Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Mariupol (2014)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Mariupol standoff)

One sided

[edit]

There are more than enough videos showing that the people were unarmed when they were shot by the soldiers.

--2.242.78.183 (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know of another evidence that shows that unarmed civilians were shot by provocateurs among the crowd when the angry crowd was following the soldiers. So, your claim of onesideness is totally groundless.

Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev forces opening fire on protesing civilian crowd

[edit]

[1] I hope some media will pick up on this. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

video is unreliable and out of context, plenty of people in the crowd with guns. Saying they opened fire on protesters is a bit loony IMO. --Львівське (говорити) 23:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The video shows absolutely nothing except for some people who are being shot upon by unknown. Commentators claim that the shooters are the Ukrainian authorities, but other than a simple Ukrainian flag you cannot see any shooters whatsoever. Those people could have been shot by the same protesters. The separatists has given out the SBU weapon arsenal in the region randomly. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's more: http://julius-civilis.blogspot.nl/2014/05/what-happened-near-theatre-square-in.html Machinarium (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a pretty good analysis, but it's a blog, hence not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that incident is reported in the local media and some Ukrainian national media such as Ukrayinska Pravda (A video appeared how people were shot upon in Mariupol, In the Internet appeared a video of shooting neat the Arbat cafe). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it helps that it was featured on a Swiss website? http://www.rts.ch/info/sciences-tech/reperages-web/5841931-un-blogueur-tente-de-decrypter-les-videos-des-heurts-de-marioupol.html Machinarium (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of website is www.rts.ch? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Radio Télévision Suisse - Swiss television. Like BBC, I think.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite flawed analysis though, almost to the point of being silly, the statement that he was unable to see any of the other victims getting shot is false. In fact the first photograph, where the gunman is talking (about 20 seconds before they were getting shot), shows one of the victims in the background (under the red arrow across the street, the guy with the blue backpack, who will end up getting shot about 10 meters to the right at the intersection in front of the red poster on the kiosk that can be seen behind the gunman's head). The other two victims are behind the face of the guy right behind the gunman, one kneeling and one standing, just to the left of the kiosk and remain stationary there until getting shot. The situation can be seen more clearly in the reconstructed video [2]. At time index 7:33, the top-right video, you can see in front of the blue bank building a tree that is white on the lower part, the leftmost tree. At the time of the shootings the gunman was looking at the intersection from behind the tree next to that one, the tree in front of the grey bit between the blue bank and the yellow building (as can be seen in the other video [3] time-index 5:33), and had a clear view of all three victims getting shot at that point - just look at the reconstructed video from time-index 7:33 on at the top-right video. They were shot about 40 meters right in front of him. He sees one person getting shot, then about 3 minutes later three more and then draws his gun to return fire as the crowd starts charging towards the soldiers. As he is returning fire and the crowd is charging another person who was about to throw a chair gets shot. Then the gunman fires two shots from behind, and above, the crowd and then ducks back down behind the crowd. A soldier then fires into the crowd shooting another person first in the leg and then in the head. The blog blaming the situation on the gunman is highly flawed, there were already 4 people being shot in front of him before he even drew his gun, then while returning fire another unrelated person got shot, and only then did he fire again and ducked behind the crowd. At that point there were about 10-20 people massed in front of him, and the fact that he hid behind an unarmed crowd using them as human shields is still hardly an excuse for then firing into said crowd. It's illegal under the Geneva conventions to use human shields to preclude the other party from shooting, but it's just as illegal to shoot at those human shields anyway.B01010100 (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might be illegal to shoot at human shield, but not at the angry mob that threatens soldiers and who do not clearly charge at people, but rather are trying to evade. It is clearly seen. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RTS itself makes the disclaimer that the blogger's interpretation of the video is questionable (sujette à caution). At present we are presenting this claim, about a gunman using a civilian as a human shield, without a similar disclaimer. I think this is clearly undue weight. What is legal or illegal here, I don't know, but I'm sure that Aleksandr is right about one thing — the guys in the APCs were faced with an extremely angry crowd. That's probably why they left Mariupol in such a hurry, and haven't been back since. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

new fires

[edit]

not sure who can source this but just want to post "Mariupol is on fire. The military base on Nakhymov Prospect and the City Prosecutor's Office are on fire. " lots of pics of the fires online now --Львівське (говорити) 18:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a brief mention on BBC that new tyre fires had been started by protesters, but nothing about the city burning. RGloucester — ☎ 19:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
interfax confirmed what i posted above, added it--Львівське (говорити) 23:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


more info no time to edit now [4] --Львівське (говорити) 00:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

death toll

[edit]

some names and numbers are now published [5]--Львівське (говорити) 06:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chief of Police Mariupol released after torture

[edit]

The police chief is not dead... you guys should be highly skeptical of all news reports, this situation is rife with propaganda from all sides

http://fakty.ictv.ua/ua/index/read-news/id/1514749

https://news.pn/en/politics/103877 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.151.171 (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article?? The article explains the reasons for what you called "rife with propaganda". Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No civilian casualties?

