Talk:Ukraine/Archive 6

Hilltrot is entirely incorrect about the issue (and thankfully remove the assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks), but the recent edits about the vote in Donetsk are problematic. Aside from WP:NOTNEWS, the BBC article cited used tons of qualifying words when discussing the outcome of the vote. It does not seem like a good source for making an assertion about the outcome. If more comes of the whole issue and it becomes like Crimea, we'll need to add a sentence or two about it. But as it stands, it seems a bit WP:UNDUE to include it on this article. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, EvergreenFir. I believe all of the points I brought up regarding the content of this article in response to FelixRosch (directly above) are equally relevant here. One of the main points stated regarding any sources (per Ukrainian based sources coverage of the ongoing Ukrainian crisis and including Western media coverage) is that information must be attributed to a reliable source, and that the RS qualifies where the information was obtained and the veracity of the reportage. The BBC article in question does not meet such criteria. It's a mish-mash of 'one person said', another 'claimed' and assorted hearsay.

As you've aptly pointed out, this article is not the news... it's not even the current affairs articles dealing with the specific current affairs. If there are changes to the status, we can review them after they have occurred and make decisions as to how to present them as briefly as is warranted in the context of this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir You are completely wrong about the issue.

First thing, I need to apologize for some of the things I've said. In many cases, I understand that it was understood to be a blanket insult at everyone in Wikipedia. This is not the case and I apologize for my poor writing under the influence in this instance.

First point. The actual source is not the BBC. The BBC has filtered their news from the region in order to get their reporters more access. You can check out what happened to a Vice reporter if don't filter your news and say something they don't like. The sources are actually some pro-Putin thugs in this region. They are about as legitimate as Cliven Bundy and his bunch. Yes our "U.S. Military" (loosely used) ran away and gave up the land, but only because they were the more mature party. That does not mean all the encyclopedias should have started announcing the breakaway republic of Cliven Bundy in Nevada.

When news agencies are actually reporting, they will say what they are seeing. At that point they are the source. You can look up this information the AP stylebook if you want to. As I have said before, you cannot rely on any immediate information from regions of danger to reporters. Many times news agencies will either silence a region or even outright lie in order to protect the lives of their reporters. This is generally because they still believe life is more important than the news.

Second Point. There is a definite Putin POV being written in the Ukraine article.

Now one thing I have noted is that a lot of this has been reverted. My lack of understanding how to read the history had originally lead me to believe otherwise. For this, I thank those involved and is one of the main reasons for my apology. I do not know or think that EvergreenFur, Iryna Harpy, or FelixRosch are involved with this POV. I really don't know who did what when so I don't want to judge on this. However, I do get the feeling that "editors" as a whole don't think there is a POV problem.

Up to this point I've just been pointing out of the most blatant POV mistakes. The article really shows a very Putin viewpoint on the crisis as a whole. Notice how it mentions the elections and describes why Putin said Russia had to get involved. Notice how it mentions that Putin received authorization to use troops in March. What's missing?

Putin had actually invaded the Crimea in February. (This is an indisputable fact now that Putin has personally confirmed this.) In fact, no mention is made in the article about Russia ever invading Crimea. No mention at all. None. When this is left out, how does it make everything afterwards look like? It makes it look like Putin came to Crimea's rescue. If this fact was included, the entire situation has a radically different feel. Putin invaded Crimea. Putin staged the elections to justify his actions. Someone doesn't have to use the word "staged" or even "invasion" and still seem credible. The person writing this could use "facilitated" and "moved in unmarked masked armed troops to maintain peace" and still maintain some credible neutrality.

But when this invasion is completely left out. Completely. It provides a definite POV. Who knows? Maybe it was unintentional. I don't know.

