Talk:Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

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

Incorrect title[edit]

Not "pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine" but "contra-neofascism conflict in Ukraine" AndyWerner176.193.135.144 (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dupicate info?[edit]

The following content was taken from 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, some of which appears to be duplicate information in the article already here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. That stuff isn't in this article here. RGloucester — ☎ 17:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be merged in as it relates to the conflict. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this came from the military intervention article. I don't have that one watched, as it is a mess I don't have desire to deal with. Most of this stuff seems to be duplication, though. RGloucester — ☎ 17:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well seeing that recently we have this on the front page: "The UK government launches an inquiry after the Liverpool Echo reported that Whitehall computers had been used to post offensive remarks about the Hillsborough disaster on Wikipedia pages relating to the topic" I feel that saying yeah Russia is in eastern Ukraine as much as it looks like to be the truth per WP:V we should not be jumping the gun. People do watch Wikipedia's pages in some cases those who are higher up which shows that Wikipedia has become a reliable source of information in a way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I personally would've preferred if that article had been titled 'Russian military intervention in Crimea'. If it is confirmed that Russia's troops are active in E.Uk., then we could've created a separate article for that, or expanded the scope of the existing one. It is too late for that, though, considering the failure of the move request. RGloucester — ☎ 17:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Crimea, "confirmed" means "when Russia says so". However, the western allegations are still notable, and yet they were part of the 13k lost between Knowledgekid87's removal and DagosNavy's insert. I will move that part back.--Martin Berka (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the battle on May 22[edit]

The BBC source does not mention whether those attacked the checkpoint were pro-Russian forces. We should never make assumption of it. 霎起林野间 (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article's lede reads "озброєними сепаратистами" (armed separatists), no assumption made beyond the cited source.--Darius (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
separatists and pro-russian forces are synonyms. --Львівське (говорити) 16:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in the lede, but the words "Поблизу міста Волноваха на Донеччині українських вояків обстріляли із засідки: 'відкрили масований вогонь зі стрілецького озброєння, ручних протитанкових гранатометів та мінометів по блокпосту, на якому несли службу військовослужбовці однієї з військових частин ЗС України'" may not be related to what is mentioned there. 霎起林野间 (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lede's assertion is enough, no matter if the body of the report is not so clear. If you want we can cite a good number of Ukrainian sources that explicitly mention the involvement of pro-Russian militias in Volnovakha.--Darius (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biased sources[edit]

While there are reliable sources in both Russian and Western media given how things are right now as exampled in Media portrayal of the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine I propose that things not be added that can easily be contested unless both sides are reporting on it as fact. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian sources are now considered here "unreliable" and western media will not post any news revealing ukrainian forces' war crimes, especially after elections are held... 2A02:2698:6424:94AD:3400:87B2:FDC7:48F9 (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is marvelous how Russian media are being considered unreliable and Ukrainian yellow press being cited all the time. Did anyone actually read those articles? Some of the information given in there is simply ridiculous. I mean come on! If this [1] is not yellow then what is?89.233.128.158 (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I'm forced to start this discussion anew. Later entries in general are based primarily on Ukrainian and pro-Ukrainian Western sources. While I understand the unwillingness to give the center stage to the wacky likes of Kiselyov and Rogozin, unfortunately by not citing the Russian state-controlled sources (which ALWAYS offer a differing point of view, even if biased one, and serve as the mouthpiece of the Ukrainian opposition) this article has gained a vastly pro-Ukrainian government bias. Sadly it's nearly impossible to get a biased source in conditions vastly reminiscent of hotter days of the Cold War, so I suggest we treat both sides, especially the news agencies normally considered reliable by default, with skepticism. - 178.215.99.38 (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the ENGLISH Wikipedia, and references should be in English UNLESS they contain unique information not found in English sources - if good translations of non-Russian government sponsored/controlled sources are found and pass Reliable Source requirements, then by all means, utilize them for the improvement of the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, while we can discuss Reliable Sources below, here are the links to the RT [2], a known propaganda outlet (note how I flat-put admit it; you may be amused to find out that Rossiya-24 has a program called Agitation and Propaganda; "We offer opinions and reasons, not facts and figures"), and the three major news agencies [3] [4] [5]. I'll admit, only ITAR-TASS had a clear language switch button. - 95.165.37.192 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pov edits[edit]

