title naming criteria in general. The best option, in this instance, is unrest. Just for the sake of it, though, I'll provide a news article from two days ago that uses "pro-Russian unrest", just to make to clear to you that this is not totally outlandish.[2] RGloucester — ☎ 02:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME, Knowledgekid87? Please elaborate. You used that same argument to justify amalgamating "Federal State" with "Novorossiya". Badly thought through, and genuinely off the mark changing the name from "Federal State of New Russia" to Federal State of Novorossiya.
In terms of discussions regarding the title, it's been established that 'pro-Russian' has been pervasive since pockets of 'unrest' escalated after the Crimean crisis. 'Conflict' has most definitely not been used in any consistent manner: i.e., pro-Russian separatist conflicts, but always when referring to separate and new events in media article titles in accordance with the context. Conflating 'pro-Russian' with 'conflict' infers that this is a 'conflict' pervading all of Ukraine when, in fact, it is to be found in specific regional pockets. I've yet to see anything resembling a conflict throughout Ukraine. Various forms of unrest have manifested beginning with Euromaidan, and these fall into their own order as child articles. You've noted unrest as being "tame" in your ES. Well, yes, it isn't the hype I suspect you've subjected yourself into believing it to be. We need to exercise a little WP:COMMONsense and not subject the reader to the hysteria that goes hand in hand with WP:RECENTISM. —Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't even worth going down the road of "common name" again, because we've established multiple times that there is no singular and unambiguous common name for these events. RGloucester — ☎ 04:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. This is an umbrella article for a variety of events surrounding the pro-Russian 'unrest', therefore WP:NDESC also demands that logic be applied. Not all of the events can be described as being 'conflicts'. Basically, various forms and levels of unrest (including conflicts where the child article warrants the description) fall under the umbrella term. This has been turned into Groundhog Day. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Exaggerated? How many more body bags would you need to see for it to go from unrest to conflict? The Oxford dictionary defines unrest as A state of dissatisfaction, disturbance, and agitation, typically involving public demonstrations or disorder, That is what you have seen in Ukraine? Reaper7 (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. "Turmoil", the primary definition found in OED, is exactly what is in Ukraine. The armed conflict is a different matter, for the 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk article. I see that you still don't understand the division between our articles. RGloucester — ☎ 01:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

You seem to think RGloucester that the unrest as you call it is a separate event from the conflict in the east, which it ain't. Its all related. EkoGraf (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Related, yes. But different. That's why we have separate articles for separate incidents as part of the whole unrest. That's because there isn't "conflict" or "insurgency" outside of Donetsk and Luhansk. Nevertheless, protests continue in Kharkiv, Odessa is mostly calm, and there have been sporadic protests in other southern and eastern Ukrainian oblasts. I just updated the Kharkiv section as such with a new protest. We can't conflate events and blow them out of proportion. If we call this article conflict, we are saying that there is an insurgency in Kharkiv, in Odessa, in Mykolayiv, in Kherson. There isn't. There hasn't been. Conflation is a disaster of misinformation. RGloucester — ☎ 16:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I'd support that move - ideally we need to separate out the question of the noun (crisis/conflict/unrest) from the question of whether it needs 'pro-Russian' or any other qualifier. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:AlexTiefling: Do you mean you support moving the article, or starting over with a clean survey? I'm a little confused. Слава Богу, это пятница! (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry - yes, that was unclear. I support starting over. I'm still neutral on this proposed title change, since conflict vs unrest looks like a fairly minor point to me. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, @AlexTiefling:, you are talking to a sockpuppet. RGloucester — ☎ 17:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the sock is running rampant at the moment, rather than start all over again, would it be worth striking all of the instances of 'votes' here? Starting from scratch would only attract the same user again at this point. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should wait for an administrator to take action. They are supposed to come in and mop up, once the case is completed. RGloucester — ☎ 00:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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


Ok, lets see, something very unnatural is going on here. Google hits have be used as to why this article should be 'unrest'? really?:
  • 3 million google hits for ukraine pro-russian unrest. ([4])
  • 4 million google hits for Ukraine insurgency. ([5])
  • 11 million google hits for Ukraine Unrest. ([6])
  • 60 million google hits for Ukraine conflict 2014.([7])
  • 85 million google hits for Ukraine civil war 2014.([8])

