Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Luhansk bombing

I think i am going to create a draft, about the luhansk rsa bomb. This draft, however, will be neutral.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Bad idea to create a stand alone Wiki article about this per WP:NOTDIARY (Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are) and Wikipedia:Notability (Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time).

Am am not against making any drafts but I would vote to delete a page about the Luhansk rsa might be bombed, but Ukrainian airforce said not by them. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

i agree that its not very notable on its own. there have been a lot of isolated attacks/incidents in this conflict--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 00:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Luhansk is not the one city that was bombed. Luhansk was bombed several times, Semyonovka - at least eight times, and a hospital in Krasny Liman — each led to civilian deaths — and the bombing continues. These events are not "not noteable". It is you refusing to note them. Ukrainian airforces of course will say they didn't do it, but even a retarded 3 y.o. child will understand that only air forces can have fighter aircraft and nobody else.2A02:2698:6424:94AD:3400:87B2:FDC7:48F9 (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It wasnt even bombed once, it was a single air strike. If you want to prove it was "bombed" several times then you're going to have to provide some serious sourcing and not just "I heard it on twitter" stuff --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 07:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

RSA was attacked once. Half an hour later another air strike was conducted onto suburbs. http://www.5-tv.ru/news/85071/ http://ria.ru/world/20140602/1010374385.html2A02:2698:6424:94AD:3400:87B2:FDC7:48F9 (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It fails to meet WP:GNG. Wikipedia articles are not written on a WP:WHIM, Arbutus the tree. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• I turned my draft into an article, but it talks mostly about the border post attack and the air force intervention in a neutral form.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this draft may be ready for publication. I created another one about the seige of the border guard base. It is about the attack on the border outpost. Here it is:Draft:Ukraine Border Base standoff

pov edits

Re: [1]. Referring to the Ukrainian government as "self-proclaimed" and presenting the official results of the Crimean referendum without context as if it was in any way legitimate is POV.

Please don't revert anymore.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The Yatsenyuk government is self-proclaimed, that is not a POV it's a fact. They were never elected by the people, it is not unheard of for the government to be called self-proclaimed. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a huge qualitative difference between 'self-proclaimed' and an Interim Government. Your claim of it being a 'fact' is a POV push implying that it was a 'junta'. It's wheeling in a WP:TROJAN in order setting up a POV WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Calling the Yatsenyuk government "self-proclaimed" is not just POV, but a blatant lie, making it vandalism. No cabinet is directly elected, its appointed by elected representatives: which the interim government was. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 04:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

WhyHellWhy has now broken the three-revert rule...making seven reverts, for which reason I have left a message on the user's talk page. Dustin (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The same user has made seven reverts on the File:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.png (Commons). That adds up to a grand total of fourteen reverts, although the file reverts would be more of a Commons issue than a Wikipedia issue. Nothing has happened since yesterday (in my timezone), so I am not sure if I should expect any more reverts. Dustin (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Commentary to contextualize

I've been reading up on some articles by Boris Kagarlitsky. I've found his commentary very helpful in understanding the conflict, and thought of bringing attention to it here. His background is that of a Soviet dissident, and part of the anti-Putin 2011 protests. But I'd like to present the links to his articles and a summation of his points:

• Initially, he called both Viktor Yanukovich's faction and the opposition faction (who for a long time was lead by Yulia Tymoshenko, who was sent to prison on corruption) as both thoroughly corrupt political elites. His prediction was that both would be prone to use violence, and that the worst of the two would be determined by who won and came out on top, which would be the more ruthless and have to use more force to consolidate power.

• The Kiev politicians opportunistically rode the wave of discontent of the Maidian protests to power. Although the protests were not solely of the Right Sector, their support was essential and the determining factor. Tension exists now between the "moderate" politicians, who wish to work with the West, global capital and oligarchs, and the Right Sector. While they see the Right Sector as unruly and hard to control and counter-productive to their aims with business, at the same time they need the support of the Right Sector domestically. Sending in police or troops has lead to defections, as the army and police do not want to attack their own people. The Right Sector have less hang ups on employing violence, but lack the training of official militaries and police in restraint, causing a dilemma.

• The situation in Kiev mirrors many revolutions, where opportunists ride public dissent to power, but soon find themselves unwilling or unable to give into more radical demands of the population once in power. If they do not respond, they risk being overthrown by either the military, the more radical populous, or authoritarian tendencies. Look at Egypt recently, the Russian Revolution, the Mexican Revolution of 1910, the French Revolution, etc. All saw a second wave of remove the regime established by the first wave.

• In Crimea the situation was markedly different, in that it was driven by the elites, rather than the elites riding the masses. The Crimean politicians, seeing the situation in Ukraine become unstable, decided it was in their best interests to hitch their sails to Russia instead. Russia, far from without its own problems, nevertheless, appeared more stable at this time. In this way, it was not the Russian elites who came up with this plan, but rather the Crimean elites. Therefor Crimea annexed Russia. This had the benefit of giving the Russian elites a surge in patriotic support domestically.

• The situation in Donetsk and Eastern and Southern Ukraine is different than Crimea. There is certainly intervention of foreigners on both sides of the conflict, but unlike in Crimea, this is marginal at best. Kagarlitsky characterizes the unrest in Eastern and Southern Ukraine as actually emanating from the masses. It is precisely because of this that Putin and the Russian government do not want to annex these "revolutions". Integrating an actively organized civic movement would be counter to the goals of the Moscow regime, as it could cause contagion to spread, which would hurt their ability to be a ruling elite.

• Efforts to dismiss the unrest in Eastern and Southern Ukraine as being solely the work of foreign agents are an effort to deny the agency of the masses. Some of the claims are so absurd, when one can see footage of unarmed people blocking tanks, and yet they are called terrorists, or all foreigners. He likens it to the claims during the 1917 revolution that all revolutionaries were in fact German spies.

• The political and class nature of the Maidian and anti-Maidian protests are different. The Maidian protest early on assaulted Leftists who wished to be part of the movement. Both they and their symbols were met with physical violence and harm. The violent right wing and radical nationalists enjoy a more powerful sway on that movement. Whereas in the anti-Maidian movement, he believes at present the Left has more of an opportunity to influence events.

• Sanctions would not hurt Russia, as the rubble was already being devalued and this events served as a cover for a plan the elites had already initiated but allowed them to shift blame. Furthermore, sanctions would force Russia to build up the local industry and economy and create more jobs, something that would be good for the Russian economy and people, but bad for the oligarchs and global business elites.

• Ultimately he views Putin purely as a political creation of the Russian companies that hold consensus, and follows their bidding more than he leads. The elites of Russia and several post-Soviet states would be willing to work for and with the Western elites as long as their local traditions and power structures that keep them as the local elites remain in tact. Part of the conflict and tensions arising are happening because the West would rather have these elites replaced by newer elites, hence the color revolutions being ridden by such opportunists to play that role.70.192.130.229 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/from-the-maidan-to-the-revolution/ http://zcomm.org/zcommentary/fate-of-donetsk-is-being-decided-in-kharkov/ http://zcomm.org/zcommentary/the-ashes-of-odessa/ http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-logic-of-a-revolt/ http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/polite-intervention-and-the-ukrainian-uprising/ http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/crimea-annexes-russia/ http://links.org.au/node/3734

What you posted is just the POV of Kagarlitsky. His views do not correspond with reality, for example, his claim that the participation of foreign agents is marginal on both sides clearly does not fit with the fact of substantial number of fighters have crossed over the border from Russia, like the Vostok Battalion and Chechen fighters. Daily now we read reports of armed clashes at border points were Ukrainian border guards attempt to stop armed men with trucks loaded with ammo crossing the border. In any case the talk page is intended for discussion on improving the content, not for general discussion.--Nug (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The claim was not that there wasn't any foriegn intervention, and I thought I was clear on that. The question was how substantial and influential. Some have claimed, for example, footage of protestors standing in front of Keiv's tanks were not actually Ukrainians, but I don't see how such a conclusion is feasible. And then considering these were in fact Ukrainians, then the point is that the civilians, the people themselves, have had agency in this movement and therefor could not be entirely a work of foreign manipulation. Therefor, it is not right to create narratives that completely deny the agency of the masses when looking at this event. Also important is the sequence of events. Does the later arrival of foreign militants deny earlier existence of homegrown dissent? I feel echos of Libya and Syria here.74.89.79.208 (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Particularly inappropriate is the slapping a wall of text like this into an article talk page. Read the talk page guidelines: this is not a blog or a forum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a subtle but important difference between a WP user presenting his or her own POV, and drawing attention to a published analysis by a recognised sociologist, like Boris Kagarlitsky. I think we should seriously consider referring in the article to Kagarlitsky's theories about these events, along with published theories of other sociologists and political theorists, which may be very different to Kagarlitsky's. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that was my intention74.89.79.208 (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