Can any of you give an adequate explanation as to how leaving this out is not Putin POV? If not, do you care if I or someone else adds this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltrot (talk • contribs) 23:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The invasion happened on Feb 28 Autonomous Republic of Crimea#Events in 2014. USchick (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That would require section bloat which we're trying to avoid. This section is not meant to portray a blow-by-blow account of the troops already being deployed. Once we start adding details of this nature, there will be further complaints that other 'equally' salient points have been omitted... resulting in an entire rehash of already existing articles. The hatnotes are there for those who after the current affairs articles. This article is WP:NOTNEWS and dedicating unwarranted space to rehashing already existing articles is WP:UNDUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that bloat can be a problem. So far, two sentences have been removed but if that is not enough, "Crimea and Sevastopol ??formally?? declared independence as the Republic of Crimea and requested that they be admitted as constituents of the Russian Federation.[145]" can be removed for Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts in NPOV to add a sentence that Russian troops seized the Airport in Crimea on February 28.

However, what is there should be NPOV regardless of the size. Hilltrot (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The points you've made would probably be best served under the query I've left for USchick and Seryo93 below regarding any proposed rewrite of the "Russian intervention in Ukraine" (keeping in mind that it isn't to be turned into a surrogate for the current affairs articles). If you check through this talk page and the "Russia" article talk page, the problem has been that it has been attracting huge numbers of POV traffic from contributors who couldn't get a look in on the current affairs articles due to the lack of neutrality. The objective has been to create a brief, stable, consensus version. I don't think that anyone is going to be entirely satisfied with any version, Hilltrot. There's been more energy expended on re-tweaking current affairs sections than has been expended on the entire article in total. Any time some form of consensus is reached, someone steps in and cries, "POV!" again. There's a point at which it has to be accepted that enough is enough. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with EvergreenFir and Iryna above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It takes less space to tell the truth than to tell a lie. The truth is that Russia invaded Ukraine before they were invited to invade. You have reached consensus to tell a lie. Good for you. USchick (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

And other side is that US interfered in Ukr. affiars in Nov13-Feb14 revolution and now blames Russia for interfering in post-revolution Ukr. affairs. They pressured Yanukovich to avoid suppressing pro-EU "peaceful protest" (with petrol bombs thrown at Berkut, very peaceful) and now urge new revolutionary authorities to suppress pro-Russian "peaceful protest". "Nothing personal, it's just geopolitics"). And about "Putin confirmation": a) he stated that Russian forces backed self-defence (and not that CSD=Rus. army, as it "pointed" by many Western media) and (something "unnoticed" by media in the West) his press-secretary stated, that Russian forces arrived only on referendum day (and not in February). Maybe we should use intervention word rather than invasion? And please, remarks "You have reached consensus to tell a lie" aren't good, both for WP:CIVILITY and for fact, that in information warfare lies spreads from BOTH sides, not just from one (see example above about "peaceful revolution in Kyiv"). Bests, Seryo93 (talk)

If there are two sides to this story, the NPOV thing to do is to outline both sides. To push one side is POV and a lie (sorry). USchick (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Rather agree, colleague :). Seryo93 (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!!!! :) Neutral wording already exists in articles about the conflict. It's not like you have to invent something, just copy it. It's already sourced and agreed upon. USchick (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

USchick and Seryo93, how would you propose to present both sides (bearing in mind that this section in this article is WP:NOTNEWS) without bloating it? What, exactly, would we "just copy" and replace the current section with? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The Infobox has been updated today by User:Seryo with the announcement of the new President-elect. The main body of the article is now updated as well with the election results as reported by NYTimes in separate articles and on newscast broadcasts which are referenced by URL and citation. FelixRosch (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest putting Ukraine on this more accurate map of Europe. It includes more realistic borders of Crimea, which were always exaggerated since Crimea was a part of Ukraine. Now that Crimea is de facto part of Russia this map should be used. Three version of the Ukrainian map should be made, one with Crimea as part of Ukraine, one with Crimea as a disputed region, and one with Crimea not a part of Ukraine at all. The map of Russia has all those versions therefore the map of Ukraine should as well. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I see very little difference in the borders of Crimea between the current map and the one you posted. What exactly is wrong with the borders? And as for changing the map to any coloring beyond what it currently has, good luck. It took a huge RfC to get the current one. The map in the infobox on Russia is just like the one on Ukraine. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There are very clear differences in the borders of Crimea, if you don't see them please look closer. I didn't ask to change the colours, I simply asked to use a different map, the colours should definitely stay the same. I also asked to have more version of the map, one with Crimea as part of Ukraine and one with Crimea as not part of Ukraine, and of course the map with Crimea as a disputed region which is the map that should be used for this article.--WhyHellWhy (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

