Jump to content

Talk:Siege of Sloviansk/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

WP:PROSELINE

I said the same thing about the old 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine article, and now it has become a problem here. We really need to try and convert these 'timelines' into prose, per WP:PROSELINE. Timelines are not our default style, and are meant to be avoided unless necessary. Prose text which takes a historical perspective is preferable to day-by-day reporting in a timeline format, which tends to veer into the journalistic. I'm not sure how to convert this, at present, but I think that new information added to the article should try and avoid WP:PROSELINE problems. RGloucester — ☎ 04:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Its easier to add timeline stuff because it's essentially jotting down notes. Like any essay, you later turn those notes into prose. Maybe if we have a slow day we can take a crack at converting the first week of this into prose. There's no rush, of course.—Львівське (говорити) 06:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
That seems to be a good idea, going oldest section-by-section. I'll see if I can start working on it.RGloucester — ☎ 13:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Belligerents

Belligerents does not have anything to do with who's fighting but who's participating in the conflict whether that be funding insurgents or giving diplomatic or logistical support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Fingers2 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law." -Львівське (говорити)
Your additions are unsourced, and grossly misleading. And no, they don't adhere to the definition of 'Belligerents', as mentioned by Lvivske above. RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(Repeating May 2 comment)

Turchynov says "many" pro-Russia separatists killed or injured in Sloviansk, and "all" pro-Russia checkpoints around the city captured by Ukrainian forces. [1] Sca (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

See also AP, [2] Kyiv Post. [3]. Sca (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Battle or Siege of Sloviansk

We should prob. Change the headline to that since it's not really a "standoff" anymore more like a siege or battle since it's involving a military blockade and high casualties for a moderately low insurgency. ---2Fingers2- 26 April 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Fingers2 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad proposal. It would be better if we had a common use name for the conflict in english but it's usually just merged into ukraine conflict --Львівське (говорити) 23:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to 'battle'. 'Siege' doesn't seem appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 23:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I think for now "standoff" is the most appropriate word here. It's obviously not a "battle". "Siege" is sort of stretching it too. "Standoff" is what it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
siege and standoff are practically the same thing IMO--Львівське (говорити) 23:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) BTW, this is putting aside that I don't think there are sources out there that actually refer to it as "battle" or "siege", which is what you would need to change the name. And not just some sources, but a sufficiently large number.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
They don't really refer to it as a 'standoff' either. They don't refer to it as anything, really, so we're given some leeway. 'Standoff' doesn't feel appropriate, even if the others are also odd. RGloucester — ☎ 23:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, looking around I do see some sources which talk of a "siege". But I also see a lot that talk about a "standoff".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that FP piece is what made me reconsider.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
What I'm saying is since nobody has named what this is yet (everybody calls it "Pro-Russian seperalist's occupying Sloviansk") more action will most likely follow and judge what this is going to be. Theirs something new everyday.

1.If troops enter the town and fight house to house it's a battle.

2.If they blockade the town for months then it's a siege.

3. If seperalist's are occupying one building only like the RSA then it's a standoff. Which I believe the author made it at the time gunnen were only occupying the police station but since then it has escalated into the taking of the whole town.

And considering the whole Donestk Region this is the only place with action and death on a few execptions.


How about, 'Crisis' or 'Situation'? --Bdwolverine87 (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

" it was reported that pro-Russian militants beat children who they caught photographing a separatist checkpoint"-any reliable source?

There is a text stating "In the city, it was reported that pro-Russian militants beat children who they caught photographing a separatist checkpoint. The news caused a backlash among residents in their opinion towards the militants", the only source is some general portal from Ukraine called ostro.org I see no English or other sources and this one quite frankly doesn't look reliable at all.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Source is not a general portal [4]

In Sloviansk separatists were seen beating of children who photographed the checkpoint in Bylbasovka. This was reported in the press service of the Donetsk Regional State Administration. The report notes that the beating of children caused a backlash from local residents, who are changing their attitude towards members of illegal armed groups.

--Львівське (говорити) 02:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Nuance and the western media

Western media finally seems to be acknowledging the nuance of the situation in Donetsk. Please read this New York Times article. I think it is indicative of the fact that we've can't be overtly accepting of either involved parties' depiction of events. RGloucester — ☎ 16:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources

A highly reliable and useful source:

  • "Man tries to stop Russian military tank with bare hands as Ukraine's pro-Russian militants hold firm". The Daily Telegraph (Australia). AFP. April 19, 2014.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

In what way is it biased? Or more importantly, factually incorrect? --Львівське (говорити) 05:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the main page of the site you will see that _all_ the articles are not unbiased and are written from new pro-maidan point of view. Whole site is dedicated to 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. I'm not against that part of the article but I would recommend to the find a citation from a more established news agency. Elendal (talk)