Re [6]. The sources unreliable (blogs, etc.) the factual accuracy is dubious and the wording is non-neutral.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Message to Iryna Harpy[edit]

I've posted a message for an edit that I thought was made by Iryna Harpy, but was actually made by Volunteer Marek. For that, I most sincerely apologize to Iryna Harpy. (obviously not to Volunteer Marek) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondolkiri1 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Mondolkiri1| ([User talk:Mondolkiri1|talk]]) 01:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on my own talk page, I know that the speed of the edits on a high traffic article can lead to confusion. No offence was aimed at me, therefore no offence was taken by me. VM, however, may consider it to be a personal attack. It was polite to leave a message on my page, but posting a backhanded apology on a talk page is not good practice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vesti allegations of foreign troop involvement[edit]

The 14 June 22:00 broadcast contained extensive materials on Swedish and other foreign nationals doing front-line fighting in Ukrainian loyalist forces, as well as a possible USAAF drone controller unit assisting the Ukrainians on the ground. However, the spot is conspicuously absent from the Youtube version I've managed to find and cite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtV2jYvrB14). - 95.165.37.159 (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am mistaken, youtube videos are considered OR, and are not allowed.Avion365 (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, you're absolutely correct, Avion365. Speculating on video footage is definitely OR. Also, 95.165.37.159 should not be posting his speculations on this article talkpage. It is not a WP:FORUM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The person did not stray into "Forum" territory at all. His/her concerns are valid, rightly or wrongly, and are in the interests of the betterment of the article. YouTube videos may be considered RS if they come from a secondary, independent source - personal videos don't count in this respect, but a video from the CNN official channel would. However, considering the wide-ranging coverage in English sources on this topic, finding the print or news media website would be preferred.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merely indicating to you a source which makes such claims - the unit was identified by Vesti, not myself. Does a video recording of 10 o'clock news posted on the channel's official... channel still not constitute a viable source? Also, recent Russian claims of a Ukrainian artillery attack on a Russian border post are curiously not mentioned here, even though such accusations started wars dozens of times; so is yet another, massive Russian military exercise. - 178.215.99.38 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Post the citation - does it pass RS muster? If so, then improve the article with it.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HammerFilmFan @95.165.37.159 Vesti is not Swedish it is Russian. For those of you wondering Vesti is a Program on Russia-1,part of a state run media organization similar to RT. For that reason alone it does not signify as a reliable source due to the amount of misinformation being put out there. Also instead of linking a youtube link to the broadcast link a text copy of the alligations from a reliable source, I.E. a non-interested party.Avion365 (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please care to explain how being owned by the Russian state makes it less reliable than Ukrainian or Anglo-American media? Because I don't see a problem with Wikipedia:NEWSORG; at the very least it qualifies as a biased source, and even then you're applying guilt by presumption; I can make an equivalent point that a good portion of the Ukrainian TV is owned by the pro-Maidan Valeriy Khoroshkovskyi. See also Propaganda#Wartime, which is at least applicable to this armed conflict, c.f. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history assignment. - 95.165.37.192 (talk)
We are not talking about any Ukrainian or Western news source, we are talking about Russian news sources. If you wish to discuss that than please make a separate topic on that matter. I would also hope you read Wikipedia:RS and go to the talk page and look at the rather lengthy discussion about RT. Also as states in Wikipedia:RS the article must be a reliable third party. Vesti is not a reliable third party, considering it is owned by a government that is suspected of providing material support to the pro-Russian forces. You can also look at the name, Pro-Russian, and see that there will be conflicts in this. Wikipedia:NPOV is crucial in these sort of articles and while we post the major points of view we do not post Wikipedia:FRINGE to it. Now, considering that you did Wikipedia:OR when you made the connection that a shoulder patch, that could be bought off Amazon, somehow means that there are U.S. forces on the ground, is another reason and was what I originally posted about. As was stated before, provide a reasonably reliable third party article. Avion365 (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh fer God's sake! It was not OR, it was what the 10:00 news broadcast itself said, and I never believed it in the first place and only tried to make a sourced note. Let's just set the record straight here - and considering how the whole story faded into non-existence, it is no longer notable. - 95.165.32.156 (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HammerFilmFan and 95.165.37.192, please take a look at a current discussion at the RS/N (reliable sources noticeboard). It is one of many discussions over the last few months regarding the use of sources specifically pertaining to the series of current events in Ukraine. There has been no consensus for eliminating official statements being made in both Russian and Ukrainian news outlets, but there has been consensus that (unless supported by reliable Western native English language media who are known for some relatively stable fact-checking credentials), neither of these are to be used as sources on their own merit. This includes ALL Russian mass media outlets. Please read what @Avion365: has advised and understand you've been provided with good council. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the highly stereotypical tactics and the highly provocative questions, but 1) what exactly is your source that confirms that Western sources are unbiased, reliable and properly informed? (yes, I'm trying to lure you into circular logic shove the burden of proof your way) and 2) does the viewpoint of one of two sides of the conflict, provided in liberal quantities by secondary domestic outlets and disseminated by tertiary foreign sources, constitute a fringe viewpoint? - 95.165.32.156 (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to air your stereotypical arguments at the relevant discussion. This is an article talk page, not a forum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ceasefire[edit]