WhyHellWhy - I'm fine with the first part if it is indeed better (will rely on someone else to verify this). As for the second part, are you proposing that all 3 versions be used in the article, or just that someone make them? EvergreenFir (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I simply ask that they are made. The only version that should be used in the article is with Crimea depicted as a disputed region. The map of Russia has all three versions of the map, one with Crimea as a part of Russia, one with Crimea as not part of Russia, and one with Crimea as a disputed region, the map of Ukraine should have all three versions as well.--WhyHellWhy (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

What 3 maps of Russia? There's only one on the Russia article of the contemporary RF, and it looks more like an abstract concept than a map: with Crimea being depicted as a lopsided tilda. Agreed that the peninsula looks a little more firmly attached but, given the complexity of its shape, the most detailed depiction is going to come up as a blob fairly much as it is depicted now in maps of this size.

No one else has considered this to be such a vital issue on either of the articles. Why is this particular map a better depiction? There's actually a far better template you can work from on Wiki Commons version which does depict the details. You should can create a better version using the tools available there yourself, then propose the change with your new map. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Click on the map of Russia on the article of the country and look at the other version of the map, if Russia has different version of its sovereignty with or without Crimea why shouldn't Ukraine. Also on the current map of Ukraine, Crimea is over-exaggeratedly attached to Ukraine, the map that I proposed to use has more realistic borders. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Where does it have 3 versions? There's only one depicting the disputed region, and it's in the infobox. I acknowledged what you said about the border and responded. Did you actually read what I'd written? All you're doing is repeating yourself. If it's that important to you, you can make a new one yourself at Wiki Commons. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote, but you seem to be completely ignoring what I wrote. I told you to click on the map, however you keep talking about the fact that there is only one map on the article. Here, follow this link and scroll down a bit, all the other versions of the map are there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_Federation_%28orthographic_projection%29_-_Crimea_disputed.svg --WhyHellWhy (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I forgot that you're fairly much still a newbie and that you possibly don't understand how Wiki Commons works. Those were versions created from the same map, including a POV push to depict Crimea as being an undisputed part of the RF. There could be 50 reworkings of the same map in the same category and they'd all show up. The map being used on the Russia article is the version that's been approved for usage. If you want to create 20 variations of the Ukraine map using the template, do so. They'll all show up there... but the only one that will be used for Wikipedia is the approved version. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I vote for this map to be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.25.176 (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You vote for a blank map of Europe being used? That's an interesting take, friend... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I created a map using my suggested template. I think it's pretty accurate, however if anyone feels that I have made a mistake on the borders feel free to fix it. It is not an svg file so if anyone can help me convert it into one that would be greatly appreciated. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I request that this caption under the map be changed to something closer to reality, like claimed but uncontrolled regions shown in light green, as per example used in India. "Disputed" gives the connotation of an uncertainty on who actually controls the territory which, in fact, does not exist.