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

You've provided no citations for your numbers, or methodology. Furthermore, you've conflated the "insurgency" article with this article. They serve different purposes. As far as "civil war", don't start with that again. RGloucester — ☎ 18:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ermm? Just google it yourself if you don't believe me. The methodology is the same as the comment above mine that you did not comment on, a simple google search. I am sorry if Insurgency and Unrest are the least popular terms, but that is just how the internet is. We don't always agree with the most used terms - in your case.. in my case, I agree with the most used terms..I put references. Reaper7 (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about. The burden of proof is on you, not me, and regardless, you're once again conflating various articles that are not of the same scope. The post above didn't make any claims about what was "most common". It merely said that "unrest" was not "made-up". RGloucester — ☎ 19:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's terribly courageous of you to dare say what the mass media don't dare say, minister (Reaper7). Essentially, your 'methodology' is to string together arbitrary descriptors and estimate how many google hits they come up with. Is there anything to be said on the quality of the hits? I've just googled ukraine pro-russian terrorists to reveal 15 million hits. When I typed in ukraine pro-russian putin, it yielded 20 million hits! In fact, ukraine every toddler bazooka came back with 4 million results. If you don't apply some form of logic, it simply doesn't equate with 'methodology'. What you are presenting is 'random strings of words'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you Google "Ukraine civil war", most of these sources don't actually use the term "civil war" to describe the current situation. Rather they say, Ukraine is on the brink of a civil war. You can't make judgements exclusively by the # of results turned up by Google; instead you have to look at the actual usage of the entered search terms, which are in bold. For example, the search George W Obama turns up numerous articles, but no more than five of them actually use that term. The rest are just articles that contain the words "George W" & "Obama". AyatollahSantaClaus(talk) 02:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, AyatollahSantaClaus. Using open parameters for a google search will yield whatever it can pull in using the individual search words - in itself that's a "close enough is good enough" argument. All that is needed is something in the body of an article or image description to find you a 'hit'. I checked through all of Reaper's search results and found that by the end of the first couple of articles (where no minus was even added to the search string for instances of Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors), the only consistent usage was in direct quotes from statespersons or spokespeople surrounding the event/s. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

  • Comment - If you ignore the wave of support comments made by one sockpuppet, seems we are not having a consensus on the issue at this time, with six people expressing support for the move and five against it. EkoGraf (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been relisted by an administrator as a result of the sockpuppet influx, meaning that the RM will continue. RGloucester — ☎ 01:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

You're right about the meaning of the word "conflict". However, your complaints about "unrest" are highly incorrect. The adjective is necessary, and doesn't make sense when combined with conflict, unlike unrest. Many reliable sources use "unrest", as mentioned above. It makes sense for our article coverage, as presently people are confused into thinking this article is about the armed conflict, when it isn't. For the benefit of our readers, we must return this article to the proper title. RGloucester — ☎ 22:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The adjective "pro-Russian" may be applicable to some of the people involved in the conflict, or the unrest. I do not see how it is applicable to what's been happening overall, whether you call what's been happening "conflict", "unrest", or something else. It's true that we can't just say "2014 conflict in Ukraine" or "2014 unrest in Ukraine", because that would include the earlier events in Kiev... One way of not including those earlier conflicts (while also avoiding the problems of a term like "pro-Russian") would be to use the adjective "post-Yanukovych". Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's a load of WP:OR. Please provide examples of the use of "post-Yanukovych" being used. As for pro-Russian, that's been thoroughly discussed already (please try reading discussions on this talk page before rehashing arguments already dismissed instead of wasting people's time). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR requires sources for content (i.e. facts, allegations), not for wording. As that policy page states: " Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material." Anyway, examples of the term "post-Yanukovych" are easy enough to find. See for instance the page FPI Resources on Post-Yanukovych Ukraine. It's on the website of the Foreign Policy Initiative, a mainstream/conservative American think-tank. Not sure what you think you achieve by saying "that's been thoroughly discussed already"? Right now there is no consensus about the page title, which is why we are having this discussion. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A) The move in question (read the proposal) surrounds the use of "unrest" as opposed to "conflict". That is the scope of the discussion, full stop.
B) Read through OR carefully again. In this instance, there is a high profile WP:COMMONNAME being used by sources (pro-Russian/pro-Russia). The fact that you've found 'a' source is irrelevant as it is not commonly recognised. Should future scholarly analysis demonstrate that "Post-Yanukovych" has become the most highly recognised terminology, I'll be the first to vote in favour of changing that aspect of the title. The fact is that, notably, the source you have cited is from 28 February, and the resources used date between 23 to 28 February. Even the lead reads as, "Days after the formation of a national-unity government in post-Yanukovych Ukraine, pro-Russian factions have taken over government buildings and airports in the countries Crimean peninsula, heightening tensions between the Kremlin and Kyiv." In order to find arguments regarding why the use of 'pro-Russian' is the common sense option, run a quick find on this talk page using "economic".
C) What does "Post-Yanukovych" mean? Is there an inference that, had Yanukovych not been ousted, everything would have remained stable and nice (see "No OR: Pre-Christmas boycott". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Most awkward name ever