His view would be given WP:UNDUE weight, unless you want to also include the views of the Jamestown Foundation which clearly sees Moscow's hand in this. But then we would be WP:COATRACKing an already large article. --Nug (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Nug. Use of this material is inappropriate per WP:BALASPS, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM... and, no introducing WP:TROJANs. In fact, I wouldn't be adverse to collapsing this section as WP:SOAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I have seen other articles that have had sections for analysis of renowned scholars. For example, Kagarlitsky's analysis is included on the page of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. There is a style of article which is more current events, fact dominated, but then there is a more historical view which inevitably seeks to weave in facts with a narrative that leads to a degree of interpretation. To be clear, I think analysis should be presented just as that, sociological and historical analysis of the significance of these events. If the article is in fact too long, how about what I so often see on Wikipedia, writing a small paragraph summarizing a few different interpretations with a link to a new article expounding in more detail upon the topic of contextualization for these developments?74.89.79.208 (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Deniers

Not a forum! And too many very offensive personal attacks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I already knew that there were the Holocaust deniers and the Armenian genocide deniers. Today I discovered a new kind of deniers (related to a city located close to the Black Sea). Sigh.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC) You forgot South Osetian genocide2A02:2698:6424:94AD:3400:87B2:FDC7:48F9 (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC) WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTAFORUM. And comparing editors to Holocaust deniers is extremely offensive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC) What about "moon-landing" deniers?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Holocaust deniers find being called Holocaust deniers extremely offensive. That is not a sufficient reason not to call them deniers. And Mondolkiri1 didn't say anything about editors. – Herzen (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC) And now you've repeated the slander.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC) That's you who are telling slander. I said "You forgot South Osetian genocide" and you posted a note about "offending" Holocaust. Mondolkiri1 indeed did't say anything about editors being Holocaust deniers. He told editors(especially you, Lvivske and Nug) are deniers of obvious genocide of Luhansk and Donetsk people who are treated by government like expendable rubbish being bombed and not allowed to evacuate. 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:3400:87B2:FDC7:48F9 (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Well, I was talking about the events in Odessa, actually. If you want to speak for yourself, be free, but please don't put words into my mouth.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC) I apologize for misunderstanding (for me the whole Ukraine is close to the Black sea), but the whole picture is the same, i think — people deny obvious things related to this conflict. 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:3400:87B2:FDC7:48F9 (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Some facts are very obvious, others are very filtered and sometimes there are very conflicting stories about them. Sometimes it may even take some leaks to know where certain decisions are taking place.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC) You may not have said this yourself, but there is a genocide going on in Novorossia carried out by the Kiev central government, and there is a denial about that too, not just about the Odessa union building fire. Krasny Liman is a town of some 20,000 people and a major railway junction. But one of its two hospitals is in ruins, struck repeatedly by what appeared to have been mortars or shells. There was also evidence of strafing from the air. A tearful nurse approached us, saying that whoever had done this was not human. She -- and others -- thought Ukrainian forces were responsible, but they could not be sure. Note that the CNN reporter does not come out and say that Ukrainian forces destroyed the hospital; you need to do "original research" to come to that conclusion, using the fact not mentioned in the article that Ukraine, but not the resistance, has an air force. In any case, destroying a hospital is an act of genocide, and CNN is a reliable source. Can you think of a good place to include in an article the destruction of the hospital? I doubt that there is anything about it yet in Wikipedia, but it is noteworthy. – Herzen (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Hmmm...you gave me an idea that news are served this way to make any attempt to put actual information to Wikipedia being recognized as "original research". Just a personal conclusion. 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:3400:87B2:FDC7:48F9 (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC) I think that that's just a side-effect of the fact that Western mainstream media cannot write anything that clearly contradicts the official US government line, which is that the Kiev government is composed of no one but freedom-loving democrats who embrace liberal European values. Writing plainly that the Kiev government uses artillery and air power to indiscriminately kill its own people would contradict that official line, so that can't be written. Instead articles are always written as if there were uncertainty over who is responsible, although pieces of information that lead to obvious conclusions are sometimes allowed to slip through, as in the mentioning of "strafing from the air" in this case. By the way, why don't you register and get a Wikipedia user id? That actually gives you more privacy, and other editors will tend to take you more seriously. – Herzen (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC) editors(especially you, Lvivske and Nug) are deniers of obvious genocide of Luhansk and Donetsk people - anon destroying a hospital is an act of genocide - Herzen I think this conversation has sufficiently shown that not only do Herzen and the anon IP have no clue what the word genocide even means (in addition to the expanding Russian lexicon of madness, ie: "junta", "fascist", "Nazi"). This conversation is now dipping to radical revisionism and outright fantasy. I don't even know what to make of this anymore. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 20:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC) From Wikipedia: Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group via the (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; ... I would say all three of these actions have already been committed by the Kiev central government in Novorossia. The group is defined ethnically (Russian, not Ukrainian) and religiously (Eastern Orthodox, not Roman Catholic). The destruction is systematic, in that shelling is indiscriminate and not specifically directed at known rebel locations; civilians are killed with such a regularity that this must be deliberate. A good way to kill a large number of civilians is to demolish a hospital. There are at least 10,000 refugees from Novorossia who have fled to Russia, which circumstance falls under (b) and (c). Thus, a genocide is clearly occurring, by Wikipedia's own definition of the term. I won't however say that "I don't know what to make of" your position. Your position is the subject of this Talk page section. – Herzen (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC) You've hit the mark. 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:3400:87B2:FDC7:48F9 (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC) You two are so far off the mark it's not even funny. In fact, its offensive to those who know the gravity of real genocide. This is a ridiculous stretch of the imagination to consider a few deaths as collateral damage in a war consider genocide, or that the "people of nvorossia" constitute some sort of racial group being discriminated against. Honestly Herze, this talk is disgusting.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 00:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC) From the Oxford Dictionary - Genocide: The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group: a campaign of genocide; Synonyms: racial killing, massacre, wholesale slaughter, mass slaughter, wholesale killing, indiscriminate killing; mass murder, mass homicide, mass destruction, annihilation, extermination, elimination, liquidation, eradication, decimation, butchery, bloodbath, bloodletting; pogrom, ethnic cleansing, holocaust, Shoah.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC) This discussion ought to be closed off with one of those "not a forum" templates; I don't remember the name, though, so I cannot do that. Dustin (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Counter-offensive vs. POV "Ukrainian offensive"

The first user who changed it to 'offensive' did so because they thought the militants werent "offensive" so there was nothing to "counter", which was an insanely biased and surreal interpretation of the events. Then Herzen, who has made his pro-Russian position pretty clear, reverted to this version calling "counter" biased. No sources were given but he did say BBC supported this position.

Well we know it's officially called the "Counter-terror Operation" or CTO, but what do reliable sources call it?