--82.53.25.176 (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Please read the talk page before trying to open up discussions already dealt with at length. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Disputed doesn't mean "uncertainty on who actually controls the territory", it means "uncertainty of who legally possesses sovereignty over this territory". And Crimea, while certainly under Russian control, is clearly such a dispute, because both countries claim (in their constitutions) Crimea as their own. Seryo93 (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

So why this ridiculous periphrasing is not used in the India article? Wouldn't you agree that this latter use is much clearer and less prone to ambiguity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.20.245 (talk • contribs)

Changed to a "Georgian" variant. Hopefully, this would be less disputed. Seryo93 (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that this has been understood to be the consensus view yet, Seryo93. It would also mean that the corresponding Russia article should follow along the same lines. I'm okay with it, so I'm happy to let your edit stand. I guess we'll have to wait to see whether someone wants to pursue it per WP:BRD. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Of course, Ru. article shall follow along the same lines. Completly agree :) Seryo93 (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:: Edited Russia article to follow more-or-less similar pattern. Seryo93 (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Seryo93. I've noted that edit, also. It qualifies the scenario far better than 'disputed'. There's been ample time for the situation to have been expressed from both sides. Reclaiming Crimea has been described by Ukrainian officials as being a long-term objective therefore, given how quickly the Ukrainian crisis has escalated, I'd consider both updates to the descriptions to be WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Using the light green color for Crimea seems somewhat misleading and inconsistent. The China map uses the same light green color for Taiwan, even though the situations are not similar at all: China has no control over Taiwan and the people don't want to join China. Russia has total control over Crimea with the approval of its people. In reality Crimea is not a contested territory, except in the minds of politicians. I think Crimea should be labeled as fully part of Russia on the Russia page, and marked with some other color on the Ukraine page that represents territorial claims without control. This should be the same color used for Taiwan on the china page. A different color should be used to mark contested territories (where multiple parties have actual influence over, say if Crimea was controlled by Russia, but its people were not happy with the Russians and were protesting/rebelling). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.164.176 (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

We just had a lengthy Request for Comment (see #Request for Comment above) about the map and the consensus was to have Crimea in light green as a disputed territory. Wikipedia has not specific policy regarding maps an disputed territories. Just because it's done one way on China does not mean it must be done here. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, let's not forget that only six UN member state recognise the annexation. 147.143.42.19 (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, situation is similar in some aspects: China has no control over Taiwan and people don't want to be in China just like Ukraine has no control over Crimea and people don't want be in Ukraine. Only difference is that people of Taiwan choose to form an independent state while people of Crimea choose to join the Russian Federation. Feon {^t/_c} 14:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I made a mistake. I have no problem using the light green for Crimea on Ukraine's page just like the light green on China's page. The problem I have is with the light green on Russia's page, Russia's relationship with Crimea is nothing the Ukraine's or China's with Taiwan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.164.176 (talk • contribs)