Right Sector involvement

Mr. Lvivske deleted info about Right Sector from the template, because "ref is a youtube video NOT in sloviansk (and it's the 'black men' from the SNA, too) and RT is a filthy Russkie propoganda". Okay, but why Yarosh gave up on "ShusterLive" (he was planning to participate in this TV programme) and went to Slovyansk to his supporters, and said Right Sector will participate in the final stage "anti-terrorist" operation in Slovyansk? Really, why did he do it? Anyway, a lot of Russian-language and Ukrainian-language sources have quoted his words, I added some of sources in the article as a proof. The first one is a fithy Russkie propoganda in English [7], the second one is the pure truth™ in glorious Ukrainian [8]. Both of them say Right Sector will participate in the final stage operation Slovyansk. 83.237.127.226 (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please redact false quotes I never made ("RT is a filthy Russkie propoganda"). As for your sources, VoR isn't a reliable source. Please find a better source for this information. From what I know and can tell, RS is acting not in a militant role (which would make them a belligerent and part of the infobox) but coordinating with regard to intel. --Львівське (говорити) 23:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I have not say in my post that it was your quote, anyway, you said "RT disinfo". Okay, okay, dVoR according to you is not a reliable source, right? Ukrainian sources accourding to your are not a reliable source too, right? Well, what kind of source will be a reliale source, if even Ukrainian sorces are not? Your arguments are really poor. Yarosh said Right Sector will participate in the final stage "anti-terrorist" operation in Sloviank several days ago. A lot of Russian language (yeah, filthy Russkie propoganda) and Ukrainian language sources have quoted it. 83.237.127.226 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference between a Ukrainian source directly quoting information from Yarosh, or a Russian source cherry picking part of that quote to sensationalize things and draw their own original conclusions. In this instance, the Russian source isnt reliable, the Ukrainian source is since its not inferring anything.--Львівське (говорити) 00:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, Right Sertor is acting in both millitant and intel role in Sloviansk. Secondly, I also can say segodnya.ua disinfo, because it is an Ukrainian source. Also, why do you ignore my source in Ukrainian? I thought you know Ukrainian, I can provide another one, and a lot of sources in Russian, but I am afraid of it, because you call every Russian source propoganda and disinfo. 83.237.127.226 (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
You realize Segodnya is owned by Renat Akhmetov, right? You seem to not understand the difference between state-owned propaganda and privately owned news; also, Akhmetov is anti-Kiev so who exactly is this news agency creating "disinfo" for?--Львівське (говорити) 00:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Why are you trying to engage me in an off-topic discussion? It is not my busyness. I have provided a Russian source in English and Ukrainian source in Ukrainian I can provide other Ukrainian sources, and a lot of Russian language sources, but you call all Russian sources as propaganda and disino, so I have no intention to concentrate on them. Eventually, it is clearly, that Yarosh said (several days ago) Right Sector will participate in the final stage of the "anti-terrorist" operation in Sloviansk.83.237.127.226 (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Marek deleted info (confirmed by the English-language and Ukrainian-language sources) about Right Sector without no argument. I do not believe this person can speak Ukrainian or even Russian to understand the sources I can provide. I asked him on his personal page to argue his removal. Also, I put the info back, and I do not want to start an edit war, but his revert should be argued without "non RS" and "BS" ("bullshit" as I understand it). It is not an argument and totally rude manner. 83.237.127.226 (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
maybe he agreed with my issues presented above? --Львівське (говорити) 01:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I doubt it, he used "non RS" for Ukrainian language sources, which I have provided (then he used "BS" (bullshit) for removal some other, not mine, edit), but it is clearly that he can not understand Ukrainian or Russian to investigate the source.83.237.127.226 (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually I can read and understand Ukrainian and Russian sources though I would not consider myself fluent. Your "beliefs" as to my linguistic ability is not a very good reason to revert. I removed the text and sources because one was most definitely not reliable (VoR), and even by their (abysmally low) standards it's just rumor mongering. I don't know if the second source is or is not reliable, but it's definitely weak, to some extent it's just reporting on the rumor mongering by propaganda outlets like VoR and even then it doesn't really support the text that's being included. Keep in mind. This is encyclopedia, not a rumor site.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
It is ok that you are bragging yourself, but actually your linguistic ability is low in Ukrainian, if you did not understand the words in the provided Ukrainian language source. The sorce confirmed that "Right Sector will participate in the final stage of the anti-terrorist operation in Sloviank", Yarosh, not Putin, said it several days ago. It is a clear proof of engagement in this military conflict. Please, do not say they participate as cheerleaders in the anti-terrorist operation, it is a totally awkward argument.83.237.127.226 (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
... Nevermind.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

OSCE vs. "German intelligence"

diff

Petri just changed the OSCE mission stuff to "German intelligence gathering mission" with no reference. Interfax refers to the group as "a group of international military inspectors of the OSCE" and "OSCE military inspectors" [10]. Kiev calls them "representatives from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe" [11]. In searching I see nothing about a Berlin-Kiev agreement, just that they were observers sent under the OSCE's Vienna Document of immunity. The OSCE is also dealing with the captors directly, indicating that the OSCE is involved [12].