[edit]

Accourding to this article there were no dead/wounded civilians in Mariupol. It smells like BS. 85.140.228.205 (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article says what reliable sources say. If you got a disagreement with that, take it up with reliable sources. If you think there are reliable sources out there which say something else or something additional, please provide them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on! Go to youtube and watch some videos. I am going to seek some reliable sources for you. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope BloombergBusinessweek will be fine. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This one? The source is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that source does not say that civilian casualties occurred as in this edit [6] and the subsequent one. It just says that some people in the city think that. The very next sentence in the article says "Although some pictures of civilians with guns who opposed the Ukrainian military in Mariupol had been published in the media, participants in the demonstration say they haven’t seen the photo". It also quotes some person saying "“The junta sent Nazis here from Kiev specifically on May 9. We did not wait for them here. They invaded the city and shot at unarmed people,” a pensioner named Maya says.". That doesn't mean we put in the article "the residents in the city think a Nazi junta rules in Kiev". Per WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT.
We really can't put "man on the street said" kind of things in encyclopedic articles.
Find a reliable source which says that unarmed civilians were killed or wounded.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The demonstrators said that " On May 10, a group of 150 people is demonstrating near the burned city hall. They look angry and sad, and blame the tragic events in the city center on the authorities in Kiev. According to them, the soldiers started shooting first and fired on unarmed residents. " Why are the sources of the government more reliable? Fakirbakir (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because BB is not presenting some person on the street's claim as factual. Just that such somebody said something. So we can't include it per WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT.
Look, you said you were going to find reliable sources which say that there were casualties among unarmed civilians. So find them. You haven't done that yet.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindu times? You really had to dig for that one, didn't you? Here's a basic rule of thumb: if it's really really hard to find reliable sources which support some notion, and you have to engage in google search data mining to find a source to support your claim, your claim is probably dubious. At that point an editor acting in good faith would say to themselves "gee I'm having a really hard time finding a reliable source to support what I want the article to say. Maybe I'm actually POV pushing here". Try it. Say it out loud to yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the educational lesson, but, I think you are the person who does not really want NPOV in the article. It is a serious issue. Have you seen those dreadful videos? We should not play the blind guy if there is any indication of CIVILIAN casualties. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Statements by local residents, which have been reported and published by mainstream media like BloombergBusinessweek, are notable enough to be included, surely. This report, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/10/donetsk-referendum-ukraine-civil-war , by Shaun Walker of The Observer, states that while the Ukrainian government forces withdrew in haste from the city, they were firing on civilians. 21:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Kalidasa 777 (talk)
The Guardian is a reliable source and it confirms what can be seen on numerous videos available online- forces sent by Kiev opened fire and attacked unarmed civilians.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Volunteer Marek, The Guardian will be alright with you? Fakirbakir (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to ask. The Guardian is a reliable source.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is fine and the info can go in the body of the article. There is still the problem with the process - you arrived here with a preconceived notion of "I am going to put my view into the article", rather than a desire to incorporate information in a neutral manner. You then searched high and low to find sources to support this preconceived notion. Didn't quite succeed (someone else found the guardian article) but yet remained adamant that your view belonged in the article - and misrepresented a source while at it. Which is the quintessence of POV pushing.

Fine. The Guardian is a reliable source. But please tone down the way you incorporate this info into the article and keep WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE in mind.