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

@SNAAAAKE!!: As numerous editors have stated in above discussions, this is already covered. L'Aquotique (talk) 09:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Potential Move to '2014 Civil Unrest in Ukraine'

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

No. 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine would be better, which I think it was named originally. I'd like it changed back to that but I'm unsure how to do it myself. 175.28.15.91 (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support this new proposed title. 'Pro-Russian' describes only one side in this business - it doesn't seem like a fair way to characterise the entire thing. (This is entirely aside from my views on the rights and wrongs of the unrest itself.) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fair way, since the protests and RSA occupations were started by pro-Russian activists, demonstrators and so on, and because reliable sources consistently describe them that way. The qualifier "pro-Russian" is necessary to disambiguate the unrest during Euromaidan (early 2014) from the unrest as a result of the pro-Russian protests/RSA occupations &c. "Civil unrest" is impossible as a title. RGloucester — ☎ 13:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the existing title isn't neutral, but I'd prefer '2014 Conflict in Ukraine' over 'Civil Unrest.' The current situation is an armed uprising; our own Civil Unrest article mentions "illegal parades; sit-ins and other forms of obstructions; riots; sabotage; and other forms of crime", not an armed rebellion with heavy weapons used on both sides, hundreds killed, etc. Additionally, no RS's that I've seen have been using "civil unrest" as the term lately. Kiralexis (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't paid attention to the discussion above. This is not the article about the armed insurgency. That article is 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk. This article describes the unrest overall. Most of Ukraine has not had an armed insurgency. There is only an insurgency in two oblasts, whereas various protests are ongoing elsewhere. "Conflict in Ukraine" is too vague. There was conflict during Euromaidan as well, and anyway, most parts of Ukraine are not experiencing a "conflict". RGloucester — ☎ 01:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

How can "unrest" be pro-Russian? Can there not be "unrest" between members of both sides? In this case, it matters not which side "started" the unrest. I still would support replacing "pro-Russian" with "post-revolutionary" regardless of name because it is not as biased toward one side, and, far more importantly in my opinion, it makes more logical sense. How can a conflict or an unrest be "pro-Russian"? It appears that there is unrest on both sides, so therefore, this title would be under-representing the unrest among pro-Ukrainians, right? Dustin (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't about "unrest among pro-Ukrainians". This is about the unrest caused by pro-Russian protests/insurgency/demonstrations. "Conflict" is two-sided, and "conflict" cannot be "waged". "Unrest" can be initated by one side, whereas conflict cannot. RGloucester — ☎ 19:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let us take a hypothetical situation; one side attacks another because it wants land. That side just initiated a conflict. That kills that "conflict" can only be initiated by one side. Also, you did not say much about my actual "pro-Russian" mention, and you said more about the unrest/conflict argument. Dustin (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one side started the conflict. However, both sides fought as a result. Unrest doesn't require two sides fighting, because direct confrontation is not required. RGloucester — ☎ 19:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to intervene regarding the WP:OR use of "pro-Ukrainian": where did that term come from? Unrest (and even conflict) has been about being pro-EU or pro-Russia on the economic front. I've seen those terms being used, but never pro-Ukrainian. Considering that this is taking place within the borders of the nation-state known as Ukraine, there is no question of whether it's pro-Ukrainian or not. There are a multitude of arguments surrounding self-identification, economic and peripheral allegiances, but I really can't find any instances of the use of "pro-Ukrainian" in the media. Is the inference that the denizens of Ukraine are anti-themselves? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Russian Sponsorship