The detained men are military officers who also were here under OSCE auspices, but under a separate mission from the civilian observers.

[13]

Also, changing it from OSCE to "NATO mission plus Sweden" and "misidentified" without adding a ref reeks of a POV pushing edit. I ask that this be reverted or fixed to be accurate to sources. --Львівське (говорити) 02:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

He has added refs which include twitter and a Russian source. Consider it was Russian propaganda that was pushing the "NATO officers" angle, I'm not convinced...--Львівське (говорити) 03:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a lack of clarity as to whether they are actually part of the specific OSCE 'special monitoring mission in Ukraine' or just observers from OSCE nations sent under the same agreement, but not part of the special monitoring mission. Either way, it has nothing to do with 'intelligence gathering'. Good references:
CBC - claims that they are 'OSCE monitors'.
BBC - claims that they are not part of the main OSCE special monitoring mission, but 'representatives' sent from OSCE 'individual member states'.
I'm not sure which to believe, at present. RGloucester — ☎ 03:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
My understanding from all the above is that they are OSCE military monitors acting independently (that is, acting under the directive of the states involved, and not OSCE HQ, which managed the civilian fact finding mission)--Львівське (говорити) 03:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense, I suppose. Regardless, I reverted the 'intelligence gathering' stuff, which is fairly patently not true, and not supported by reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 03:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, wait. We've got confirmation: 'The Special Monitoring Mission got confirmation that the military observers carrying out an inspection under the OSCE Vienna Document had been taken captive by forces of the self-proclaimed mayor of Sloviansk' - per today's OSCE update. RGloucester — ☎ 03:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

so pretty much what I said, right? Here's the ID card for the Danish guy here with the OSCE logo on it. I noticed that Petri's other edit changed the OSCE truck image description to imply it wasn't an OSCE vehicle, but a fake one with OSCE decals...--Львівське (говорити) 03:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

From the OSCE link you provided:

the abduction of members of the unarmed OSCE military verification mission in Sloviansk

--Львівське (говорити) 03:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(I am sorry for first making the change and only adding references a few minutes later.)
There seems to be a lot of confusion and disinformation on the issue. I still stand by the factual accuracy of my edits, but as we are at war – with the accompanying war propaganda and (self)censorship – it may be difficult to find English language sources. The reliable sources Lvivske provided are vague and try to circumvent the central issue.
  • Name tags: It is true, some of the team were carrying OSCE name cards identifying them as "inspectors". It is possibly they originally arrived in Ukraine as part of the OSCE mission, but OSCE seems to deny this. We do not even know if the OSCE "observer" mission carries "inspector" tags. Maybe the Danish warrant officer had been inspecting Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire on a revious mission.
The three sources I provided:
  • Article by Voice of Russia (a WP:RS if biased source by Wikipedia standards) quoting what Claus Neukirch, Deputy Director Conflict Prevention Centre for Operations Service at OSCE said on German television.
  • The interview with Claus Neukirch on ORF
  • (One of) four tweets by by the official OSCE Twitter account
    1/4 Comms with military observers in Donetsk region lost.Team not OSCE monitors but sent by States under Vienna Doc on military transparency
    2/4 All members of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission and OSCE/ODIHR election observers are safe and accounted for
    3/4 Military verification team - led by Germans – and composed of 8 members – 4 Germans, 1 Czech, 1 Danish, 1 Polish, 1 Swedish
    4/4 Military verification team sent following invitation from Ukraine under terms of Vienna Document 2011
The last two verify the accuracy of the Russian source.
The Vienna Document is in no way related to the OSCE observer mission. It allows bilateral inspections between agreeing member states. Germany could have asked Ukraine for an inspection, although in this case it seems that it was Ukraine that asked Germany to "request" an inspection. As the Donetsk People's Republic is not party to any of these agreements, it is unlikely that they would consider the inspectors as anything but spies. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually those edits are almost WP:AE worthy. (And "as we are at war"? Who's we? Where? On Wikipedia?).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
He's saying Russia is at war with the west, and as such, English language / Western sources aren't reliable. That's what I read.--Львівське (говорити) 06:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I am saying that the West is at war with Russia. :-) I am from the West and do not really follow Russian language sources, so I do not know if Russia considers itself being at war with the West. (As this is 4th generation warfare the level of violence is comparatively low, with information war becoming the major battlefront.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I don't consider the Voice of Russia to be a reliable source (if it were we'd be using the words 'junta' and 'fascist' a lot more on these articles), and a Tweet (while informative) is by definition stripped down due to character limits, and the OSCE website statements are a more accurate and in depth explanation over a 140 character tweet. --Львівське (говорити) 06:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've reverted again. Not only does the OSCE statement say that they are on an 'OSCE military verification mission', but Axel Schneider, the leader of the group, has said so as well. See this new BBC article. It says that they are not 'NATO' anything. It also claims that they are 'guests' of the mayor… RGloucester — ☎ 15:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    • RGloucester – Previously you took a very active administrator role regarding Ukraine crisis issue. Am I right in assuming you have now completely disavowed your role as an administrator on Ukraine issues? — Petri Krohn (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@Petri Krohn: I don't know what you mean. I'm not an administrator of anything. What are you referring to? RGloucester — ☎ 03:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
"He stressed that they were not Nato officers, but an international group working for the OSCE"--Львівське (говорити) 16:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The title as it now stands is simply wrong. This was not an OSCE mission, but a German military mission. FAZ is a reliable source, and German sources should be deferred to because this was a German mission.