As to the videos and your opinions as to what they show - original research - please see the link in this discussion section [7]. Yes, it's not a reliable source but it's well done and will perhaps just make you stop and realize that you're blindly reading into those videos what you want to see rather than what's actually in them. Hey, we all have our cognitive biases (except for me of course).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://ukraine-human-rights.org/massacre-in-mariupol-up-to-100-people-shot-dead-on-day-of-victory-over-fascism/

I have noticed that sources like 'euromaidanpr' are used in wikipedia, regarding the Ukrainian articles. I gues someone can use this source too, unless he is completely one sided — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.247.146 (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Ukrainian Human Right" is just another conspiracy blog. EuromaidanPR is okay insofar as they are often just translating Ukrainian major news sources into English (like Pravda, UNIAN, etc.) verbatim, and English sources are preferred. EPR is never credited as a source. --Львівське (говорити) 00:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"they are often just" How often? It is a clearly biased source.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miners, steelworkers etc

[edit]

[8]

In what could represent a decisive turning point in the Ukrainian conflict and a setback for Russia, thousands of steelworkers fanned out Thursday over the city of Mariupol, establishing control over the streets and routing the pro-Kremlin militants who seized control several weeks ago.

Probably should be added.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The latest development is being welcomed by the Voice of Russia [9] The man behind it, Rinat Akhmetov, does not think Donetsk should become an independent state or a part of Russia; but he has also said that the model with "Kiev in charge... has run out of steam and is not right for the future"; instead he wants a new constitution with decentalized government [10] Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[11] Report in the Independent, from Kim Sengupta in Mariupol. Describes what is happening as "this 'third way', trying to find an equilibrium between nationalists and separatists". The report includes an interview with one of the steelworkers in the new patrols, Nicolai Vorodinov. This is part of what Vorodinov says:

"The day these things came into our city, the day the soldiers were shooting at people, we decided that the people in Kiev had declared war on us... but we have thought about this, we discussed this among ourselves, we do not want war, we want the Donbass to be normal again". The article also mentions a pro-Kiev armed group called the Donbass Battalion, commanded by Semyon Semenchenko, as having played a part in the recent violent clashes. The journalist Kim Sengupta states that he witnessed members of this group beating demonstrators without provocation "while residents accuse them of indiscriminate shooting". Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, miners were against this Russian covert operation Russian Spring from the get go. It is only now that the western media finally is picking up the fact. My previous edits about the fact were deleted as part of propaganda accusations. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section needs more substance

[edit]

According WP:Lead, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points... The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many read only the lead."

Is the lead right now able to stand alone as a concise overview? It is two sentences long and gives the reader no idea of the scale and character of the clashes. Yesterday I added the following sentences to the lead:

"On May 9, Ukrainian government forces including armoured vehicles approached the Mariupol police station and clashed with anti government people inside the building, including rebel police, and with anti government crowds outside. Lives were lost, and the police station was gutted by fire. Government forces then withdrew from the city."

These sentences were removed on the grounds that they were "superfluous"...

What specifically is not important enough to go in the lead: Use of armoured vehicles? Loss of life? The police station being gutted by fire? The subsequent withdrawal of the government forces? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is detail. The lead is summary. Furthermore, it is WP:PROSELINE. Concise means brief and pertinent. This is a short article. The summary should not be more than two sentences. As it stands, it makes clear why the standoff exists, where, and when. That's the context, and that's why it is notable. And hence, it does well. RGloucester — ☎ 03:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Lead explains what it means by concise: "it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs". It also says that the lead should establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points. WP:Proseline is a WP essay, not a guideline or a policy. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware it is an essay, and I have a right to cite it. It gets to the point. No lines should start like "on day month year", as that is not usually appropriate in encyclopaedic form. Prose should be used. This is a small article. It doesn't need a four paragraph lead. It is a matter of balance. Regardless, that's not what it means by concise. That is merely one of the criteria for "conciseness". Brevity for the sake of conveying what the article is about, is "concisness". In other words, one should use the shortest possible manner to convey the most information. This is what the present article does. Your details are in the body. They do not need to be duplicated in the lead. RGloucester — ☎ 04:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say the article needs a four paragraph lead. What I did say, is that, per WP:Lead the lead should "summarize the most important points". Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does that at present. It tells you that there is a standoff. It tells you where. It tells you why. It tells you when. There you are! Summarisation. RGloucester — ☎ 05:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't tell you how. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the body explains that in detail. If the whole article were the lead, then there would not be a lead. It would merely be one large body. RGloucester — ☎ 16:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noone is saying that the whole article should be in the lead. It just needs a little more substance. Like mentioning that the clashes were lethal, and involved armoured vehicles. These are not mere details. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are mere details. Armoured vehicles are details. People dying are details. The "event' is merely the standoff. RGloucester — ☎ 02:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeable to keeping the lead down to a single short paragraph, and avoiding any sentences that begin with a date. I think the most important points include the fact that clashes were lethal, that armored vehicles were used and then withdrawn, and that Metinvest steelworkers removed barricades from city center a few days after.