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

There are also accusations in the opposite direction (namely that USA is giving military support to the Ukrainian government). If we would dedicate more space to speculative Russian involvement, we would also have to dedicate some space to speculative American involvement.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only if both sets of claims could be reliably sourced. We don't need to introduce fake balance. (I'm not saying either claim is true or false - just that we don't automatically need 'both sides' if only one side has reliable sourcing.) AlexTiefling (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but they're both speculative, and the IP user implicitly admits it, in what concerns to the Russian involvement, by talking about "accusations".AlexTiefling --Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, obviously if neither claim is well-sourced, then neither should be included. If something is unsubstantiated, but a major figure makes a public statement that appears to give it credence, I guess we can mention the statement, but we shouldn't report simple hearsay on either side. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are allegations that the Russian Federation (as a state) has given material support to the rebels, but as long as they're described as allegations, they can be fairly included in the articles related to this issue (since there are no independent sources to confirm that). So, an allegation can be included, if it's described as an allegation! As a fact, of course it needs far more solid evidence.AlexTiefling --Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even allegations should only be included if they come from a notable source and have a reliable citation. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations concerning to both Russian involvement and American involvement (Der Spiegel, for instance) are coming from reliable sources, but they are regarded as allegations by those sources. And both of those allegations are already covered in the 2014 pro-Russian_conflict in Ukraine or in the 2014 insurgency in Donbass. As allegations, of course! But you have some useful information to add, of course you're welcome to do it (citing the source, obviously).AlexTiefling --Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

When there is an obvious propaganda purpose behind a report and the report is obviously absurd, it should obviously be discounted. There is nothing more the U.S. press would like to cover than a secret U.S. military force of !?400?! in the Ukraine. It would make top headlines, sell tons of newspapers and advertising. It is absolutely absurd for not a single major newspaper outlet in the U.S. not covering this. It's even more absurd when this is listed as the U.S. involvement when the actual U.S. involvement is left out. Please stop the vandalism.Hilltrot (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just saw the poorly sourced and highly detailed FBI, CIA claims and other 'content' you've removed, Hilltrot. Bild and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung are reliable sources? Even more ludicrous given that, at the end of the lengthy paragraph, Die Zeit states that the spokesperson for Academi denies the reports. Good catch! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

article about russian Propaganda on german Wikipedia

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

To be honest, Anidaat, I wouldn't even like to see an article title like that on English Wikipedia (i.e., blatant WP:POV; WP:BIAS). Whose WORLDVIEW does it serve? There are articles about US propaganda, but only where there has been scholarly analysis and common usage terminology, such as the Pentagon military analyst program article. You can, therefore, add WP:OR to my list of objections.
Incidentally, OHCHR information is already being sourced where, and if, it is appropriate in the many articles dealing with the current affairs issues surrounding Ukraine and Russia at the moment. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Deletion of paragraph about the allegations of American groups involvement

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

My edit was purely technical for the sake of readability - I just moved two paragraphs about involvement of Russian politicians into one section with Dugin - so please feel free to restore it at any time. As for Bild, I'd say that we should try to keep as much information as possible if it's written in NPOV way. The Bild section seemed to be quite neutral and it included response from the government spokesperson. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will try, now (though I'd rather find an easier way to do it)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This situation seems to have already been solved by RGlocester, now, so I'll let it stay as it is, by now.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to start a new topic on this is inappropriate especially when consensus was already determined. Going against consensus and writing absurdity is vandalism. You can go back over the previous consensus on this. I have repeated some of what has been said about this before below since some seem to have problems finding it.
"When there is an obvious propaganda purpose behind a report and the report is obviously absurd, it should obviously be discounted. There is nothing more the U.S. press would like to cover than a secret U.S. military force of !?400?! in the Ukraine. It would make top headlines, sell tons of newspapers and advertising. It is absolutely absurd for not a single major newspaper outlet in the U.S. not covering this. It's even more absurd when this is listed as the U.S. involvement when the actual U.S. involvement is left out. Please stop the vandalism."Hilltrot (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from being completely WP:OR, the addition of "Pro-Ukrainian" was an exercise in pure absurdism. Pawel Krawczyk, please read the comment I left on Hilltrot's talk page regarding the content you wished to include. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I'd like to point out that, having read the three articles 'sourced' (and I use the term 'sourced' laughingly), the "Bild" article is pure speculation and quotes no one except themselves. The "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" reports on the "Bild" article, adds a convoluted, speculative reiteration of the "Ria Novosti" allegations (already rejected for this article at the time of its being issued), and finishes its piece by elaborating on the role of Blackwater in Iraq. The information is finished off by citing the 12 May article in "Zeit" where Suzanne Kelly officially denies the allegation. This has all been cobbled together as a nonsensical tract of text constructed to look as though it were sourced from various legitimate official statements (read as WP:SYNTH). Patent nonsense is not even close to WP:BALASPS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History will tell (or maybe not)Like we say here in Portugal... "mais depressa se apanha um mentiroso que um coxo" Iryna Harpy --Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History has already told Mondolkiri1. There is no evidence of 400 U.S. Mercenaries in Ukraine. None. Zero, zilch. Three months have past with nothing. Hilltrot (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Future analysis may tell an entirely different story, Mondolkiri1. We, however, don't have a crystal ball and, hence, limit ourselves to current WP:RS. For the sake of WP:NPOV / WP:BIAS we even employ terminology such as 'insurgents' and 'separatists', not 'terrorists', etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Concerning to my last edits