Nach Angaben des stellvertretenden Direktors des OSZE-Krisenpräventionszentrums, Claus Neukirch, sind die Festgehaltenen keine Mitglieder der OSZE-Beobachtermission. Es handelt sich bei ihnen demnach um eine bilaterale Mission unter Leitung der Bundeswehr und auf Einladung der ukrainischen Regierung. Solche Inspektionen werden unter den OSZE-Staaten selbst vereinbart.
According to the Deputy Director of the OSCE crisis prevention center, Claus Neukirch, the detainees are not members of the OSCE observer mission. What they were engaged in therefore was a bilateral mission, headed by the German army and at the invitation of the Ukrainian Government. Such inspections are agreed to among OSCE states themselves.

This has also been reported by Deutsche Welle, German state television. So "OSCE" mission should be changed to "German army (Bundeswehr) mission". – Herzen (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, are you seriously saying the OSCE itself is an unreliable source?? --Львівське (говорити) 20:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
You really don't want to recognize any non-Ukrainian or English language sources, do you? Did you even bother to read the quote I gave? The person who gave the statement about the captured men is the Deputy Director of the OSCE crisis prevention center. So the source I am using is the OSCE. The person you quoted, in contrast, is someone who is being held as a military prisoner. Who knows what he'll say: he possibly fears for his life, if the "pro-Russian separatists" are as brutal as you imagine they are. Note that the person whose position I gave was doubtless aware of what the person you quoted had said in front of TV cameras.
And this is what the BBC report that RGloucester gave a link to says:
The seized observers are not part of the main OSCE monitoring mission, which was agreed after long negotiations by Russia, Ukraine and the United States.
Instead, they appear to be unarmed military observers from individual OSCE states. The German defence ministry, which is in charge of that mission, earlier confirmed that it had lost contact with the group.
Two reliable sources, the BBC and the FAZ, are in agreement that it was a German military mission, not an OSCE mission. The OSCE link that you quote above is based on information received up until 25 April 2014". The BBC and FAZ stories are datelined 25 April and 27 April, respectively. Evidently, the OSCE was confused when it wrote on its Web page about "the abduction of members of the unarmed OSCE military verification mission in Sloviansk".
If you don't care to understand what other editors are saying, and just assume that anyone who does not proudly wear extremist Ukrainian nationalism on his Wikipedia user id is acting in bad faith or is just an idiot and/or crazy, you really shouldn't be editing these articles. – Herzen (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Right. The OSCE was confused. Not you. Got it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The OSCE link was an official press release, it wasn't mere 'writing on a web page'. We have to take the OSCE's word, as they are clearly the most knowledge source about their own missions, I'd imagine. The press release was not issued until after that BBC article was published, as I was keeping an eye on things at the time. RGloucester — ☎ 22:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I am taking OSCE's word. I was careful to point out that the FAZ article about the OSCE official saying that it was not an OSCE mission appeared two days after the press release. So I am taking OSCE's word; it is you who are not. Your user page says you can read German. Why don't you read the FAZ article?
And there is even a video available where the OSCE official in question tells Austrian television (because the OSCE is based in Vienna), in reply to the first question he gets:
Wir haben mit den Personen noch kein Kontakt; ich muß aber auch sagen, daß es sich nicht um OSZE Mitarbeiter handelt, sondern es sind Militärbeobachter die auf Bielatal tätig sind...
There is no excuse for Wikipedia to go on ignoring the FAZ article which states that an OSCE official has said that this mission was not an OSCE mission, especially since a video of the official saying exactly that is available on the Internet. In its present state, this article is flagrantly POV. Petri Kohn had directed you to the video, so I've helped you by transcribing the most important part of it. – Herzen (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I found another press release from the OSCE. This one describes them as "military inspectors from OSCE participating states travelling under the Vienna Document". That seems to contradict 'OSCE military verification mission'. RGloucester — ☎ 01:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek reverted my change of the title of the section from "OSCE mission" to "Western military observers", with the edit summary "rvt original research". I view that as vandalism. How is watching a TV interview of an OSCE official "original research", especially when two highly reliable sources, the BBC and the FAZ, evidently use that interview as the basis for their reporting that these were military observers? And this is what the first source that was already cited by the article says in its first sentence: "Germany's defence ministry said on Friday it was unable to contact a German-led group of international military observers on a mission in the rebel-held city of Slaviansk in eastern Ukraine." So the section's title was already inconsistent with sources it cited. And yet I'm doing "original research". The whole case that has been made here that these are OSCE observers is based on one sentence of an OSCE press release. And yet we are supposed to ignore a five minute interview with an OSCE official, where he explains that these are not OSCE observers, and goes into detail about what is being done to release them, so he obviously has a good understanding of the situation and who these people are. – Herzen (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