• NBC - 'counter-offensive'
• Al Jazeera - 'counteroffensive'
• IB Times - 'counter offensive'
• New Yorker - 'counter-offensive'
• TIME - 'counteroffensive'
• VOX - 'counter-offensive'
• France24 - 'counter-offensive'
• Guardian - 'counter-offensive'
• Financial Times - 'counteroffensive'

I respectfully ask this be returned to the neutral and consensus formed version that is widely supported in the media. The 'biased' version was "counter-terrorism". To imply Ukraine went ton an offensive is part of the fantastical POV that the militants are innocent civilians who never attacked anyone or something equally absurd. --Львівське (говорити) 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It is reliably described as such, and the government operation was countering the occupation of buildings by insurgents. It would be illogical to say otherwise. RGloucester — ☎ 19:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Counter-insurgency would be a better term. —Nug (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't second guess the AP, Reuters, and the NY Times. That is beneath you. – Herzen (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. Counter-insurgency implies an insurgency that counters the existing insurgency, for example, the pro-Ukraine militias that are forming. Yes, there is such a thing as a "counter-insurgency" operation, but that's different than a "counter-insurgency" plainly. Regardless, it isn't used by sources, as far as I can see. RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No, "counter-insurgency" is what governments do to quell an "insurgency". —Nug (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be a "counter-insurgency" operation. "Counter-insurgency" itself is ambiguous. Anyway, sources have not said "counter-insurgency". RGloucester — ☎ 20:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• 'Many dead' in Ukraine offensive in Sloviansk - Turchynov (BBC)
• Ukraine presses offensive in east as US warns Russia on sanctions (Stars and Stripes)
• A Ukrainian military offensive against separatist militia groups (Business Week)
• the Ukrainian government, however, has said it will not stop its offensive to retake eastern cities (San Jose Mercury News)
• The Ukrainian leader also said the government would not stop its offensive (Waterloo Record)
• The Ukrainian government, however, has said it will not stop its offensive to retake eastern cities (Ha'aretz)
• Ukrainian forces have mounted an offensive (Houston News)
• the Ukrainian government continues its offensive to rout pro-Russian separatists (Wall Street Journal)
• the offensive has made no progress and alienated many of Donetsk’s people with a series of bungled or bloody operations (Daily Telegraph
• Ukraine launched an offensive against separatist forces for control of a besieged eastern city Friday (Canada.com – AP)
• Ukraine's Western-backed government has vowed to press ahead with a military offensive (Reuters)
• the appearance of Ukrainian military vehicles flying Russian flags was a “breakthrough” for the Ukrainian offensive (NY Times)

The BBC, AP, Reuters, and the NY Times all use "offensive", so that should settle the matter. Plus, if you're not invading someone else's territory, you're not mounting an offensive; and if have only small arms, you couldn't mount an offensive even if you wanted to. The Kiev regime in contrast is launching repeated military operations against its own people using APCs, tanks, and mortars. This is clearly an offensive; there is nothing to "counter". And I am not "pro-Russian: I am pro-democracy. Like the rebels in the east and south, I can understand that a government which came into power through an illegal coup, with the physical violence producing the coup being provided by neo-Nazis (Right Sector), should not be recognized. You on the other hand are definitely pro-Ukrainian, since you have made remarks like "Crimea is and always will be Ukrainian." – Herzen (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You said it yourself: "if you're not invading someone else's territory, you're not mounting an offensive" - the Donetsk separatists (made up primarily of Russian cossacks and paramilitaries) invaded Ukrainian territory, ergot it is an offensive.--Львівське (говорити) 20:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The people and Donetsk and Lugansk are protecting their own land from an illegal neo-Nazi regime. No evidence has ever been provided that there are any Russian citizens involved.

If you can't muster even a modicum of objectivity, you should not be editing these articles.

In any case, the top news outlets all use "offensive", so there should be no debate here. – Herzen (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The term is not ambiguous at all, read the article counter-insurgency. Offensives and/or defensive operations are undertaken within a counter-insurgency. There are tons of sources that call it a counter-insurgency[2], while other news reports on the particular offensive operations. --Nug (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen, "protecting their own land from an illegal neo-Nazi regime" - your objectivity and POV pushing is becoming quite obvious now with such ludicrous statements. Also, there is plenty of evidence that Russian citizens are the core of the Donbass People's Militia, especially Girkin, Mozhaev, and Evgeny Ponomarev.--Львівське (говорити) 20:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

NY Times: Behind the Masks in Ukraine, Many Faces of Rebellion

The rebels of the 12th Company appear to be Ukrainians but, like many in the region, have deep ties to and affinity for Russia. They are veterans of the Soviet, Ukrainian or Russian Armies, and some have families on the other side of the border. Theirs is a tangled mix of identities and loyalties.

The NY Times was not able to find any evidence that there are Russian troops in Ukraine. Assertions that there are Russian citizens in Ukraine helping the Ukrainian insurgents are just crude propaganda from the Kiev central government and/or USG. – Herzen (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Your sources are extremely out of date, then. Keep up. --Львівське (говорити) 21:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't think that you have any reliable sources indicating that Russian citizens are part of the Ukrainian insurgency. – Herzen (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Igor Girkin. --Nug (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I wrote an entire section on verified Russian involvement [3]. Maybe Herzen just conveniently ignored every one of these pages. --Львівське (говорити) 01:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

They would not have launched the operation if there were not people occupying the buildings, hence, they launched the operation for the sake of "countering" those people. I don't know why this is hard to understand. It has nothing to do with who is fighting who or why. It doesn't matter if they are Russian or Ukrainians or Donbassians. It really doesn't! What matters is the chain of events in terms of history. And the chain is simple: occupation of buildings by protesters/insurgents/activists, counter-offensive by government. RGloucester — ☎ 20:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Occupying buildings is not a military operation. Trying to take territory with tanks and APCs is. Nobody said that peace protesters from the 1960s mounted an offensive when they occupied buildings. When police cleared out Occupy Wall Street, nobody called that a counter-offensive. You're being very silly. – Herzen (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The people occupying the buildings had AK-47s, camouflage, masks, and so forth. This is widely attested by OSCE monitors. No one at Occupy Wall Street had Ak-47s, as far as I know, nor did they wear camouflage! RGloucester — ☎ 20:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You say "they launched the operation for the sake of "countering" those people", yet these people are called "insurgents", therefore if the government is "countering" those people", then it is a counter-insurgency. A "counter-insurgency" is the wider campaign within which offensive operations are undertaken. --Nug (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to add the word "insurgent" where it isn't needed. RGloucester — ☎ 20:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources also call government operations against insurgents a counter-insurgency, reason enough. There are also defensive operations like setting up road checkpoints and fortifying buildings, in addition to offensive operations which is more widely reported, all part of the wider counter-insurgency campaign. —Nug (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Concise OED: counteroffensive ▪ n. an attack made in response to one from an enemy.

The rebels/insurgents made no attacks on Ukrainian forces. Local police chose to yield the buildings to the rebels. It doesn't matter whether the rebels were armed or not. – Herzen (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, an attack, singular. Counter-insurgency comprises of a number of attacks or offensives. --Nug (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Provide a list of sources. I read the NY Times in print and the BBC online everyday, and I haven't seen anything about a "counter-insurgency". RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources use counter-offensive and they say its against insurgents. Both terms are used, but not joined together. It's not OR to join them, as its factual and obvious, but CI isn't the most used term in the media.--Львівське (говорити) 20:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Four times more sources using counter-insurgency772 hits than counter-offensive169 hits --Nug (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Offensive: 169.000 hits – Herzen (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

An offensive is generally taken to mean a single operation. We are talking about the wider campaign comprising of many operations. --Nug (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Let's put it another way. Insurgents launch offensives against the government, numerous offensives form an insurgency. The government launch counter-offensives against the insurgents, numerous counter-offensives form a counter-insurgency. --Nug (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Counter offensive and counter-insurgency both sound good and accurate to me, and as you've pointed out CI is in fact widely used. I wouldn't be opposed to using it. My issue with the topic was censoring the "counter" part to frame Ukraine as the initial aggressors. --Львівське (говорити) 21:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "counter" is accurate reflection of the fact that these Moscow-backed terrorists initiated the violence. --Nug (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