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

You were explained that Fran Alge just retold Bild. How retelling rumors increases their reliability beats me. -No.Altenmann >t 07:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll remove the rumours that the Russian Federation has been supplying material support to the rebels in the Donbass, then! It's just rumours! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are no longer rumours. Kurginyan and Gubarev are high rank representatives of the separatist side and they have confirmed that in a recorded press conference. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss that with RGloucester and Iyrina Harpy. I'll allow those 2 people to undo whatever I corrected. They're allegations, nevertheless. From the beginning I said that allegations would be acceptable as long as they were regarded as allegations (and any US claim, as any Russian claim, I regard them as allegations)... But since you don't accept allegations as being regarded as allegations, I removed them all. Discuss that in the Talk Page! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)(talk) 09:32, 10 July 2014[reply]
Americans never confirmed they supply arms or whatever to Ukraine. Russians and separatists have themselves confirmed that arms are supplied by Russia. This is the difference between allegations and confirmed facts. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both newspapers you mentioned cut and pasted the article from RT news. So please stop the mindlessness that German reporters are in Ukraine verifying this information. From what I've been able to tell, there isn't a single German reporter in Ukraine. As for other things, be more specific. I do agree with your edit that anti-terrorist should be in parenthesis or even taken out unless one is trying to Ukrainian POV. Most Russian activity has been confirmed from multiple news sources with very clear video, soldiers discussing where they came from, homes in Russia being visited, etc. There is a large mountain of evidence showing Russian involvement. We have previous evidence in Crimea as well as Georgia about the Russian "playbook".Hilltrot (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An eyewitness account

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

Goverment Losses/Ukranian Forces Losses.

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

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

Is it becoming close to a conflict? Lots of casualties here. [[10]] SaintAviator talk 01:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