TRANSCRIPTION:
Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research.
I only transcribed from a video of the video with the OSCE official to explain what the reporting in the FAZ was based on. That helps establish the reliability of the FAZ article. And I only used the transcription in this Talk page, not the article itself. – Herzen (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
'Western' isn't appropriate. 'International military observers' is more correct, though, if you'd read the new press release I just linked above. RGloucester — ☎ 01:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, do you want to change the title to, "International military observers", then? We've got four reliable sources to that effect: BBC, FAZ, Reuters, and the new press release you found. If I make the change, somebody will probably revert it. –Herzen (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 Done - RGloucester — ☎ 02:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Herzen has made it through a single discussion without blaming his troubles on this "extremist Ukrainian nationalist" cabal out to get him --Львівське (говорити) 22:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want people to think you're a nationalist, then stop giving only Ukrainian language sources in cases where there are plenty of English language sources giving the same information. You are acting as if all English Wikipedia articles having anything to do with the crisis in the Ukraine should essentially be translations of Ukrainska Pravda articles. – Herzen (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Wait, so using Ukrainian sources on a topic on current events in Ukraine makes me a "Ukrainian nationalist"? Is that supposed to be a bad thing? What the hell is going on here?--Львівське (говорити) 01:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
You are not a newbie. NOENG:
Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.
You repeatedly and brazenly break that rule. You add content to articles only citing Ukrainian language sources, even when English language sources saying the same thing are easily found. This is a serious violation of English Wikipedia policy. And please stop playing dumb. You know very well what the problem is, and yet you keep on creating it. – Herzen (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not my job to find English sources for you, nor is there any "rule" outside of your imagination. Wiki policy PREFERS English sources, it doesn't require it. Re-read your own posts before spouting off on who is "dumb" --Львівське (говорити) 01:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think personal attacks are necessary. RGloucester — ☎ 02:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'll link this press release again: press release by OSCE. 'International military observers' is the most neutral way to put it, given the conflict between sources, and what the OSCE itself says. Even if they are OSCE observers, 'international' is still correct, and so retains neutrality either way. RGloucester — ☎ 16:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC) : seems OSCE is the common use descriptor in the press and just about everywhere. I see no need to neutralize something that is factual and neutral to begin with. We need to go by WP:COMMON, no? —Львівське (говорити) 17:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC) ::It isn't factual, because the OSCE itself clarified in that press release that they are not 'directly OSCE observers'. They are there under the Vienna Document. We do not use common names that are incorrect. Regardless, the media is not uniform in usage, as described above. Some said 'OSCE observers', some said 'international', some said 'affiliated with the OSCE'. It isn't as simple as you say. RGloucester — ☎ 19:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


From the discussion above it clearly follows that the term "OSCE Observers" is blutant abuse, what is corroborated by the links you cite, including the link to OSCE web site wherein the term "military inspectors from OSCE participating States". Given all the ambiguity, controversy and the fact that no official source unequivocally, explicitelly declared them as "OSCE Observers" this wording should be replaced with something more in line with actual facts. And this is not about them being spys or not (the aim of their visit is anyway clear and obvious even for somebody without inteligence experience, regardless whether they are called OSCE Observers or not).

official casualties

http://interfax.com.ua/news/general/203853.html Please add! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.242.176.183 (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC) ¨

Academi / PMC involvement

German press is reporting up to 400 involved Academi contractors fighting on Ukrainian side. Did not add it yet because i am not sure about the reliability of sources, but press is reporting it comes from the government. And BND has apparently confirmed that.