They are not Moscow backed. Putin asked them not to hold the autonomy referendums. Kiev and NATO have been able to provide no evidence that the pro-democracy rebels receive backing from Moscow. And your calling anti-fascists "terrorists" is just Orwellian. If you read reports about what the residents of Donetsk and Luhansk say, it is the Kiev central government that is terrorizing them, not the pro-federalism/democracy rebels. – Herzen (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct to call the anti-Kiev rebels insurgents, because the Kiev putsch regime never controlled the territory of southeastern Ukraine to begin with. So the rebels really are the equivalent of Occupy Wall Street. The reason they seem different is because the central government is in disarray. The rebels did not use violence to take over government buildings, and many people manning checkpoints are unarmed. That is not how insurgents typically behave. – Herzen (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This is your own skewed POV and original research. Also, Kiev putsch regime is laughable Kremlin rhetoric with no place in these encyclopedic articles. Also, your claim that the rebels have no used violence is a flat out lie and all editors here know it since we are all aware of their violent crimes, killings, etc.--Львівське (говорити) 21:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

One difference between you and me as WP editors is that I keep my point of view out articles (there's no rule against expressing POV in Talk pages), whereas all of your editing of Ukrainian articles is nothing but POV pushing. Hence this new Talk section. – Herzen (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester: I see that you reverted the article with this edit, with the summary, "Restore last neutral version". In the process, you undid my edit which is being discussed in this Talk section. As far as I can tell, that is a clear violation of WP rules. This makes it difficult for my continuing to apply AGF to you. With your edit summary, you in effect said that employing the language used by the BBC, AP, Reuters, and the NY Times is not neutral. I am at a loss for words. – Herzen (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: If you look at the edit, you will notice that I was removing the word "murder" from the infobox under "methods". That's an edit I'm sure you'll approve of. RGloucester — ☎ 23:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea of what point you are trying to make. If your sole intent was to remove "murder" from the infobox, you would have reverted to this revision by me. If you admit that you made a mistake, I'll drop the matter. – Herzen (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to remove "murder" from the infobox, as that is inherently un-neutral, as I'm sure you are aware. I was using Twinkle, and I suppose your edits got eaten in the process. I'm not dumb enough, I hope, however, to remove edits being discussed on the talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 00:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad this page has been protected for a while. There was too much non-sense being edited. Concerning to "counter-offensive", "Ukrainian offensive" or "counter-insurgency", the following words are used in other Wikipedia pages about civil conflicts: Syrian Civil War: "government counteroffensive"; Colombian conflict: "counter-guerrilla"; Congolese Civil War (Kivu conflict): "government offensive". Anyway, the most common word that has been used to describe it in the English-speaking media, at least is counter-offensive. I think it's neutral enough.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine is not yet in a state of war, so the situation in Ukraine is not comparable to that in Syria. Your comparing the Ukrainian anti-putsch resistance to Salafist terrorists is highly offensive. The Ukrainian resistance has peacefully taken over public buildings; it does not bomb people, as the Syrian foreign-manned insurgency does, or burn people alive in buildings, as the National Guard/Right Sector does.

And as I noted above in detail, the term that is most commonly used by far in the English speaking media is "offensive", because "counter-offensive" in this case doesn't make any sense. There is no need to abuse the English language in English WP. – Herzen (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The Syrian Civil War involves the government, Kurds, secular (including Christians) and salafist insurgents. It's not that simple. And I actually meant 3 conflicts, not only the Syrian conflict. I can also mention the Karen conflict in Myanmar (Burma), the Tibetans and Uyghurs in the People's Republic of China, Darfur in Sudan, etc, if you wish. Concerning to the abuse of English language in English WP... well, it's the Wikipedia in English, I don't think it's the most ideal place for abusing Spanish, Chinese or Hindi.,Herzen. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"Counter-offensive" is used plenty in the media. As I said above, "peaceful" is in the eye of the beholder. It is hard to call someone peaceful when they are in full combat gear with AK-47s. The OSCE calls them "militants". Militants do not peacefully takeover anything. I do not under how you can feel that armed men occupying government buildings isn't an assault upon the state. It is. And so, the government launched a counter-offensive to remove them from the government's property. It isn't hard to understand. RGloucester — ☎ 00:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The Ukrainian state stopped existing when the legitimate Ukrainian government was overthrown with an armed coup. Why do you think a "National Guard" is needed? Because most people in the Ukrainian military do not see the putsch government as legitimate, and because they are not willing to kill fellow Ukrainians. A real, legitimate state does not have to resort to assembling armed militias on the fly out of armed neo-Nazi groups (as the National Guard is assembled mostly out of the Right Sector). A real, legitimate state does not disband its elite troops which are used to preserve civil order, as the putsch regime disbanded Berkut. The putsch regime's disbanding Berkut reminds one of Bremer's disbanding the Iraqi army (another case of US-induced regime change).

You do know that Yanukovich was overthrown through violence, don't you, and that the proper constitutional procedures were not used to remove him from office after the fact? So the regime in Kiev has no valid claims on any Ukrainian public buildings. And the overwhelming affirmative vote for autonomy in Donetsk and Luhansk shows that the people of those regions are in agreement with this position. So you are in taking a radically anti-democratic position by continuing to argue with me here. What are you going to do next, argue that we must admire Right Sector for its adulation of Stepan Bandera? Or instead of that, maybe you'll argue that Americans had no right to rebel against the British Empire, because the Colonies were the "property" of the Empire? – Herzen (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be a lost cause, pushing an alternate reality / revisionism now. Don't insult others asking if they are being 'obtuse' and then proceed to rant about events and actions that never took place. —Львівське (говорити) 02:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, Lviske, but the 1st lost cause was to implement a non-Russian language policy in Ukraine, where nearly 30% of the population speaks Russian. I know that's not the case in Lviv, but it's certainly not the case in Southern and Eastern Ukraine. And it was trying to impose a pro-EU policy against a pro-Russia policy (Ukraine is neither Russia or EU, it's Ukraine, which I've read it means border land). For sure Yanukovich was a corrupt president, so they were Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Timoshenko! Now, to try to push an agenda against nearly 1/2 of the country's population is a disaster, particularly when members of the government belong to "former" neo-nazi organizations! Yet, apart from the Crimeans, in every region of Ukraine, the ethnic Ukrainians (either Ukrainian-speaking or Russian-speaking) are precisely that: ethnic Ukrainians. And people in Lviv must aknowledge what people in Donetsk or Luhansk demand as their rights as Ukrainian citizens!... For sure it's not supressing the Russian language! I live in a country with a large Ukrainian community and I've met both Ukrainian speaking and Russian speaking Ukrainians.,говорити. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

More off-topic ranting. More misinformation. No "non-Rusian language policy" was ever implemented, and and which members of the government belonged to "neo-Nazi organizations"? Good grief, take a deep breath. --Львівське (говорити) 03:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Which members of the government belong or belonged to "neo-nazi organizations"? The Svoboda Party members, obviously!,говорити. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Cut the baseless name calling. So far the only verified actual Nazi in all of this is Pavel Gubarev. Everything is just useless attacks ("Svoboda are Nazis, Obama is a Commie, Bush is a fascist") yeah, we get it. --Львівське (говорити) 04:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad in my country the only far-right party that exists (National Renovator Party) only gets 0.3% of the votes :D,говорити. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Pavel Gubarev was a member of the Russian National Unity, which is a Neo-Nazi organization, indeed, but most recently he belonged to the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, a communist party. Anyway, Andriy Parubiy, the man who's supervising the counter-offensive in Eastern Ukraine, was also the founder of the Social-National Party of Ukraine, which was a neo-Nazi party in Ukraine which was succeeded by Svoboda. So, I guess I am "name calling" as much as you are "name calling".,говорити. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Parubiy, since he in the 2007 parliamentary elections was voted into the Ukrainian parliament on an Our Ukraine–People's Self-Defense Bloc ticket, can not be associated with extreme right. In February 1965 Malcolm X warned us "They take one little word out of what you say, ignore all the rest, and then begin to magnify it all over the world to make you look like what you actually aren't". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction, Parubiy left the extreme right organizations he was a member of in 2004 (that is 10 years ago). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Gubarev has been a member of the Progressive Socialist Party since 2007, while Parubiy was as you confirmed, a member of a Neo-Nazi Party until 2004. Well, for each one of them, some time has passed, since the formal memberships to Neo-nazi parties. So, to criticize Gubarev as being a neo-nazi (when he has belonged to a communist party since 2007) while dismissing the other as a neo-nazi, it's non-sense. Either you classify both as neo-nazis for their past, or you don't classify any or them as neo-nazis. Either way, they're both extremists, in my opinion. I hope Petro Poroshenko will give back a bit of good sense to Ukraine, let's see.,Yulia Romero. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you on "Either you classify both as neo-nazis for their past, or you don't classify any or them as neo-nazis". But I don't have enough info to qualify them as something.