What does anyone think of a lead like this:

"During the rising unrest in Ukraine in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, the city of Mariupol in Donetsk Oblast saw lethal clashes break out involving Ukrainian government forces, local police, militants affiliated with the Donetsk People's Republic, and civilians. Government forces, including armored personnel carriers, withdrew from Mariupol on 9 May after an incident which left the city's police headquarters gutted by fire. The government forces maintained checkpoints outside the city. Intervention by steelworkers on 15 May led to the removal of barricades from the center of the city and resumption of patrols by local police. DPR forces retained quarters elsewhere in Mariupol."

Kalidasa 777 (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implementing now, with minor adjustments. RGloucester — ☎ 16:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mariupol news outlet 0629 ?

[edit]

The current version of the page contains the following: 

"Citing eyewitnesses, Mariupol news outlet 0629 reported that "terrorists took Demidenko's dead body and cut his ears off and gouged his eyes."[1]"

What is "Mariupol news outlet 0629 "? And what are the reasons for treating it as a reliable source? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kalidasa 777, 0629, is a local Internet publishing of Mariupol city. I dont know who came up with the fancy categorization for it as a "news outlet", but I guess it could be called such. It is pretty reliable site. It is Russophone and somewhat sympathetic to Russians, yet in regards to local news it is quite valuable. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The name 0629 represents the phone area code for the city of Mariupol. As a trivia info which you can also check with the wikipedia article for the city. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv Post reported on it / cited them so I took it as them vouching for the source's reliability. --Львівське (говорити) 23:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The clash that destroyed the police station: between who and who, and how did it start?

[edit]

When Kiev's APCs fired on the Maniupol police station on May 9, who was their enemy, and how many of the enemy were there?

Was it a matter of Ukrainian troops and police versus 60 pro-Russian militants, or was it a case of national troops versus local police?

The report in Kiev Post on May 9 [12] — which is based on a statement by interior minister Arsen Avakov — says the enemy was "60 rebels armed with automatic weapons" who attempted to storm the police station. The headline speaks of "clashes between police and separatists". Nothing there about any police on the "separatist" side. It also mentions 21 deaths.

Journalists who visited Maniupol immediately after the clashes, and talks with local people, found that just about everything in Avakov's statement was energetically contested by the locals.

According to Andrew Kramer of the New York Times [13]

"Residents who had gathered around the police station offered an account that differed from the interior minister’s. The city police, they said, were sympathetic to the pro-Russian side and had mutinied against an out-of-town chief newly installed by the interim government in Kiev. Armored vehicles had driven into the city to confront the rebellious police, not the militants, residents said. "

Kim Sengupta of the Independent [14] writes of "two conflicting narratives", one by the Kiev administration, and one by local people he spoke with "residents as well as protesters", who told him that the government version of what happened is "a lie".

"The police, they maintain, had shown great sympathy towards them, and the Ukrainian military, with a band of armed fellow travellers, wanted to take control of the weapons and attacked the station precisely for that reason."

The Independent's journalist goes on to say (as his own assessment) that Arsen Avakov's accounts on military operations can be "wildly inaccurate". Perhaps the journalist is being overly critical... Though it does appear that Avakov's claim of 21 deaths is a major exaggeration...

But the question for us is whether claims by Avakov should be stated in WP as if they were well-established facts? E.g. His figure of "60 militants" currently appears in our info box as a fact. NPOV? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Events on 9 May -- how to present the different accounts?

[edit]

At present our section "Events" begins with the sentence: "Pro-Russian protesters and militants occupied the city's police headquarters on 9 May." This is essentially Avakov's statement that militants tried to storm the place, though a little watered down. This is presented in WP's own voice, as if it were an uncontroversial fact. The source given is David Blair in the Telegraph who actually says "rebels appear to have occupied..." In other words, he's not quite sure. Nor should we be.

As Kim Sengupta has noted in the Independent, there are two narratives about what happened on 9 May. One from Arsen Avakov, the Interior Minister who sent in the armoured vehicles, the other from local residents.

According to Avakov's narrative, armoured vehicles were there to help local police against separatist militants who had tried to storm the police station. According to the residents' narrative, armoured vehicles were there to put down local police who refused to crack down on protesters the way Kiev wanted.