June 18 — Poroshenko agrees to ceasefire in Eastern Ukraine, amnesty for pro-Russia separatists who disarm. [7] [8] [9] [10] Sca (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20th of June - Russian T64's?[edit]

This just proves the unreliability of Ukro media.

You wrote that a RUSSIAN column of armoured vehicles crossed the border, yet you're unable to cite any reliable sources.

The T64 is **NOT** used by the Russians, nor is it produced in Russia (it's produced in Ukraine), it's an old, old tank. On the other hand, it IS used by the Ukrainian army.

That section needs to be deleted entirely, as it simply can't be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.44.135.171 (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline TOC Issue[edit]

I think it is about time the TOC and headings follow the example over at Timeline of the Iraq War and have the dates be condensed into just months. Another idea is to have half month headings. (Ex: March 1 - March 15). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The TOC is too long, so is the Crisis.
Perhaps there would be some sense making something like this:
e.g, the code "{{TOC right|limit=5}}" produces the following: [deleted examples]
Okay, maybe I will just be WP:BOLD here and condense the months, I like how there is a TOC limiter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would make sense to condense it to months. When you've tried it out and (if) it's met with approval, could you pull your TOC example from this talk page? It's pulled the section box down into its lair. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tried replacing "{{TOC right}}" with "{{TOC right|limit=2}}", that leaves only months visible in the TOC. Deleting the examples from here. Pietadè (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the number of equals signs (on both sides) corresponds to HTML tags like <h4></h4>, where "h" stands for 'header'.
As for me, shall try to implement this on the Estonian page. Pietadè (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on working out a tweak for just months, Pietade. Cheers for removing the sample TOC from here, also! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Currently made the Estonian version this way, meaning, halved months (1st and 2nd half), and all subsections are editable right on the place. Don't know how it shall look like, after I have filled in all empty dates. ~ Pietadè (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't find the visual split in the months particularly distracting. I suppose the only way to find out whether it's a better layout is to actually put it in place. If it doesn't meet with approval, it can always be rolled back to the current layout. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Information Resistance"[edit]