(PS RGloucester response below is not related to this writing.) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even going to dignify this with a response. We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not rant. RGloucester — ☎ 02:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a Talk page, not an Wikipedia page, RGloucester! I honestly admire the surveillance you've done in this page, RGloucester, in spite of some "XXX" accusations you've done against me (sorry, I'm not an expert on English WP abbreviations). What can we discuss or not in the Talk page? If there are some limitations, please inform me!,RGloucester. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

We have talk page guidelines, believe it or not. Let me provide a quote:

Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikireason proposal).

— WP:TALK#USE

As such, you can imagine my desire to halt such stuff. RGloucester — ☎ 04:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll comply. I thought these talk pages were more about expressing personal opinions, but if that's the case, I will follow those rules. But I hope you can confirm that I've been quite neutral, actually. A lot of people editing in the page itself, have been very subjective. In the Talk page, it has been even more crazy! That's why I said I'm glad that this page is now protected.,RGloucester. —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. We need a break, to try and cool this whole thing down. RGloucester — ☎ 05:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Just my two cents but I think the wording "Second Ukrainian counter-offensive" would be best. The wording of "second counter-offensive" is too broad as it does not state who it is by while "Ukrainian offensive" goes against WP:NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

They are all Ukrainians (or at least, most them are). You mean "Second government counter-offensive". RGloucester — ☎ 01:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that one, like how it was. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

I've never seen a more ridiculous mess in my life. Can we all put ourselves away for a while, and perhaps bring clarity to our minds? The article is protected now. Let's all drop the stick and step away from the dead horse, and allow clarity to return. RGloucester — ☎ 00:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad, one less page to monitor for vandalism. --Львівське (говорити) 01:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This ridiculous, indeed. People keep reverting this back to "counter-offensive", even though a consensus was never reached here.

As I said above, "the BBC, AP, Reuters, and the NY Times all use 'offensive', so that should settle the matter." Sources can't be more first-class than those. But if that's not enough, do a Google News search.

"ukraine military counter-offensive" produces 78 hits, "ukraine military counteroffensive" produces 80 hits, while "ukraine military offensive" produces 36,600 hits. Even the Voice of America writes Ukraine's Military to Continue Eastern Offensive.

Do editors really want Wikipedia to use language that is more biased towards the Kiev central government than the official propaganda outlet of the US government??? – Herzen (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Herzen. You just gave me the incentive to google 'pro-Russian offensive'. Whoa, horsey! What a turnout for "pro-Russian rebel stronghold", "pro-Russian insurgents", "pro-Russian separatists", ad infinitum that's turned out to be. That's just turned the "Post-revolutionary Ukraine conflict" title on its head. Try googling 'post-revolutionary ukraine conflict': not even a frog call in an otherwise silent swamp turns up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't even know if I should put in the effort to respond to this (continued) nonsense from Herzen. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 06:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I reverted it myself simply because the source is the idiot "Daily Mail" (and the article was basically plagiarised from one or two RF sources - just check the "women with photos a mens who died..." and a couple of other grammatical errors which are typically those of an Eastern Slavic speaker). The only way to counter it is to add a couple of sources where there is no doubt that it is in the context of countering pro-Russian, armed insurgents. I've been at this since 7am and it's time to make supper (i.e., the evening meal). Had a fun Queen's Birthday... need sleep. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Offensive or counter-offensive redux

The article sourced in the lead certainly does not report counter-offensive. If counter-offensive is to be used, sources describing it as such need to be found. No subtext readings, please. I've reverted the change once, but I'm not going to use up any more of my daily ration of reverts on this article in order to swat IP attacks. It's either/or (or the offensive/counter-offensive needs to be reworded). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• See section 19. RGloucester — ☎ 01:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Number of refugees or displaced people

There are reports of refugees, but this article is not including numbers of refugees. Why reluctance? --George Ho (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It is in there. The article says:

By 1 April, around 3,000 people had fled Crimea after its annexation.[75] 80% of those who fled were Crimean Tatars.[75] Teams from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast and Chernivtsi Oblast have assisted internally displaced persons who have resettled in western Ukraine from Crimea.[98] Numbers of refugees, primarily Crimean Tatars, continued to rise, and by 20 May the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said that about 10,000 people had been displaced.[99]

RGloucester — ☎ 02:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

hmm... who's going to update the infobox, you or me? --George Ho (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it should be updated to include number of people who left Crimea for Ukraine, people who left Donbass for Ukraine or/and Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.160.81 (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Would some of that actually have more to do with this article or 2014 Crimean crisis? Dustin (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It is part of the larger unrest, which is included here. RGloucester — ☎ 16:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

War crime?

Children's hospital shelled by the Ukrainian Army? Is that true?[4] The British journalist Graham Phillips also shared this video. A Russian source about it:[5] Fakirbakir (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No, collateral damage. The intended target were the armed insurgents using the children in the hospital as a human shield. --Nug (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the style guide at WP:EUPHEMISMS says "civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage". RGloucester — ☎ 16:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There were no reliable reports of "civilian casualties", only damage to the buildings, so "collateral damage" it is. --Nug (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And in any case it is not a euphemism, when did a style guide trump what reliable sources say about the term[6]. --Nug (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Media can spin words whichever way they like, but we are WP:NOTNEWS. We don't regurgitate what they say. It is a euphemism. If civilian deaths occurred, tell it like it is. "Collateral damage" avoids talking about death or about civilians, and that's why it is a euphemism. Also, I wish you'd read the dictionary you cited: "In modern use, generally a euphemism for the coincidental killing of civilians". RGloucester — ☎ 17:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fakirbakir - Try to find more reliable, unbiased sources before adding stuff like that. Also, don't speculate on any of this, only add the direct information (e.g. numbers of x, those certain to be involved, etc.). Dustin (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

How did you know? Are you an insurgent or just watched TV that told you it was a "human shield"? Remember this word: P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A. TV will tell you only what you are supposed to know and now TV wants you to believe there was no coup, no Odessa massacre and that there are terrorists in the south-east who use kids as human shield. Take off pink sunglasses and read this ([sarcasm] Oh, look, it's not even russian! Only non-russian sources are reliable, right?[/sarcasm]): http://www.globalresearch.ca/5384421/5384421 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:5D77:51A9:5B9A:AFC0 (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The concept of an "Odessa massacre" is in of itself a Russian propaganda fantasy, so nice try. BTW, Global Research is a hoax / conspiracy site known for Holocaust denial, so you're not helping your case by citing that --Львівське (говорити) 17:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC) An admirer of UPA and svoboda is talking about...Holocaust and antisemitism....in order to discredit a source....I guess we should classify svoboda,pravyi sector and other neonazi groups in western Ukraine as completely unreliable...just following your argument...Or maybe you have double standards??