I suggest that we rework start of "Events" section as follows:

  • begin with the few but important points which everyone seems to agree about, e.g. that armoured vehicles were there, and that they exchanged shots with people inside the police station.
  • then a paragraph presenting Avakov's account of what happened, but not in WP's own voice.
  • followed by the current (since yesterday) paragraph which presents the Mariupol residents' narrative.

This is the point of my edit yesterday [15]. The first two paragaphs of my edit were reverted by Volunteer Marek, with the comment that he had "no idea why..."

How to move forward on this? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified eyewitness accounts don't count for much. Crack down on whom? Are you denying the fact that a shootout happened at the police station between the two sides? --Львівське (говорити) 02:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Crack down on whom?"
Presumably on supporters of the DPR, who were going to hold their referendum on 11 May.
"Are you denying the fact that a shootout happened at the police station between the two sides?"
No. The question is who the two sides were. When the APCs opened fire, was the police station full of DPR militants who had stormed it from outside, or was it full of local police who had no need to storm it because they were already there?
"Unverified eyewitness accounts don't count for much."
Not even when published in the New York Times, the BBC and the Independent? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If they are unverified, then yes, even if they are published there.--Львівське (говорити) 05:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that what WP says about the 9 May events should be based solely on Arsen Avakov's account? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Kalidesa, there are for example numerous reliable sources(never mind dozens of videos) stating that unarmed protesters were part of the clashes, yet this is constantly removed. Avakov's is not reliable source btw, he made numerous false statements in the past.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sixties term credibility gap comes to mind... Anyway, I don't think it is Wikipedia's job to determine who is right, or even who is credible. The best we can do is let readers know something about the different versions of events which have published in mainstream media and by major organisations (e.g. Human Rights Watch), explaining clearly to readers where each version originates from (e.g. Interior Minister, Mariopol residents), and let Wikipedia readers make up their own minds... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RTS

[edit]

The link to RTS was just an article about a blogger, it wasn't an analysis or RTS report.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an outrage!

[edit]
Please do not use "according to" with regard to reliable news outlets. Such usage is frowned upon, because it is a manner to give less weight to reliable sources, in favour of fringe viewpoints. Please read WP:NPOV.

Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

You have skewed the section to favour minority viewpoints, and given undue weight to these positions, and also unfairly minimised the mainstream reliable reports. The word "multilateral" is highly inappropriate and unspecific, given the shady nature of the deal. Furthermore, the "according to" is inappropriate, as it was not the CBC that reported it. It was the Associated Press. If you can't even verify sources, how can you possibly write anything? RGloucester — ☎ 13:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and honestly, it's getting a bit tired the attempt to POV push fringe accounts or dispute reliable sources ('as western'). --Львівське (говорити) 14:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


RGloucester... You've objected to my use of the word "multilateral" in relation to the agreement which Rinat Akhmetov's company Metinvest made with local leaders of the National Guard, the DPR, and others, and published online by Metinvest [16]. Here "multilateral" simply means that the agreement is between more than two sides. If there were only two sides involved, it would be a "bilateral" agreement.

For me, this word is no big deal either way. The important thing is the sourced information about who signed this document. Would you agree to that info going back in without the word "multilateral"?

You've objected to my use of the words "according to" in relation to reliable news outlets. Here's how I used those words:

1. "According to the CBC, these groups forced the insurgents out of the buildings that they had been occupying." citation — (16 May 2014) Pro-Russian insurgents retreat from buildings in Mariupol CBC News

2. "Separatist militants (unarmed, but some wearing balaclavas) were patrolling Mariupol alongside police on 17 May, according to a Radio Free Europe report." citation — Charles Recknagel (17 May 2014) Gray Zone: Mariupol Sinks Into Power Vacuum Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty

In case of the first sentence, the inline attribution to CBC was based on the wording I found in the already-existing footnote. I don't have a problem with mentioning Associated Press instead, or as well. If you like, we can mention the New York Times into the bargain — IIRC, they said something very similar.

Regarding your quote from WP:NPOV... Are you comparing Radio Free Europe, or any other source I've cited, to David Irving? If so, which? Are you aware that Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is funded by the US Congress to provide information to Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East? Seems to me both Associated Press and Radio Free Europe are well within the WP definition of reliable sources, and yet here they've made statements which are hard to reconcile: were the militants forced out, or were they brought in to the new teams patrolling the city? What is wrong with mentioning both reports, and telling readers where they came from?

