Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

-->

}}

This page seems similar to the Anti-Maidan Page

A lot of overlap from this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Maidan and there are not other chronological years.

Do any of the editors remember the history of this page and how it is supposed to differentiate? Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

@Jgmac1106: In this edit you wrote that the protests "involved large scale efforts by Russian media to shape propaganda about protests" using this as a source about the 2 May 2014 deaths in Odesa. The only somewhat relevant sentences I could find was: "The Russian channels characterised the Odesa events as 'the 21st century’s Khatyn'... Overall, Russian television painted a picture of an aggressive post-Maidan Kyiv 'junta' trying violently to put down 'supporters of federalism' and Russian-speakers more generally... Russian television also highlighted the inaction and possible collusion of the police with the perpetrators of violence, but characterised the activists with red armbands attacking pro-Maidan march participants from behind police lines as pro-Maidan agents-provocateurs, not anti-Maidan activists... The Russian coverage neglected instances of pro-Maidan activists aiding those trapped in the burning building to escape and instead emphasised pro-Maidaners attacking those who tried to escape the inferno". I do not see anything that explicitly supports the statement you added, especially considering it is about Odesa only.

In addition you wrote "the portayal of protests often used crisis actors" using this as a source which again is about the Odesa deaths but I do not see anything about "crisis actors". It mentions the atrocity narratives on TV e.g. photo of the supposedly strangled woman from that day. The only mention of acting is by the talk show guests. Even in your edit summary you only mention "crisis Actors in the Odesa Union Hall coverage". I am not sure where you got "crisis actors" from. You also mention disinformation techniques but this is vague and the source used here only focuses on media after these events (i.e. during the war in eastern Ukraine). In that edit you also changed that the unrest was in the "early stages" to "throughout" the war (i.e. from 2014 to present) rather than early 2014, I think you have misunderstood what this article is about.

Also for some reason you are introducing this information in the lead and not in the body. The lead is supposed to summarize the information in the body and not include unnecessary details. There is also a separate article for media portrayal and disinformation. Mellk (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the revision. I will add some more examples, I think describing how Russian media lied about the protests is important in the lede given that Russia was defining protests they created. These efforts were especially notable after the Odesa Union Hall file Jgmac1106 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You revised a few more claims, and reverted. Further why did you delete that these were Russian backed protests in the fist sentence. That is important context in the DFN.

Do you take issues with the source I used? Jgmac1106 (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Media coverage was more important for shaping public opinion in Russia. The opening already mentions that Russia supported the unrest and mentions the involvement of the security services, so "Russian-backed" is just unnecessary repetition.

The issue here is not the sources but that it looks like original research and not following what they say. For example, where did you see "crisis actors"? And how does the source support the statement about there being crisis actors used for the entire unrest (when it is just about the 2 May 2014 clashes)? Also per MOS:LEAD you should not add new information to the lead. There is already a section called Media portrayal. Though since some of the sources you used were about the Odesa clashes specifically, it might make more sense to mention media coverage in that article instead. Mellk (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I tried to fix the redundancy issue. I think it is important to have Russian backed in the first sentence. So I added specificity in the second use.

I did not include the role of Russian media coverage of the protests. I will give time for other editors to reply.

I do think it is critical to the definition of the Russian back protests given that Russia would stoke Russian backed anti-maidan protests to have wall to wall coverage of fascist uprisings on Russian state media to justify intervention in Ukraine. Jgmac1106 (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, where in the source does it the support the statement that "the portayal of protests often used crisis actors", for example? Mellk (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I guess my issue with trying to represent Russian Media in the lead is because it already is

"The unrest, which was supported by Russia, in the early stages of the Russo-Ukrainian War, has been referred to as "Russian Spring" in Russian Media domestically and abroad(Russian: Русская весна, romanized: Russkaya vesna, Ukrainian: Російська весна, romanized: Rosiiska vesna)."

Only Russia calls it Russia Spring. Nobody else, and to use Pomerantsev as a way to back up this sentence is a misrepresentation of source.

Here is the full quote:

"These counterprotests were called “the Russian Spring,” co-opting the language of the 1968 Czechoslovak uprising against the Kremlin, and so when Moscow then launched its covert war in Ukraine, it worked as a piece of negative storytelling: pro-democracy protests, the Kremlin seemed to be saying, lead not to prosperity but to instability, blood and death. Russian media regularly reinforce this link, with videos that mix what they claim to be American-engineered protests in Europe and the Middle East with scenes of carnage in Ukraine and Syria. The message is that protests and chaos are intrinsically linked."

Pomerantsev himself said the protests and state media are linked.