Used today twice references to a site called Information Resistance (have used this site more often in et wi counterpart). Information on this site can be found on page About us, and there is an article on Dmytro Tymchuk (born in Chita in 1972, from 1978 to 1983 with father in East Germany, afterwards in Zhytomyr Oblast) in Wikipedia too. Has served: three times in Irak (UN peacekeeping mission), peacekeeping forces of Kosovo, UN forces in Lebanon. By the way, proRussian journalists have argued that the man is invented by CCDCOE (NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence) in Tallinn. Information on the launch of the project and their principles are provided in Facebook too (in Russian). Pietadè (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reservations about that story with the Grad rocket launcher : it seems too similar to the "explanation" for the explosion in the administrative building in Luhansk on 2 June, attributed to a separatist missile. Ec.Domnowall (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Grad I – there is an article (in Ukrainian) on the same subject in Ukrayinska Pravda - this (Grad and related investigation) was announced at a breafing by a speaker of the National Security Council "Андрій Лисенко", who referred to sources of the Ministry of Defence. [1]
Regarding Grad II — some more information on this particular "incident" and more "stuff" in English has been added.[2] ~ Pietadè (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, these higher officials lie not too often, perhaps ;-). Regarding the occupation of Crimea, added yesterday to Estonian vers. of "Little green men" a reference to an article in RIA Novosti titled "Polite Men as a New Image of the Russian Army" ("Polite men (~'people')" (Вежливые люди) is a Russian "synonym" for "little green men", and these (Girkin & Co.) are active in Eastern Ukraine too).
At first they claim (in the article) that Russian actions in Crimea started to create a new image of the Russian Army, as a polite and gentle one, etc. And somewhere in the middle of the aricle it reads:
"Another point of view
On the other hand, the head of the commission on civil-military relations of the Presidential Council on Human Rights Sergey Krivenko believes that the image of "polite men" was created by Spetsnaz and to transfer it to the whole army is not correct.
"Polite men" - a special term for the special situation, which was in the Crimea. And this, in my view, is a completely separate story, that is associated with these events. Transfer that image to the Russian army, is probably not quite correct, "- said Krivenko. According to him, "those special units that were in the Crimea - were mostly contractors, [...]", meanwhile the Russian army is still put together mostly of conscripts. "To transfer to the whole Russian army that was demonstrated by special forces, in my opinion, is not very correct", - concluded the interlocutor.
[Google Translate, plus my corrections][3]
The same Council (President of Russia’s Council on Civil Society and Human Rights) has published a report on Crimea too ("Problems of Crimean people" (Problemy zhiteley Kryma / Проблемы жителей Крыма), had a chance to read it, before it vanished), where it was mentioned, that 22.5 per cent of the whole population of Crimea was glad to be invaded by Russia (i.e., voted "for").[4]
Baku declaration

As for words: OSCEPA in its Baku declaration (2014.07.02.) uses in regard of Russian actions in Ukraine words "occupation" and "intervention".[5] ~ Pietadè (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Силивики захопили "Град", з якого бойовики обстріляли Станицю Луганську Ukrayinska Pravda, 3 July 2014
  2. ^ "Summary – July 3, 2014". sprotyv.info. Information Resistance. 3 July 2014. Retrieved 4 July 2014.
  3. ^ ""Вежливые люди" как новый образ Российской армии". ria.ru (in Russian). RIA Novosti. 16 May 2014. Retrieved 4 July 2014.
  4. ^ Gregory, Paul Roderick (5 May 2014). "Putin's 'Human Rights Council' Accidentally Posts Real Crimean Election Results". www.forbes.com. Forbes. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
  5. ^ "Baku Declaration". www.oscepa.com. OSCEPA. 2 July. Retrieved 2 July 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
It's ok for the Ukrainian announcement, thanks to the sources you've given (but the Google translation from Ukrainian is a bit hard to understand). I know that RT tv is a very one-sided channel, but here the informations are founded (I think), so I am adding that source. Ec.Domnowall (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Führungsoffizier[edit]

Since the article is blocked please fix the report misscontribution . The "according to west Ua army", as source quote Dmytro Tymchuk (руководитель Центра военно-политических исследований Дмитрий Тымчук), is now contributed to some rebels. This lie lay in 3 July 'According to the rebels, 150 of the'— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ec.Domnowall (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously finding this error was an act of my personal analisis. Do this error report distrupted, the percived here as neutral, point of wiew? If not please address the quoted below orange message poped to my terminal by Iryna Harpy.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing.
Note that editors don't particularly care what your point of view is, so long as you edit constructively. Using talk pages as a forum and introducing comments such as this is unacceptable behaviour .