You say I've unfairly minimized the mainstream reliable reports. Do you mean the reports about 9 May based on Arsen Avakov's statement — the one about the 60 millitants with automatic weapons who tried to take the police station by storm? Far from minimizing that section, I expanded it, and brought it closer to what Avakov actually said. Because I agree that his account of the 9 May events needs to be presented fairly, in detail, and before other published accounts.

The question is whether we should present his version of things in Wikipedia's voice... Did you read this part of WP:NPOV?

Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources... Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Can statements by Avakov be presented in Wikipedia's voice, as if they were "uncontroversial factual assertions", when his account of things has been questioned in the New York Times, the Independent, the Telegraph and the BBC? Or should they be "attributed in the text", by using words such as "Avakov said" or "according to Avakov"?

The Holocaust is a topic which has been extensively researched by historians and jurists. The world has had almost 70 years to establish what was done and who did it. The very recent clashes in Mariupol, and subsequent restoration of relative calm, are different, in that there has been no independent enquiry, no Nuremberg Trials, no studies by professional historians. So let's not jump to conclusions about what happened and why. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC article is merely a wire bit from the AP. Verify. Verify. Verify! Multilateral implies that the parties have legitimacy as representatives of the group. This has been contested by members of the Donetsk PR. There is a difference between "speaking in Wikipedia's voice" and using "according to" to minimise or discredit reports that you dislike. We don't decide or "conclude" on what happened. We merely report in a neutral tone what other reliable sources say. RGloucester — ☎ 02:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you agree to the information about who signed the agreement going back in without the word "multilateral"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got reliable western sources as such, sure. RGloucester — ☎ 14:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are the militants still there? A CNN report

[edit]

[17] May 19, CNN people visited Mariupol and had an interview with local DRP leader Denis Kuzmenko outside his current headquarters which is described as a "brick police station". (Clearly not the same one.) They described him as a "friendly, slightly chubby man" with a pistol. Kuzmenko was accompanied by his security guard, who carried an AK47. They did a video of the interview too.

If CNN is a reliable source, the DRP militants did not withdraw from Mariupol on May 15, the day when the barricades were taken down in the city center. Or, if they did withdraw, they came back very quickly.

For those who don't like separatist militants, the good news is that CNN didn't think Kuzmenko was fully in control of the city... They titled their report: "Who's in charge? No easy answer..." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox wording

[edit]

Recent reword of infobox says the forces on the Donbass People's Militia side included "Pro-Russian militants & local auxiliaries". The term "auxiliaries" is not in the body text of the article, and no source is given for it. Is it meant to convey that local people played only an auxiliary role on the anti-Kiev side of the conflict, while the predominant role was played by militants from outside Mariupol? This could (conceivably) be true, but we'd need reliable sourcing for it.

The reword also uses the term "Militsiya" instead of "police", and those on the anti-Kiev side are called "Defected Militsiya". The word "Militsiya" here is correct but obscure. "Police" is the usual term in English-language sources used in this article (e.g. NY Times), so I think we should use it likewise, though "militsiya" could be included in brackets. Regarding "defected", if we want an adjective here, it is probably better to say "defected or rebelling" — some media accounts being more consistent with each of these somewhat different terms... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another "anti-terrorist operation", and residents show anger

[edit]

Latest news — another "anti-terrorist operation", more bloodshed, and local people are angry... Report from the Independent Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bellingcat investigation

[edit]

Here - they found Ukrainian troops did nothing and that the claims of excessive force or attacking police were fabricated. It also concludes that witness testimony was skeweed due to the chaos and confusion. Long read, but good, and I think this article needs some polish now.

"The available video evidence shows otherwise: at theatre square soldiers received fire from someone who used a hostile crowd as a human shield. Only afterward did soldiers shoot protestors in the legs. Many of the protestors wrongfully believed that they were under attack by Ukrainian forces, which largely exacerbated the standoffs."