For the final time, this article isn't about the armed conflict. There is an armed conflict, but that article is 2014 insurgency in Donbass. This article is about the unrest across Ukraine, not the violence in Donbass. Move discussions are not votes. Consensus is found in policy, and policy supports the current title. Regardless, this horse is dead, so I shall back away. RGloucester — ☎ 03:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is found in policy. Actually, consensus was never reached in this dispute and policy would dictate that the status quo remains for the time being. What happened here was that one admin decided to make a move based on his personal opinion and not per what was agreed or not agreed during the discussion. EkoGraf (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:Local consensus. A local consensus cannot override policy or guidelines, and the "conflict" title did not adhere to policy or the MoS because it was linguistically incorrect. That's why he moved it. It has nothing to do with "PoV". RGloucester — ☎ 15:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guess we should than ignore COMMONNAME (Wikipedia policy) because the common name in the notable media outlets is linguistically incorrect. EkoGraf (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The money isn't Mr Obama's personally. It is the government's money. We don't care about "offending" anyone in frivolous complaints. We use "common usage", which is "American". Perfect tense isn't appropriate. The event happened in the past, and hence, it should be written in past tense. Perfect tense is problematic, because we look from a historical perspective. We are not a newspaper. RGloucester — ☎ 21:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My edit does specifically state that the money comes from the US government. Please stop making up stuff about my edit.
American president is not "common usage" anywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War Please stop being contentious.
Perfect tense does refer to things which have happened in the past. Please look it up. In addition, your insistence on only correcting my sentence shows that you are being contentious about this and obviously have an axe to grind.Hilltrot (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC) GrammarHilltrot (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May you missed it but I did keep a lot of your changes. The ones adding links were especially helpful. I did change my original text to refer to the assistance coming from the government. This was different from my very first edit which I revised the second time round.Hilltrot (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't mistake my edits for those of the sockpuppet, RGloucaster (talk · contribs), who has been making a mess on your talk page. I assume that your hostility is rooted in the sockpuppet's attempt to sow discord, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. "American president" is common usage. We use the word "American" to mean "person from the United States of America". "US" is not an adjective. The problem with the perfect tense is that it implies recentism, as in, it implies that the event is still going on. This causes problems, as our encyclopaedia looks at events from a historical perspective. I've been copyediting this whole article, and I've consistently removed perfect tense, as it is highly inappropriate for encyclopaedic style. RGloucester — ☎ 02:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, U.S. can be used as an adjective [11], and it is used as such all the time. Furthermore, there are 145,000,000 Google web results and 23,600 news results for "U.S. president Barack Obama" compared to 7,400,000 web results and 159 news results for "American President Barack Obama", so it is clear "U.S. President" is the common term. Additionally, most of the results for "American President Barack Obama" were articles from publications in countries where English is not the native language. —Tdl1060 (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It "can" be used, but then again, "anything" can be used. What is correct for an encyclopaedia is another matter. Journalistic shorthand may demand a short form, but encyclopaedic writing does not. "President" should not be capitalised, as neither "United States President" or "American President" are proper nouns. The proper noun would be "President of the United States", which is therefore capitalised. Please note MOS:JOBTITLES. The proper adjective for person from the United States of America is "American", always has been, and always will be. Unless we start writing "Canada prime minister", "U.S. president" will always be incorrect. RGloucester — ☎ 03:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an academic source for your claim that "U.S. President" is always incorrect? I will concede your point that American is a commonly used acceptable adjective for a person from the United States of America. However, in this context "U.S." is the preferable adjective. Regarding the capitalization of the word "president", it should be capitalized when it is immediately followed by the president's name.[12] --Tdl1060 (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should not be capitalised. If one were to write "President Obama", that would be capitalised, because "President" in that phrase is a title. However, if one writes "American president", the "president" should not be capitalised, as it is not a proper title. Other manuals of style don't really mater here. Only our house style guide does, and it says that it should not be capitalised, per MOS:JOBTITLES. RGloucester — ☎ 04:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, MOS:JOBTITLES states that "president" should be capitalized in this case, as it is immediately followed by a person's name to form a title. In the case in question "U.S. President", the title, is directly followed by the name "Barack Obama". This is the same as the examples given in MOS:JOBTITLES; "Chief Justice Warren Burger", "Vice President Ford", and "President Nixon". The adjective "U.S." does not change the fact that it forms a title any more than the adjective "White House" does in "White House Chief of Staff", which is given as an example of proper capitalization in MOS:JOBTITLES. —Tdl1060 (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would be capitalised if it was just "President", as Mr Obama is entitled to that style by his status as President of the United States of America. He, however, was never granted the official style "US President", which is nonexistent. Hence, there is no capitalisation, as it is not a proper style. "White House Chief of Staff" is the proper title for the job post, and hence, it is capitalised. Regardless, I've implimented a comrpormise removing the "US/American", as it is redundant since we use "the United States" anyway. RGloucester — ☎ 04:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there is no official title of "U.S. President" does not negate the fact that the title "President" is preceding Barack Obama's name. The question as to whether "U.S." is part of the title would only be relevant if we were questioning whether "U.S." should be capitalized. Either way, I am fine with the compromise, so it is a moot point. --Tdl1060 (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

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

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

Not true. There are ongoing protests in Kharkiv, and in other oblasts, such as Mykolayiv. Regardless, both the Crimean events and the Donbass events have a military conflict infobox at their appropriate articles. However, the overall unrest is not a military conflict. The military conflicts in Donbass and Crimea are merely two subsets of many events that are part of the overall unrest, which is rooted in civilian protest and unrest. RGloucester — ☎ 22:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Think of this article from a historical perspective, rather than from a recent one. This article chronicles the unrest as a whole, how it started, and where it ended up. Articles like 2014 Crimean crisis and 2014 insurgency in Donbass chronicle the children of the unrest. The two violent children are covered in their respective articles, but this article remains about the parentage of those children. A summary article. RGloucester — ☎ 23:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Change to military conflict infobox. It's been months since the political demonstrations and general unrest turned into a bloody civil war. No doubt we are dealing with thousands of dead militants from both sides and civillians...Pretending nothing changed since February or March...is a foolish thing to do. The situation now is a Military Conflict between two different armed sides

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine&oldid=616849184"