Naming THIS a "fantasy" is the same thing as denial of holocaust, so you're not helping your case by saying that. Or maybe you see there happy smiling people playing in the park? 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:5D77:51A9:5B9A:AFC0 (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't make such rude accusations; it won't get you anywhere to be uncivil, even if you feel strongly about this. Dustin (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It was a two sided conflict started by terrorists who you are martyrizing. We also don't know what started the fire and its possible they started it themselves accidentally seeing as they were playing with fire. The concept of a "massacre" is indeed trumped up fantasy, and quite frankly, I'm getting a tad sick of it.--Львівське (говорити) 18:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not martyrizing anyone and there's enough video (including neo-nazi/soccer ultras POV) showing what happened. A lot of people died there and you can not argue that. You may believe it's a fantasy but it wouldn't stop being a tragedy. The fact is there is no reliable unbiased sources. Western media tell what NATO wants you to believe, Russian media tell what Kremlin wants us to believe, and the truth is inbetween, covered by lies, corruption and blood, and the only way to know it is to be there in person and see it from both sides of the conflict 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:5D77:51A9:5B9A:AFC0 (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Your linking of images of burned dead bodies to back your argument seems to be an instance of the "principle of emotional agitation" straight from Russia's information warfare playbook as analysed here. As terrible as the images of the deaths are, the fact is there is no conclusive evidence on who started the fire. --Nug (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

But there is evidence that they were beaten when some tried to leave the building. Its one thing for anarchists to throw a Molotov cocktail at a McDonalds, or some other building for property damage. Its even another thing for say Irish civilians to throw a cocktail at British troops. But when civilians burn other civilians, and then proceed to beat them up (all official sources say no weapons were found in the House of Trade Unions), that is another matter entirely. The result then was the police arrested the beat up and burnt anti-Maidans, and none of the pogromists were arrested for their violence. The Right Sector has gone above using fascist symbols and historical figures, which again is one thing in the area of free speech, to using lynch mob tactics, which is the exercise of fascism itself. The intellectual gymnastics and backflips done to justify or excuse this, or call it anything but what it is is abhorrent.70.192.130.229 (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering the justification exposed here for attacking a hospital because allegedly (I'm not stating if it was true or not) armed insurgents were using the children in the hospital as a human shields, Radovan Karadzic actually used that same "justification" during the Bosnian war when he attacked the Kosevo hospital in Sarajevo, back in 1992.. In that case there were confirmed civilian casualties, in this case, until now there aren't so far (apparently) confirmed reports of civilian casualties in the hospital (which I personally find a lucky coincidence, since operating hospitals generally have sick people inside and they were very lucky if none of them was injured or killed in the confrontation).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine template

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)

Anyone will fix this?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been driving me crazy for over a month as it's been like this from the moment it was created and added to the page, Mondolkiri1. I've tried to work out what the problem is a couple of times. I'm usually pretty good at troubleshooting coding but, even after going through it painstakingly, all of the parameters appear to be correct and I can't work out what is causing the problem. It needs someone with experience to figure it out. I'll give it another try. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: it's definitely not the "2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine" template that is faulty. It's being used on other pages without any problems, so I'm carefully investigating the main conflict infobox. It's heavily overloaded with info & refs, so there's a high likelihood that some parameter has been moved, omitted (virtually anything in the coding could have been corrupted with the constant edits), or even a parameter that doesn't exist for the infox has been added. It may have not affected the workings of the infobox itself, but is impacting on additional infoboxes directly below it. I'm developing a headache trying to work through it bit by bit. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Number of Ukranian service men killed

The batle box shows 78 Ukranian servicemen dead, but the breakdown of servicemen and police + paramilitares its 73,is the difference of 5 the number of airmen killed by the An-30/An-26 chrash or its a misteke by adding up numbers.200.48.214.19 (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, is the number updated? I didn't seen any change in last days, but there were still reported some fights.(Cristi767 (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC))

Statement about Metinvest steelworkers in infobox

The infobox currently lists Metinvest steelworkers as on the pro-Kiev side. This comes from a usually reliable source (New York Times), but is inconsistent with information in other reliable sources. For instance, a report in the Independent, from Kim Sengupta in Mariupol [7] which describes the steelworkers' intervention as "this 'third way', trying to find an equilibrium between nationalists and separatists". Also, people from CNN visited Mariupol 3 days after the NYT said separatists had been banished by steelworkers... [8] The CNN team made a video showing militants parading in the centre of the city, and they interviewed the local DRP leader who said he welcomed the role of the steelworker volunteers in Mariupol.

The Metinvest steelworkers are no longer in the infobox now. The Union of Mine Workers are still there (but that change just happened today)... Just because a capitalist boss decides to instill a position on his workers, it doesn't mean that those workers actually agree with their boss. Well, they receive their salaries from their boss, like anywhere else. But if that's not their true feeling about the situation, I think it's correct not to mention that the workers are pro-Yatsenyuk and pro-Parubiy activists (though I'd prefer to doubt they're very pro-Putin activists too, since he's quite pro-capitalist, too... For those who seek an escape from this capitalist Friedman madness, now, in our days, one name: Alexis Tsipras (I hope)).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The assertion that Metinvest steelworkers have been on pro-Kiev side in the conflict is at best a controversial claim, which under WP:NPOV policy cannot be stated in Wikipedia's own voice. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to the suggestion that This article may be too long

Concerning to the suggestion that "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles or condensing it.", there are some links to other articles that are related to some sections in this article, like the "Donetsk and Luhansk status referendums, 2014", "List of individuals sanctioned during the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine" or the "International reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis." (this one is treated in a quite extensive way in this article). Would it be a good idea to move most of the texts concerning to those sections to those other articles?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it would not. The small amount of text with regard to these items here are merely summaries of the text at those pages, as is appropriate. This is a summary article. The article is not too long at all, and there are already numerous sub-articles. RGloucester — ☎ 03:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I will add that the limit on the generally accepted article size applies only to the actual readable prose, so I don't think this article would actually go too far. Dustin (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I only posed that question because there is a template at the top of the article saying that it may be too long. For me it's fine.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus that the article is not too long. So I take it there will be no objections if I or someone else removes the "too long" template? Considering the importance of the subject matter – a civil war of major geopolitical significance – the suggestion that the article is too long is preposterous.

Which leads me to observe that it might soon be time to consider renaming the article to "2014 Ukrainian civil war". It has already been renamed from "unrest" to "conflict", but it's pretty clear by now that this "conflict" has escalated to a civil war, and that the military operations are not going to stop this week as Poroshenko promised. But we can wait until a couple of weeks before formally posing this question. – Herzen (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

For the last time, NO! Reliable sources, fellow. RGloucester — ☎ 22:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Your comment makes absolutely no sense. First, it is impossible to tell who you are replying to. Second, whether you are replying to Mondolkiri1 or to me, your comment has no relation to the questions that were posed by Mondolkiri1 and myself, respectively. And, whoever you were replying to, the "fellow" remark constitutes a violation of CIVIL. Please stop being rude. – Herzen (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Eh, don't take the fellow part too hard. I have seen him use that word even on occasions when it wouldn't appear that there was so much disagreement. Also, regarding a name change, if it becomes necessary or consensus can be formed based on reliable sources, then do whatever. Dustin (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, RGloucester hasn't been POV pushing, in my opinion, contrarily to other people posting here (though, I can be subjective). Fellow is not a bad word, but taking into account the context it could be unpolite. But I have to confess, I've been myself not properly polite with a couple of people (namely one) that push far-right attitudes. By what I've seen, it's not your case, Herzen.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I use the word fellow in a purely neutral form of address, and frequently do so. RGloucester — ☎ 23:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, my apologies. Anyway, the maintenance tag has been removed, so you no longer have to answer my question. :) – Herzen (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope we, moderate thinkers about the Ukrainian situation can consider ourserlves as "fellows" here, though I must regret that, in spite of the non-POV contributions of RGloucester, he has given a barnstar to a Svoboda Party sympathizer, whose contributions are not NPOV at all (maybe he didn't know that then)… you may give any barnstar to whoever you wish, but I wouldn't give one to a Front National, FPÖ, BNP or Golden Dawn sympathizer, if I'd be able to give barnstars - don't take it personally RGloucester, please!,RGloucester, Herzen —Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe I'm capable of deciding who I give barnstars to. RGloucester — ☎ 01:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Mondolkiri, you said "if I'd be able to give barnstars...". Actually, you are able to give barnstars, if you want to. You just need to get the template from the page WP:BARN, and place it on someone's talk page with a note explaining why. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, can I? I thought only the administrators could. Thank you!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I forgot to mention here that I boldly removed the maintenance tag with this edit. Dustin (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

kidnapped children

This story should probably be included #3 here and here (you can use google translate). Basically the separatists kidnapped 25 children, most of them orphans, and brought them over to Russia. Not sure what the purpose is, although this may be an explanation: 21:00 22:00 33:11 35:35 (that's for Herzen).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's information worthy to be included, but I'd use the Polish newspaper as the source, not the blog.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

49 soldiers dead?