For me it (08 06) looks as not so random rak 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@99.90.196.227: A) Do not transpose comments from your own talk page onto an article's talk page in order to "misrepresent other people". B) My post on your talk page was regarding your original comment (distinctly not neutral). Your posting a response here is a blatant personal attack designed to turn it into a public issue, which can only be construed as being intentionally disruptive. If you have a personal complaint against me, question me on your talk page or my talk page. As for claiming RAK, my rebuttal is quite simply RAK off. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help, to select a reliable source, for this genocidal 'aleged' message of the new pro western Ukrainian president reported at 7/11? My previous here addition was removed on this (rs) agrument. 'СОТНЯМИ СВОЇХ' is translated as to kill hundreds of eastern Ukrainian for one of the pro western revolutionary man. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"For every life of our soldiers, the militants will pay with tens and hundreds of their own," President Poroshenko said.[1] ~ Pietadè (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Ukraine president vows to act over army deaths". BBC News Online. 11 July 2014. Retrieved 11 July 2014.
Why do you think BBC is rs on this? One problem with the ref, it is (IMO) not complete. The article do not give clue how anti terrorists will kill hunderd fold of anti anti terrorists, but the guardian video show how to do it (URL removed due to propagandist, emotional WP:SOAP YouTube video). Is the guardian a more rs (respectable source) and if you think not, why ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the BBC is considered a WP:RS (meaning reliable source). The reliability of sources is constantly being checked and balanced per article. See WP:NEWSORG for the list, but also take a look at the entries about biased sources, etc. None of these are any one editor's personal preference, but are determined by daily challenges and queries... and long, protracted discussions. Wikipedia does not work on chance or static opinions. Incidentally, your "Guardian" video is someone's home footage and makeshift interview in Russian, so I'm removing it as WP:SOAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it was (deleted by above) the Gurdian, if so emotional, video, were there apearing real (IMO) witnesses. May those BBC misleading words, be balanced, by independent view, e.g. Fidel Castro Blames Ukraine and Israel ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comment again carefully. Had this been a link to the Guardian's YT channel, I would not have removed the video. Check your link again, and explain to me how an ordinary YouTube account holder with 2 subscribers, and calling him/herself "DailyNewsUS" posting footage in the Russian language is related to the Guardian? The only difference I can see now is that the user has added English language translations via captions. The Guardian? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure they are Russian? For me it sound like the local slavic dialec of the area, where Porosenko wowed to kill hunderdfolds locals by your rs MSM called "terrorists". The same video was on theguardian.com but the script obfuscate link to it (also the counts go ugle). There is thousands more of videos evidencing the atrocities and devastation of the invading, from the west, army, but none in the article (too emotional?). Anybody with bit of understanding will know what hapen when the ATO bomb the cities or plow tank column into crowded on street. The (above) preventive treats enforce the antisemantic art POV of "fredom fighters" liberating locals from themselves. The reality is - the local people escaping in thousands to east - why not towards arms of the chocolate babajaga ?

Since nobody object the link: Fidel Castro Blames Ukraine and Israel seem to be ok and rs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source[edit]

A convoy of 15 armoured vehicles entered Luhansk city from Russia before dawn.[763]