So we either need to fully describe the roll of Russian media in the lead or remove reference to "Russian Spring"

I will wait and give other editors a chance to comment but I agree, with the original editoes intent with including "Russian Spring."

We should include Russian media and the anti-maidan protests in the lead. The two can not be separated. Jgmac1106 (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, I suppose this can first be elaborated on in the media portrayal section. Mellk (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You also used this source for "Russian-backed demonstrations" but the source only mentions "Russian-backed separatists" during the phase of the war in 2015 while it also says: "In April–May 2014, armed pro-Russian protesters, aided by Russian military members, seized local government buildings and police departments in many Eastern Ukraine cities". But this article is about unrest from February. Mellk (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, here, the Reuters source (from 3 March 2014) only says: "Kiev says pro-Russian demonstrations have been organized by Moscow as a pretext to invade". The KHPG source (from 10 March 2014) only mentions Gubarev as a "hero" on Russian TV while it calls the unrest a "pro-Russian rebellion" and the third source you included 25 pages in the ref. In future, can you include quotes so that the information can be verified? Otherwise there is no point including refs if they are not used to support the statement. In this case it looks like it might be WP:SYNTH. Mellk (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure I tried to revise again. I do not like direct quotes in the lead. I do not think anyone at this time doubts Girkin and Gubarev were involved in protests in Donetsk and Luhansk

"One of the organizers of the action is the "People's Militia of Donbas" movement. Its leader, Pavlo Gubarev, at the session of the city council the day before, demanded from the local authorities to stop transferring taxes to the state budget and not to follow instructions from Kyiv."\

https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/politics/2014/03/140301_donetsk_rallies_hk

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pro-russian-protests-in-eastern-ukraines-donetsk-region-diminish/2014/04/03/f1bd1fe0-db2e-4e23-9ceb-cc2f645ae7c5_story.html

"Pavel Gubarev, the Russian sympathizer who brought the crowd to fever pitch and declared himself the "people's governor," has been arrested and sent to Kiev, Ukraine's capital, for investigation."

I don't think it is controversial to say the protests were Russian backed in the first sentence, but I would rather cite in the body then overload the lede with citations Jgmac1106 (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not controversial but the policy is WP:V, which means the source must directly support the statement (and without WP:OR). In the above case it does not look like it. Quotes can also be included in the quote parameter in the citation template. Mellk (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay I will start working on revising the citations and including the relevant quotes Jgmac1106 (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

In this edit you again introduce new information in the lead (MOS:LEAD). The source says: "The event was instantly converted into a psychological weapon in the political and military conflict between Russia and Ukraine, backed up by an unprecedented propaganda campaign launched by public Russian TV." Yes the wording here is close to the source but the source refers to the 2 May 2014 events only while you use this to refer to the entire unrest ("media coverage of the Anti-Maidan demonstrations"). There are other sources you used here that also refer to the 2 May deaths specifically e.g. [1] (if anything this should be mentioned in the coverage section of the 2014 Odesa clashes article, not the lead of this article). In fact all of this looks like original research. Please read the policy carefully. Can you answer any concerns on the talk page before making such edits? Mellk (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

There's also a section in 2014 Odesa clashes about conspiracy theories which would be a better place, some of the sources give specific details about this. Mellk (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Change the word Ouster

mellk how do you feel about changing the word Ouster? I feel like it has a connotation of a Coup.

(note edited to reflect mistake in naming Rada)

Given the vote was 328-0 in the Rada supporting removal I think we shoudl change.

What do you think about "democratically removed" or a variation thereof Jgmac1106 (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

What sources use "democratically removed"? "Ousted" does not mean illegally overthrown and is widely used.[2][3][4][5] Also, the Ukrainian parliament is not called a duma. Mellk (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

My apologies on getting the name wrong I'll go back and replace it with Rada. I will revise the talk comment and record my edit.

I am saying the word ousted towards a negative connotation towards coup and a more neutral word choice should be used given that people try to say Maidan was a coup.

I don't want to use this as primary source, but election results are usually acceptable, [6]

I don't know why I need a bunch of citations to try change a word that carries extra meaning given how people try to frame Maidan as a Coup.

[7] uses ouster in the headline.

If you like the word we can keep it (and h/t on almost 30k edits. That is awesome) Jgmac1106 (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

That's fine, no need to apologize. I guess "ousting" is used because he was not impeached (which was not possible) and he did not resign, so his removal came from a vote which happened after he fled (due to the revolution). The article on the revolution also uses "ousting" so I don't think many people consider the term to have such connotations. I guess if we simply just say "removed" then it downplays the role of the revolution (also thanks, I probably need a break at some point). Mellk (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)