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/13/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27845313 Also http://www.naftemporiki.gr/story/820388/katarripsi-oukranikou-aeroskafous-sto-louxansk this source sais that Russians accuse Ukrainian army of violating their borders when a military vehicle entered Russian land in Kuybyshev and moved in for around 150 m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.146.220 (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

more pov edits

Re: [9]. The sources unreliable (blogs, etc.) the factual accuracy is dubious and the wording is non-neutral.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

we need to request page protection, this is getting wacky --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 18:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Page protection...of course you are eager to push your russophobic point of view regardless of facts and don't want any truth to get into the article. You want it to look like militants are suiciding and are not killed by government2A02:2698:6424:94AD:3400:87B2:FDC7:48F9 (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I know that some auto-confirmed editors such as WhyHellWhy will be able to cause disruption if the page isn't fully protected, but I would still prefer semi-protection over full protection. Also, to the IPv6 editor, don't make personal attacks. Dustin (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this article has already been fully protected once, and that was a pain. But the subject matter is sufficiently contentious that semi-protection wouldn't be a bad idea. And my personal view is that the IPv6 editor should register, if he or she wants to engage in sustained debates. – Herzen (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is it dubious and non-neutral? Give appropriate reasons, not your own mention. Maybe because it states "Ukrainian forces"? But who else if not them? Who else can have fighter jets, tanks and heavy artillery weapons? Non-neutral? Then make it neutral instead of cutting out! And that's not my nor anybody else's problem that western media hide Ukrainian actions from readers. 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:3400:87B2:FDC7:48F9 (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to take a deep breath. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 18:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, really? Where's my money then? Continue believing everything Obama puppet masters tell you. US propaganda is really effective. 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:3400:87B2:FDC7:48F9 (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

How do you know if you haven't been brain washed into thinking "US propaganda is really effective" by the puppet masters in the Kremlin? It amazes me that you are so cynical about Western viewpoints but seemingly accept absolutely anything coming out of the Kremlin no matter how absurd like a naive simpleton child. --Nug (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for you to hate on politicians and Russia. The question was why russian sources are considered undeniably unreliable and western are completely reliable and truthful. And nobody answered it yet. Just a little brain usage is needed to analyze the scheme of every recent war and to make a conclusion about why western media are cooperating and hiding information and what NATO aims to... and what will happen if people know with which methods The Great Democracy is settled. 94.231.125.183 (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, both parties are propagating their own points. It's pretty "normal" for geopolitical conflicts. I'd like to refer to Media portrayal of the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine, which deals with both Western and Russian portrayals and has criticism of both. Seryo93 (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but i'm talking about a bias regarding reliability of both parties here. Russian media is hyperbolizing events, but that doesn't mean these events didn't happen at all — and this is what a number of editors here prefer to think. 94.231.125.183 (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Russian media, particularly english language media like RT or Voice of Russia, is owned or controlled by the Russian government, where as Western media is independent of government as they are mostly owned by private companies. --Nug (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, they are independent, they also poop rainbows and have magical horns. Seriously, don't be so naïve. Western media is influenced by government too, western government is influenced by NATO, and NATO is a tool to distribute USA interests. SO WHAT? Nothing of these make any of the sides more or less reliable or make buildings self-repair and people ressurect.94.231.125.183 (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, Kremlin propaganda is really effective with these wacky conspiracy theories of how "western government is influenced by NATO, and NATO is a tool to distribute USA interests". Just because Moscow created the CSTO to be a tool of Russian imperialism and thus adversely influence the CSTO member governments it doesn't follow that NATO operates the same way. No, NATO is influenced by western governments, not the other way around, via the North Atlantic Council and everything is agreed upon on the basis of unanimity. NATO is a tool for the collective defence of the participating nations. Think of NATO as a kind of Seventh Coalition formed to protect themselves from Putin's territorial ambitions. --Nug (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"Think of NATO as a kind of Seventh Coalition formed to protect themselves from Putin's territorial ambitions" This is the most ridiculous thing i've ever seen. Whoah! Leaders of few countries predicted a birth of future dictator "willing to conquer the world" three years before it actually happens and formed an allegiance named NATO to fight against him! Please, make an effort, if you don't know something — a russian idiom will help: "sit tight and quiet and you'll look smart". Now i'm done talking to you and hope this will be mutual. If you don't have any sane backed arguments regarding the section topic, just don't post anything here and assume for yourself that i'm a brainless zombified puppet not worth talking to. Thanks. 94.231.125.183 (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

NATO is a defensive organisation that was formed to contain the territorial aggression of the USSR. Nothing has changed. Now Putin wants to recreate USSR 2.0, first occupying South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia, followed by Putin's Crimean Anschluss. Russia's militaristic nationalism is on the march, the West is taking precautions. --Nug (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You completly missed Russian downfall of 1990s, when Russia was West-friendly and not expansionist. And? NATO was not only preserved, but instead expanded more and more towards Russian borders, such a "friendly" approach to ,a new Russia'. I'd like to offer you this article. Seryo93 (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Shrug. Wasn't Russia also liberated by the downfall of the communist led Soviet Union? If Russia had remained West-friendly NATO's expansion would be of no consequence. Those countries that had suffered under Soviet rule had an understandable desire to join NATO given their lack of trust. If Russia had remained West-friendly and became a normal European country, NATO may have even become redundant in twenty or thirty years since 1990. But unfortunately Putin was elected for a third term (USA prohibits third terms because they understand the danger of leaders serving too long), and rather than be patient and develop trust and friendly relations, the itch of nationalistic militarism proved to be stronger. For a country of 140 million educated literate people Russia should be able to find better leaders than Putin, but unfortunately his phobias and repressive measures are wasting Russia's potential and leading that country down the road to confrontation. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's stop the petty bickering, please. There's nothing constructive in trying to change other editor's opinions, and it doesn't assist with the development of the article to have good editors expending their energy on squabbles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, but the Russian media is also influenced by the government too.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Are you sure about that?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for you to hate on politicians and the United States. Dustin (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• This is getting out of control. People keep making personal attacks against other people, and though I don't think this page should be fully protected, semi-protected is probably a better idea.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Collegaues, calm down and have a tea. Personal attacks aren't good solution to reach an agreement. Seryo93 (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Somebody revert this. No source was provided, currently this is POV and original research. Försåtlig (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down

I've proposed that the article be merged into this article as part of the broader crisis. Mjroots has already opposed the merger for reasons given on that article's talk page, presumably within the scope of WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Military history.

Any thoughts from other contributors? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Both WPs have been notified of the discussion, as has WP:UKRAINE. Discussion at Talk:Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down#Proposed merge with 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine please. Mjroots (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Russians in Ukraine?

According to the Interior Ministry of Ukraine, Russian tanks have crossed the border.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC) http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-ukraine-crisis-tanks-on-one-hand-and-words-of-peace-on-the-other/2014/06/12/2d626589-c828-4665-a66d-52da1b4a4f3b_story.html

Not in the sense of being manned by Russian military personnel, but "separatists". The article seems to be dealing in speculation about various issues. Let's see whether something more substantial can be found. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

And those separatists were with long beards... interestingly enough, Russia is mirroring all the news from Ukraine with same accusations towards Ukraine: when there were spotted tanks, that went into Ukraine, russian news reported that Ukraine invaded with armored vehicles. It should be noted, that Russia is using as always double-speak and twisting of words, so that at the end someone who do not follow this from the start can get impression, that aggressor as always is not Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.248.229 (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Further info can be found in this guardian article. It's certainly not clear as to who was in the tanks. Better not to jump the gun on early reports. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Intresting Articles. I wonder why Russia would allow those guys with tanks to cross the border.--[[User:Arbutus the

tree|Arbutus the tree]] (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed, it would be a good idea not to include such information without additional confirmation. The tanks, shown on the pictures seems to be T-64, which currently are used by the Ukrainian military, but they could be either captured by the federalists, or defectors.