I think this claim is severe enough to require several references from RSs or at least some change in wording should be aplied. The referenced article is far from something, that could be called reliable. In the first place it only quotes a facebook profile of one person, (while there it is stated as a proven fact) and also presents highly biased opinions (like the point about the death toll being the result of Putin´s tactic, while Putin´s direct involvement is far from being proven, even less if we are talking about him directly ordering this strategy). Of course I am not saying that this claim is a lie, but it is not something with high veracity.--Zuruumi (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have already cited the primary source, who is Acting President of Luhansk Regional Administration, Iryna Verigina. I also added other two sources, one of them including a capture of the original Facebook post. I surprised by your skepticism regarding armoured vehicles, tanks and "Grad" systems crossing into Ukraine, given the fact that there are plenty of sources you can found in the references section which assert the presence of these deadly Russian gifts inside the Donbass, some of them openly weaving the Russian flag. This is also well documented on Youtube, it's hard to supposse that this stuff is part of a "Ukrainian conspiration" or something like that.
On the other hand, we have an ongoing information war, along with the real shootout. Some actors in this "drama", like Tymchuk, Selenov, Strelkov, Bolotov, etc. usually make claims that sound a little bit wild; however, we are not here to judge their behaviours, thus a proper attribution through a secondary source (i.e. a newspaper article) should be enough for inclusion in this page. Regards.--Darius (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this should be better. I was never sceptic about the fact, that Russia might be arming the pro-russian forces, or rather, it is more than propable. Although, well I am more than interested in how exactly was he capable of discerning where exactly from the 15 vehicles came. I was just against the matter of fact formulation, when Russia is refusing any claims it is doing so. As for their waving Russian flag, well it is understandable as their stance is well, pro-russian so of course there would be many waving russian flag and not for example the flag of US (EU, China or whatever else you wish). Therefore this argument proves almost void (but well, this discussion propably doesen´t belong to this talk page). By the way, while this may be a bit different topic, I read somewhere on this talk page, that this is ENG wikipedia and thus mostly English sources (and not Russian) should be used. However I see no reason then, as to why almost no Russian sources are referenced when Ukraine sources are referenced quite often. Ukraine sources (as one side of this conflict) are undoubtedly biased and although Russian ones are also so it might be a good idea to use both, to reach at least a partly objective view.--Zuruumi (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Split?[edit]

I'm thinking that this should be split in two. One for events pertaining to 2014 insurgency in Donbass, along with existing one for matters pertaining to the overall unrest. At this point, the insurgency dominates. If there can be a separate timeline for the 2014 Crimean crisis, I see no reason why the Donbass conflict shouldn't get its own. It would also help cut-down the length. RGloucester — ☎ 15:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, good idea, the article is simply too large to handle, and the subject is something more than 'unrest', IMHO the conflict is now an all-out war. Regards.--Darius (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a draft: Draft:Timeline of the 2014 insurgency in Donbass. I'm going to have to parse out what belongs in that, and what should stay here. Protests should all be at the unrest timeline, insurgency matters at the insurgency timeline. RGloucester — ☎ 00:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DagosNavy: Split implimented. We now have Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine for the protests across Ukraine, and Timeline of the 2014 insurgency in Donbass for events in the Donbass armed conflict. Feel free to clean-up if I made any mistakes in placement. Should make navigation easier. RGloucester — ☎ 01:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, congrats!.--Darius (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clashing informations[edit]

Ukrainian forces attack the city of Debaltseve the support of artillery fire and armoured vehicles.[821] New Russia rebels claimed that Ukrainian troops suffer heavy losses and were repulsed.

Yet according to this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_insurgency_in_Donbass#mediaviewer/File:East_Ukraine_conflict_(English_language_version).png this city is supposedly under Ukrainan army`s constrol. Either the map is wrong, or an information about rebels taking it hss been ommited, or the Ukrainan army is simply atacking and defending one city at the same time :).--Zuruumi (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already removed the unsourced statement. The png map, however, may be not the best source of information, since it takes for granted that the corridor open by the latest Ukrainian offensive in Donetsk is under full control of the Ukrainian army. The area seems to be surrounded by a number of rebel strongholds, and the fact that the nearby border area with Russia (Marynivka) is currently occupied by rebel troops is also omitted.--Darius (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not complete[edit]

Big pattern of events, especially those related to demonstrations in the end of February in Kharkov, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk are not showed in the article. This provides reagedrs with non-complete information about the situation in the country. As an active participant of these events I could provide a lot of missing information, if there would be allowed here (I haven't read all the discussion yet) White guardian (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked Confirmed as correct x 1. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine&oldid=1186551993"