--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 19:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced this "Bellingcat", which appears to be a WP:SELFSOURCED blog-type source, is RS. I'm especially concerned that KP says "Despite verbal and written requests to the General Prosecutor’s office, the Kyiv Post was not able to ascertain the status of the official investigation into the May 9 shootings". The fact that the official report is nowhere to be seen is very concerning, and means that this Bellingcat report has nothing to back it up. I recommend going to WP:RS/N, because I just genuinely don't know about this "Bellingcat". RGloucester — ☎ 23:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also see this blog post by the founder of the "Bellingcat", where he describes its mission. It seems to be the personal project of one guy, and doesn't have any reputation for fact checking. It seems like original research. This definitely needs to go to RS/N before it can be included. RGloucester — ☎ 23:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened an RS/N thread. Please comment there. RGloucester — ☎ 23:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
what with the work bellingcat has done on MH 17 I'm surprised you don't know about it -its not just 'one guy' its a team anyhow and has attracted worldwide attention and praise even if it has escaped you somehow! - heres an article about the founder - assad/isis and putin exposed - 'a queer name' ! indeed - Belling the cat - know your fables - a lot of wisdom in fables, Aesop, Lafontaine - its all good stuff fables - news that stays news, fables are!Sayerslle (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've not followed the MH17 story. I know exactly zero about it, as I'm not interested in such things. Your article from The Independent verifies my concerns. It calls them "like-minded bloggers". I've heard of the "The Bell and the Cat", though I've never read the thing. RGloucester — ☎ 23:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
bloggers are no good? bbc middle east - he is a citizen journalistbellingcat citizen journalist , - 'whats in a name?', anyhow? , that's Shakespeare, no?- RS often report on his work and use his work. that's a fact. Sayerslle (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bloggers are no good. Only establishment sources are acceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 02:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
well , I understand WP is NOTNEWS and bellingcat are probably 'cutting edge' in a way - I should think 'establishment' press will pick up on this info from bellingcat soon enough and then it can go in the article . Bellingcat are the new 'establishment' in a way. looking at twitter one notices the putin regime fanatics are going crazy - or crazi-er than they already are - not easy - the likes of this [18] - scary people them lotSayerslle (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quality of Bellingcat as a primary/secondary source is not really relevant, because the removed text refers to another secondary RS (KievPost), which uses Bellingcat. This is like quoting a book by historian who uses various primary sources. This is simply not our business to analyze his primary sources. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The author is notable enough he has his own page on here, Eliot Higgins - just read the reception section to see if he's reliable as an analyst. The sources he uses are primary, sure (youtube, photos, etc) but is he qualified to make assessments on it? I'd say for sure, moreso than regular journalists who have been debunked on various topics in this realm. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 16:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is not the author. In fact, the report was written by a Dutch university student... RGloucester — ☎ 18:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being a student does not disqualify anyone, including journalists. This tells nothing about educational background of a person (people may have multiple educations). And once again, the actual/direct source is KievPost. If it qualifies as RS, we are fine. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, "being a student" does disqualify sources. We only accept reliable sources that come from people with reputations for reliability. A university student has no such reputation, and that's certainly the case when all he's done is analyse YouTube videos for a blog website. Kyiv Post reported that the report existed. It did not confirm it. It even made a note saying that the official report was not available, and that there was no verification. Therefore, there is no way this can be accepted as RS. Very simple. RGloucester — ☎ 19:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
they are reporting an interview they have had with the author of the report as well - they are not simply saying the report exists - at the end they 'Note: Despite verbal and written requests to the General Prosecutor’s office, the Kyiv Post was not able to ascertain the status of the official investigation into the May 9 shootings.' - so what? that takes away nothing from the article in the kyivpost - its just saying they can't 'ascertain the status of the official investigation into the May 9 shootings' - RS go on saying things about subjects while official entities drag on - its same as MH-17 - some want emptied out pages until the 'official voice' is heard , but RS report on things, then wp can report on things, that's how I see it anyhow. saying ' "being a student" does disqualify sources' is strange also - 'people may have multiple educations' is one point made above - all this is your kind of OR challenging stuff that has appeared in RS - and it is errant imo. Sayerslle (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no OR involved. The OR is the "Bellingcat" report, made up of Youtube videos analysed by a university student. Bellingcat is not an RS. It is not an establishment source. It is a niche advocacy group made-up of self-important internet types. KP does not report that the BC report is fact. They merely make note that it exists, and say what it says. No RS have picked-up this report, other than KP. I wonder why that is? This Dutch university student is not well-renowned, and he has published no papers. He has no credibility, and neither does his report, unless some RS corroborates it. None have. RGloucester — ☎ 20:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'No RS