Anyone caring enough to do some research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.48.106.46 (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is horribly biased

After reading some articles about the Ukranian crisis, it clearly shows that all of them are heavily biased, sourced with nothing but American propaganda and some Ukranian "independent" news site... then I notice these articles are all maintened by Lvivske, an openly banderite, anti-russian fascist adulator. How is this article neutral which such people patrolling and reversing anything that is not western propaganda? This is ridiculous. 181.160.250.179 (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

While i agree that the article is far from being neutral and unbiased, you don't give yourself much credit by spouting things like "American Propaganda" or calling everyone fascist and banderite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.17.249.62 (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm an open adulator --Львівське (говорити) 14:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester said somewhere that it has been decided that Ukrainian sources are not to be used on their own, without being backed up by Western sources. Is that false?
A lot of the content in this article comes across as nationalist Ukrainian paranoid delusions, with little or no connection to reality. – Herzen (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Getting kind of tired of your ranting about "nationalists" without pointing to content or sources in specific --Львівське (говорити) 01:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Please stop being rude. You didn't answer my question. – Herzen (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
You didn't ask a question, you made a flippant statement. --Львівське (говорити) 01:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard took place after most of this article was written. However, the general consensus was not to use Ukrainian or Russian sources without verification in western sources, but if one did use such sources, to make sure that they were attributed to whoever said them. RGloucester — ☎ 01:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
though there is no problem using a ukrainian source if it is just relaying official ukrainian reports from officials. To my knowledge, none of these Ukrainian sources are doing original journalism on the ground for the most part, conducting interviews, giving their own reports on contentious material. —Львівське (говорити) 01:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
That's true as well. The one instance where Ukrainian and Russian sources are considered inherently reliable is in reporting their own points of view, i.e. the opinions of officials/governments &c. RGloucester — ☎ 02:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Number of Pro-Russian militiamen and other issues.

Is there any number available about the size of the "Pro Russian" militias? Another issue, the An Airplane + the Mi 8 are cited as damaged instead of destroyed.--190.234.106.106 (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I have also question. What the hell is "Russian bears" in infobox?!--78.102.53.79 (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

casualties

need more sourcing but this says yesterdays fight had 100 dead [14] just leaving it here for now --Львівське (говорити) 18:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Some Ukrainian sources are far from reliable (one case, IMHO, is Dmtry Tymchuk's facebook account). The info could be included as a "Ukrainian reporter's claim" per cited source.--Darius (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
agreed about Timchuk, he's just a blogger baiting for likes and shares IMO --Львівське (говорити) 21:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Tagged for update

The fighting has intensified in recent days, with much more shelling and areal bombing. Casualty figures are certainly higher than those currently cited in the article, though it may be hard to get reliable counts at this point... -Helvetica (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Article Image

The picture showing rebels outside police station is far too outdated. You may add it to History section but not front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EasyMoney7Cash$ (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

UN helicopter hoax

Just posting it here in case one of our classic IP/SPAs tried to cram this into the article but LifeNews was reporting that Ukraine was using UN branded helicopters in Sloviansk. It ends up they were using footage from 2 years ago from a UN-Ukraine peacekeeping mission in the Congo. Yet another reason why Lifenews can't be used as a source, I guess. Good grief. [15] --Львівське (говорити) 23:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What exactly makes you believe the footage form Kramatorsk is from Congo? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Helicopter losses?

Another helicopter was shot down today, with nine dead.

Igor Strelkov say this is the 10th so far, but I am not sure if he only includes those shot down in Slavyansk and Kramatorsk or all losses in the war.

P.S. – Maybe we should start something like List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is a "official" list of aviation losses: 8 helicopters destroyed, 5 badly damage. 7 of these are Mi-24 attack helicopters. All of the losses, except one have happened in the Slavyansk front. Also two An-30 airplanes have been lost. (The latest one on June 6th crashed in Drobysheve, which is in the arra of the Slavyansk battle.-- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

nice link Petri, but the final sum looks like 4 Mi-8 lost and 4 Mi-24 lost.(But i only remember 3 Mi-24 lost, two reported in the same event and a third shoot down bu fire and subsequently destroyed by Ukranians to avoid capture.) The article claims 5 Mi 8, not 4.200.48.214.19 (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

WTF is "Pro-Russian withdrawal"?

The other "results" in the infobox are similarily silly, and they're not results at all. The result was: Ukrainian victory. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, stop adding various articles together to count ANYTHING, EVER. If the figures are not in the source (the TOTAL figures), they should not be invented by trying to add various figures together to create a new "total" one. Read WP:OR. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it the downed helicopter number that is the problem? Narayanese (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Tagged for update

The fighting has intensified in recent days, with much more shelling and areal bombing. Casualty figures are certainly higher than those currently cited in the article, though it may be hard to get reliable counts at this point... -Helvetica (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

An archiving was done by a bot but no link was posted to the archive. Restoring the section of talk. Article still in need of updating - particularly regarding civilian casualties. -Helvetica (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Redundant Results

"Pro-Russian withdrawal" and "Pro-Russian forces retreat from Sloviansk" means the same thing, right? --92.232.49.38 (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Rout — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.66.167.5 (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

During a siege, a defending army cannot possibly be routed, since it is fighting in an isolated, fixed position. It's wrong terminology. It can either be destroyed, surrender, or break out from the siege.