The USA has confirmed that these tanks have come for a stockpile of old tanks in southwest Russia. According to Harf: "Russia will claim these tanks were taken from Ukrainian forces, but no Ukrainian tank units have been operating in that area"[10]. --Nug (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Russian tanks manned by Russian 'volunteers'. Active service or not, this is just the Green Men song and dance all over again. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 05:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Use of non English maps

I just removed two maps for not being in English they do little help (Unless you speak or understand Russian/Ukrainian). I doubt seeing this is the English version of Wikipedia that the average reader will be able to read the maps. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. And I understand Russian, so I can more or less make sense out of Ukrainian, too. Since English is essentially the world language now, there has to be a very good reason for including something in a foreign language in English Wikipedia. (Sources are separate matter.) – Herzen (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

As you pointed out its case by case, in the case of a novel or book originally written in another language it is seen as okay to have a cover picture of the original book in the info-box as the whole article pretty much talks about the subject. When it comes complex things though that require more understanding such as detailed maps then it becomes an issue. Oh and you are welcome =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I regret, becauce non-English maps can be useful, because Anglo-Saxonic maps tend to promote the Anglo-Saxonic point of view. I think that both Ukrainian and Russian maps (and French, Arabic, German, Chinese, whatever) would be useful, since the Anglo-Saxonic point of view about this situation is just one particular view. If the non-English maps can be used, it's fine, as long as they as they are not POV, and since the English explanation is is displayed. Other Wikipedias also display English maps (including my own, namely about aviation, in Portuguese, Galician, Catalan, Spanish, Italian, French, English, German, Turkish, German and Russian)... I haven't had any problems with it (since I explain in their languages what I display). To delete is not an option, to translate is an option! By the way, my mother-tongue is Portuguese, I speak quite well English, Galician and Spanish, and moderately well Catalan, French, Italian and Danish (for the others I use Babylon or Google translator which has worked fine for me)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What is this "Anglo-Saxonic point of view"? Are you trying to anger germans or danes(angles) or you are just a russian who speaks on behalf of someone or just useful idiot(this is a term - not name-calling)? If you have not noticed - english right now(do you like it or not - that is entirelly different question) is dominant(even if chinese has more native speakers, but there aren't that many people who use it in intercommunication, as it is with english) world language on Earth - just like latin(in fact there are quite many latin in english as well), so this should be hardly an issue there. I would not trust to russian only maps, without some other sources, that would back it up - you can burn all your maps from Soviet era, as they contained information, that wasn't reality - e.g. some places that were on map didn't existed there but 50-100km from that place, because there was army base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.248.229 (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay then translate the map into English and read it then, the maps aren't deleted for good just from this page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I looked at the two maps that were removed. The first map removed has the caption "Results of the 2012 parliamentary election. Yanukovych's Party of Regions in blue." The caption clearly explains the meaning of the map, and the map provides significant information to the reader. So I think this map should be restored, along with that caption.

The second map that was removed has the caption "Map of government military operation in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts". I can't make any sense of that map to be honest, and even if I could, I think the map deals in minutia, so it is not appropriate to this article. Finally, the caption doesn't help one to understand the map at all. Therefore, this map should not be restored.

So my proposal is: restore the 2012 election map, but not the government military operation map. Any objections? – Herzen (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you translate to English? If you can't I'll try, if it's not very complicated!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the Results of the 2012 parliamentary election map more closely I can see an English translation on it so sure go ahead. The map has to be blown up more though to see things in detail. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done – Herzen (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"Lead figures" in infobox

A user is adding long lists of figures to the infobox that were previously removed as a result of a talk page discussion on infobox clutter, in an attempt to match the standards of the 2011 Egyptian revolution article. He seems to be attempting to convert consensus, so I'll reopen the discussion here to see what people think. RGloucester — ☎ 15:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

My personal opinion depends on how long the list is, and whether or not all of the named characters have been verified as being fully relevant to this article. If the list is too long for example, I would suggest trying to condense or collapse the list if possible. If this is not possible, then it probably ought not be included (in the infobox, at least). Dustin (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Per MOS:INFOBOX, infoboxes are meant to provide basic facts only, not long lists. They are not a substitute for the body of the article, or for categories. We removed this long list earlier, as it was not helpful to the reader in anyway. It merely cluttered the article and made the infobox one grand expanse, giving WP:UNDUE weight to many individuals who were not "key". Huge infoboxes are not helpful to the reader, and as one can see at 2011 Egyptian revolution, such long lists are not usual. RGloucester — ☎ 15:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why user known as RGloucester removed lead figures from infobox.[11] Such info are present in similar articles about another civil conflicts: 2014 Crimean crisis, Euromaidan etc. Also list of people are in the related navbox {{2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine}}. Why only this article's infobox must be without lead figures? Then, maybe remove parameter "lead figures" from {{Infobox civil conflict}} absolutely?! NickSt (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nickst: See the above section. Dustin (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC) - (The sections has been merged since this comment)

What is "long list"? Meta:Wikipedia is not paper#No size limits. 10–12 persons are not "long list", I think. NickSt (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

There is quite a difference between an infobox and an article, which is what that is pertaining to. This article is not a list of persons involved in the situation. Infoboxes merely briefly summarise the body of the article. Adding a million persons to the list is not summarisation. Read MOS:INFOBOX. RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps to appease both sides, we can create a section link in the infobox with a table-list or something in the article's body? I know this may not work out, but it sounds better than arguing and whatnot. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No any problems with "very long and very huge list" here. Only 10 persons from each side is typical number for this infobox. Not 100, not 200, only 10 key people. NickSt (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I would be fine with a small list of about three or four people on each side. A long list of superfluous people isn't appropriate, as it doesn't meet the purpose of an infobox. Read the guidelines. What is typical doesn't matter, and anyway, I'd hardly say that's typical, as the Egyptian revolution article has no people in the infobox. We don't need clutter. RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No "rule of three or four" in guidelines. It's a very hard to choose only "three or four" from really 10–12 key people. NickSt (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Why are both of you ignoring my earlier comment? Dustin (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That would be okay, to link to the "notable participants section". In response to Mr Nick, there isn't a "rule of three or four". That's call working it out on the talk page, summarising, not listing. How did you choose the "ten" key people, if you cannot choose four? They are random choices, by your own making. There is no definitive source that says that the ten people you chose are the "most notable". You used editorial judgement, just as we must do. RGloucester — ☎ 16:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I am in oppose against "section link in the infobox with a table-list" in the body. No similar solutions in other articles (please show). 2014 Crimean crisis infobox contains directly 12 key people from each side without any another table-lists. Also with Euromaidan. NickSt (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because those articles do something doesn't me we should. They are not paragons of greatness that we need to copy. The guidelines are clear. RGloucester — ☎ 17:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

First, WP:EANP. Second, OTHERSTUFF is only about arguments in deletion discussions. NickSt (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It is an essay, and the principles can be applied to any discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 19:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the addition of the figures per MOS:INFOBOX and MOS:FLAG - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• How does the addition of lead figures (without their flags) violate MOS:INFOBOX? Such list used before in huge ammount of civil conflicts. What do you say, we must remove parameter "lead figures" from {{Infobox civil conflict}}, or remove lead figures from all another civil conflicts?! Why is only this article must be without key people? NickSt (talk)

This isn't the only article. I've already linked 2011 Egyptian revolution. What about Tunisian Revolution? It violates MOS:FLAG and MOS:INFOBOX by trying to be something an infobox is not. If you'd like a list of people, go to the Category:People of the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. Infoboxes are not lists. They only summarise the article, barebones and basic. RGloucester — ☎ 15:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I had this same discussion with RGloucester before, I found out as I said above that a civil conflict inbo-box can not have flags in it. Flag usage varies and not all info-boxes fall under this rule but this one does. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2014

I request that the deaths of the ~100 civilians (heard it was around that, correct me if i am wrong) be re-added to the sidebar because it provides us with a more accurate picture to the Unrest. I believe that this will add to the article's quality.

I would also like to point out that the 210-270 deaths in total at the sidebar is outdated. It would be at least 300-370 not counting the Civilian deaths.

Noaboatx1 (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

just add the numbers provided by the infobox already...i guess it's not difficult to realize that deaths in total exceed 210...even without including any civillian... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.144.172 (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)