have picked-up this report, other than KP' - so what? KyivPost has - Bellingcat is not 'a niche advocacy group' - that's just you making stuff up -what are they advocating according to you? - you are getting increasingly 'mandarin' in your assertions imo and your insistence that the report be 'corroborated' sounds like TRUTH to me. - have RS 'corroborated' the causes of WW1? - wp reports on the historical conversation as much as anything - you are an absolutist demanding certainties at this point imo that may never appear to your satisfaction - anyhow saying no RS have picked this up, and reported on it, and interviewed the author - is wrong as you acknowledge , so this is pointless. this RS interview belongs in the record of the RS conversation about this event. Sayerslle (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me where the BBC, or The Guardian, or The New York Times, or the CBC, or any other establishment source picked up this report. It is a niche advocacy group. It has a libertarian ideology of what journalism should be, and that's antithetical to the encylopaedia, which is based in RS that are given that status by their own reputation in the establishment. I'm not demanding certainities, I'm demanding non-internet blog self-important non-youthful RS. This is demanded by WP:SELFSOURCED, WP:V, and WP:RS. RGloucester — ☎ 20:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
maybe they haven't picked it up because for them its not news any more , thats how it goes - the story has moved on for them -how should I know why ? - maybe they will, - maybe Kyiv post are more likely to care scrupulously and passionately about this subject than those other RS because its their territory. it doesn't matter. as for non-internet, non-youthful etc demands . whats that phrase? - 'get with the programme'! - its kyivpost and if a youthful intelligent student has spent hundreds of hours examining material I would have thought that denmanded respect rather than scorn - anyhow it doesn't matter. it doesn't fail RS - its Kyiv post, it doesn't fail self sourced its kyivpost, it doesn't fail V 'verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.' - they can do so, - - its verifiably part of the historic RS conversation around this event. Sayerslle (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it cannot. KP did not report it as fact, and no other RS picked it up. It is not RS. The more emotion involved, the less objective the reporting is. If what you say is true about KP, then it certainly cannot be used. However, I believe KP to be reliable, and I like their reporting. However, merely because something is reported does not make it reliable or notable, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEWSORG. This report simply isn't reliable, and that's that. RGloucester — ☎ 20:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the article is not leading to the bellingcat report and saying 'this is the verifiable truth, though it be OR' it is leading the reader to the Kyiv post where they report on the existence of a study, that verifiably does exist, and interview the author. that is all. now you are saying you can't allow emotion to be involved in any reportage? you are making all this stuff up as you go along really. Sayerslle (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non-RS. It is clearly not RS. Don't let your ideology blind you. The author is not credible. DELETE. RGloucester — ☎ 20:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can not disqualify any news reports on the grounds that they were not repeated by The Guardian, The New York Times, or the CBC. This is absurd. A lots of things are not reported/repeated by such sources simply because such thing would not be of interest for their general audience. We can not independently check personal background/credibility of every journalist, and we are not suppose to. We can only check: (a) if certain source (KievPost) qualify as an WP:RS in general (yes, it does), and (b) if the claim seriously contradicts something reported in other RS or was rebutted by other sources (no, it was not). Based on that, this info can be included, no problem. My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. If you want to include that, then Jo Shmo Moskal can include Russian nationalist blogs. An advocacy blog is not RS. RGloucester — ☎ 20:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither KievPost nor Bellingcat are advocacy blogs. My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bellingcat is a collection of advocacy bloggers. RS describe it as such, as The Independent article provided by Sayerslle said. KP is not a blog, but that's not the point. We are WP:NOTNEWS, and much of what appears in the news is not suitable for an encylopaedia The source for the KP article, which even KP acknowledged is not verifiable, is not reliable. RGloucester — ☎ 20:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
bellingcat is not a collection of 'advocacy bloggers' whatever you mean to denigrate in that phrase. now its NOTNEWS that is the problem ,- shifting your ground because the kyivPOst is obviously a RS - they didn't 'acknowledge its not verifiable' as far as I can see , they said nothing whatever about its verifiability one way or another - they thought it interesting and important and serious enough to report on, and interview the author. full stop - as for the rest they then said they could get nothing further from the official investigation , but that was a postscript up-date not directly related to the report and interview , no? - and rather an implicit criticism if anything of that avenue of information, not the bellingcat report's author, anyhow. Sayerslle (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The report quoted by KievPost is not a blog post, but an investigative journalism report. Although we can not (and should not!) independently assess reliability of this report, it has been published and republished by RS, and therefore can be used here. My very best wishes (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was copied by one RS, total, with no independent verification. It is not an "investigative journalism report". It as an investigative blog post (as confirmed by the RS Independent article), with no verification whatsoever. RGloucester — ☎ 21:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Mariupol (May–June 2014). 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference kp9 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Mariupol_(2014)&oldid=1198894044"