Rout is something that can be done in the open battle ground, but siege is completely different situation.

Abduction of Simon Ostrovsky

So who is Simon Ostrovsky, and does he work for the CIA or FBI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.251.188 (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Civilian losses

Why is there no mention of the heavy civilian losses that resulted from the Ukrainian shelling of the city? This article is disgustingly one-sided as it largely gives the impression that the only victims were Ukrainian politicians, pro-government journalists, and literally less than a dozen civilians that somehow ended up dying at the hands of the separatists -- of course supposed to imply that the separatists were the sole bad guys and the Ukrainian govt forces being so good that not even their indiscriminate bombing raids didn't hit any innocents. 188.26.248.113 (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's one of many examples to what I am speaking of. And I'm sure some people here will get upset about the fact that it is RT, but see for yourself, nothing about it is faked. The Ukrainian army has committed numerous atrocities which must be addressed.
http://rt.com/news/169228-ukraine-shelling-slavyansk-residential/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.248.113 (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Military and political aims of Strelkov's operation?

In analyzing the outcome it is important to know what the original aims of the operation were. The most important tactical aim was naturally to block the European route E40 highway at the Kharkov–Donetsk border. But why? Here are some primary sources with English language translations from Russian and Ukrainian originals.

The “Slavyansk Impasse” was meant to give DPR time to create functional armed forces.

If Russia is not able to secure an immediate termination of fire and the execution of a truce, or if it does not step in with its armed force to protect us, to protect the Russian people that reside here, who are a part of the Russian nation, we will be exterminated.

Undoubtedly, Slavyansk became the symbol of the “Russian Spring;” moreover – it entered history. Forever. But the purpose of the city was different. Slavyansk drew to itself all the battle-worthy forces of the Ukrainian army, it enabled the mobilization of the Militia in Lugansk and Donetsk."

From the very inception of the hostilities, Slavyansk served as a shield for Donetsk. In taking our positions in Slavyansk, we set up a shield to protect the entire territory of DPR [Donetsk People’s Republic] and LPR [Lugansk People’s Republic]. We bore the main brunt of the enemy offensive and diverted its forces, thereby giving the political leadership and the social leadership of the Republics an opportunity to organize and, in acting in accordance with our example, to take the reigns of [local] power from the Junta, to a certain degree preventing it from establishing itself.

That is why, when we ascertained that this task had been completed – this task specifically – that in both Donetsk and in Lugansk, governments had been established that conformed with the will of the people in terms of implementing state sovereignty and conducting the referendum and were capable of creating their own armed forces, [we understood] that our own task had been substantially fulfilled.

From these statements one can gather four aims:

  1. Give DPR time to arrange May 11 referendum.
  2. Give DPR time to create functional armed forces.
  3. Enable or force Russia to secure permanent ceasefire and start of negotiation process, or...
  4. Enable or force Russia to intervene to protect "Novorossiya".

I would hope to see reliable scholarly sources on the issue, but maybe it is too early. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Updated 12:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The Interpreter

Drajay1976 removed all references to the Interpreter claiming "Not WP:RS". Any details on why is it considered as unreliable source? Enivid (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverting the edit because is no clear reason to claim "Not WP:RS" was presented. Enivid (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with your edit. Also, the edit you reverted does not seem to have made any sense, since it kept the claim that the Interpreter citation supported.
As for the Interpreter itself: I had not heard of it before, but looking it over, it is clearly an Anglo-American anti-Russian propaganda project. That does not mean that it cannot be considered a reliable source, but it is certainly biased, since the stories are selected on the basis of whether they put Russia in a bad light. Just look at these stories: "Siberian Professor Fired After Taking Part in Conference in Ukraine"; "Russian Invasion Underscores Putin’s Failure in Ukraine, MGIMO Professor Says" (there was no Russian invasion); "Crimea is Not Historically ‘Ours,’ Russian Historian Says in ‘Vedomosti’" (for a Russian to make such a claim is just crazy: see this video). The latter story speaks of "Vladimir Putin’s seizure of Crimea". But Putin just let the Crimean people exercise their right to self-determination. There was no "seizure" by "Putin" of anything.
The editorial line of the Interpreter is basically that of the Kyiv Post. Which reminds me: the Kyiv Post most certainly is not a reliable source (unlike the Interpreter, it does not consist of translations of stories from Russian (liberal) media), so the sentence after the citation you restored should probably be deleted. – Herzen (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Vice News as example of Yellow Press and Ponomarev's words

About the following sentence: The day prior to the Donetsk referendum he said "now, in a time of war we don't have time for hostages, we will kill them all."

The source is an article in Vice News.

And here is the comment from the same article:

quote: "Speaking at a press conference the day before the vote, Ponomarev, who has a penchant for chucking troublesome journalists and activists in his basement prison said that, “now, in a time of war we don’t have time for hostages, we will kill them all.” Ponomarev was referring to Ukraine military not foreign press. The reason being is that when they previously released Ukrainian army they asked them to go home and not come back. After that they found out that previously released soldiers killed unarmed villagers. hence the decision not to take any prisoners. He also added he was sorry about this escalation. Stop twisting the facts Vice news.

Enivid's comment "source is clear about it" is senseless. Source - the article with comments - telling us that Vice News just twisting the facts. Source - the article with comments - conflicts with itself. It makes sense if and only if there will be the first source.

Per google there are 100+ Urkainian articles with original words. Example: [16] On 9th of May self-proclaimed «mayor» of Slavyansk Ponomarev said that current city "administration" will not capture Ukrainian soldiers anymore, just «kill em». "Now we will exterminate them. Nobody will talk with em... As harder we will treat them, as faster they will respect us", - he explained.

Therefore I see two alternatives:

  • to keep original article, and add this long disproof
  • or just remove it as facts twisting

I follow the second solution, as the first one have no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infsega (talk • contribs) 00:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about sources and their reliability only. Please see WP:IRS, WP:NPV and WP:GAME. "Hostage Crisis" itself is an original research. It doesn't match the sources. Infsega (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Per Wiki classification Ponomarev is primary source, Bild is secondary source, Vice News and LA Times are tertiary. All of them contains confliciting infomation. Secondary source (Build) is preferred. Infsega (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ponomarev is an experienced criminal and a FSB puppet. Why is anyone listening to that guy??? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Renaming of the article

Siege of Sloviansk sounds too dramatic. In reality there was a stand off. I propose to rename it as Stand off in Sloviansk. Such name is given to the article of Ukrainian counterpart. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It was a siege. Sources referred to it as a "siege", which was why it was named as such in the first place. It isn't at all "dramatic". RGloucester — ☎ 03:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
In fact, it was really the archetypal siege. Ukrainian forces surrounded the city, and tried to retake through attrition. Eventually, the besieged DPR forces couldn't hold out any longer and retreated. This isn't OR, either, it is supported by sources such as this Foreign Policy article, which was one of the impetuses for the present title. RGloucester — ☎ 03:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Russian Wikipedia does the same: it uses противостояние (confrontation). Funny how Russian Wikipedia takes the Ukrainian point of view on this more than even English Wikipedia. Activists of the liberal Russian fifth column work full time to make Russian Wikipedia take the Western, anti-Russian line. French Wikipedia calls it a siege too, btw. – Herzen (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Er, we generally follow mainstream English-language reliable sources. I don't know why we'd take any "point-of-view" other than that of English-language sources. RGloucester — ☎ 04:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't at all suggesting that we should. Since Aleksandr Grigoryev brought up Ukrainian Wikipedia, I just thought I'd mention that Russian Wikipedia is with Ukrainian Wikipedia on this, even though Slavyansk was frequently compared to Stalingrad in Russian media, which suggests that Russians themselves did think of what was going on in Slavyansk as a siege. My point was that Russian Wikipedia oddly does not appear to generally follow mainstream Russian-language reliable sources. I was not making any point concerning English Wikipedia. I agree that the title should not be changed. I'm conservative when it comes to changing article titles, in any case. – Herzen (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester, in wikipedia siege means a blockade. Technically there was no blockade, otherwise those FSB officers would not be able to flee as they did. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources say that there was a siege. We go by reliable sources. What's more, there was a blockade. Sloviansk was blockaded from the north, west, and east. They only had a small pocket in the south that allowed them to flee. RGloucester — ☎ 12:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
A "stand off" implies weapons being fired little or not at all. See for example Woog, Adam, "Wyatt Earp", page 49... "For a short time, both sides stood looking at each other but not firing. According to one witness, the standoff ended when..."
A "confrontation" is not much better - it's ambiguous at best. If I go to confront someone, that implies I intend to use words, or stand in their way; it doesn't imply I intend to use lethal force against them.
Use of heavy artillery etc does not fit with either of these phrases. Is there a better English word than those two?
The Siege of Leningrad was still a siege even when an ice road (and later a land corridor) was open to bring in supplies and evacuate some people. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@Demiurge1000: Good points. Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedias use exactly the same word, btw. Aleksandr Grigoryev just translated it wrong. – Herzen (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Location

Should location be changed to the Donetsk People's Republic, or be left as Donetsk Oblast?Cnd474747 (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siege_of_Sloviansk/Archive_1&oldid=1078366526"