Actually, Feon, you are oversimplifying the situation. The 'referendum' was held after a military takeover (widely criticised), and the referendum has been widely criticised for the lack of options. A large percentage of the global community don't agree with your evaluation of the situation, and it is Wikipedia's position to be WP:NPOV in reflecting what verifiable, reliable secondary sources have to say on the matter. As per EvergreenFir's suggestion, please check talk pages (particularly when weighing in on high traffic and controversial articles) for the history of discussions and consensus. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, you seem to be completely missing the point and sparked unnecessary political discussion which has no place here. Political details you mentioned (e.g. opinion of international community) are completely irrelevant to this map issue. Only thing that matters is that Crimea is disputed territory and should be shown in the map as such, which it currently is. Feon {^t/_c} 09:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine has no current administrative control over Crimea because the Russians invaded that part if Ukraine. Ukraine and just about most of the world, minus the crazy countries, still consider Crimea to be part of Ukraine. The fact that a good number of people in Crimea wanted to join Russia should be irrelevant. It's the same situation as in 1938 when Germany sent troops into the Sudetenland. A good part of the people supported it and unlike Putin, Hitler at least asked for permission first before sending in troops. If Mexico sent troops to Los Angeles because most people in the city are ethnic Mexican, would the area now be considered Mexico or even considered disputed? No it would not. The same holds true here. JOJ ^Hutton 21:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, JOJ, your analogy is reasonable as a response to user Feon and the IP suggesting that it is was the 'democratic' choice by the people of Crimea, and whose next suggestion will be pushing for the map as being non-contested 'it's Russia now because the people wanted it' for both this article and the corresponding Russia article. That suggestion has already been dismissed as a non-starter per the RfC. I would, however, suggest that you retract, "... minus the crazy countries ..." POV condemnation is inappropriate and provocative. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sick of all this nonsense about a Russian "invasion" and/or "occupation" of Crimea. What utter nonsense! I'm not sure what troops you believe Putin sent into Crimea; Russian troops have been in Crimea since the days of Catherine the Great centuries ago, and they have always had a very close relationship with their Crimean counterparts. All of a sudden their presence is an invasion? That's nothing more than western propaganda. The constitution of Ukraine became null and void the second the violent coup overthrew the elected government in Kiev. The Crimean referendum was legal and democratic; the people of Crimea have every right to self-determination and they freely chose to rejoin the Russian federation! Calling this an invasion is just careless and misleading. What editor JOJ refers to as "a good number of people" in Crimea who supported a move back to the Russian federation was damn near unanimous, at 96.77% with record breaking voter turnout. To say that this is "irrelevant" is saying that you do not support the democratic process. Perhaps you also support the neo-Fascist coup that recently took place in Kiev and triggered this whole mess? 173.212.80.159 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stop these political analyses because you're violating our WP:NOTFORUM policy. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is why reliable sources need to be used when representing maps. That would solve this entire problem of people pushing their opinions. However, even though no such sources exist, we keep hearing that such sources may appear one day, so in the meantime, people do whatever they imagine simply because there's consensus to create a brand new map, not recognized by anyone anywhere. Why even have policies in place if the policy is going to be ignored? USchick (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are right. Why have guidelines and policies when a simple majority can override them. NPOV and OR are core content policies, but what has happened here is that the "knee jerk" reactionists used a "majority rules" argument to override two core content policies. And for the record, Google Earth still considers Crimea as part of Ukraine. Same with Apple Maps. JOJ ^Hutton 03:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Which means that if someone wants to hire X number of paid editors, they can easily skew an article, since there's no policy in place anyway, and everything is negotiable. It's amazing to me how on a discussion page, any real discussion is suppressed for some reason as "inappropriate and provocative" when the discussion is about policy. The people arguing against policy are talking in circles about how "we should all just get along." Great! Let's use real sources, and let's say exactly what the sources say, and then I'm sure we can all get along just fine. Can we please start moving in that direction? USchick (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Reminder: Please do not use article talk pages to discuss anything but improving the article. So far, I see name calling, political opinions, and griping. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Crimea and Taiwan are similarly disputed territories, because in both cases countries that claim it (Ukraine and China respectively) have no control over it, so it only makes most sense to mark them on maps the same way, which is the way it is now, so there is no need to change it. It seems that some editors would like Crimea to be completely included in Ukraine on the maps (dark green on this map), while others would like it to be completely included in Russia on the maps (gray on this map), but either of those options would violate NPOV.

Current map (showing Crimea as disputed territory) is the most neutral. Feon {^t/_c} 09:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This is true, but the on the map of Russia, Crimea should be marked differently. Russia has actual control of Crimea, while Ukraine just has a claim (just like China has only a claim over Taiwan). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.164.176 (talk • contribs)

Those are irrelevant details for this map issue. It only matters is what is disputed territory and what is undisputed territory. Crimea is a disputed territory, so that's why it is marked as such on both maps. Feon {^t/_c} 07:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this is that disputed can mean different things. In this case, Ukraine has nothing but a claim over Crimea. In the map caption the lack of control should be noted. Previously this lack of control was mentioned, but someone removed it. On the Russia page it mention that Russia has control of Crimea.74.102.164.176 (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I am the one who removed it from this page. 'Disputed territory' is a recognised legal term. 'Disputed, uncontrolled territory' is not a legal term. A person may have an uncontrolled fit of indignation over a term they thought ought to be used not being used. The fact that it is used on the Pakistan and India articles merely means that it is being used incorrectly and should be fixed, or that the circumstances are different as there is no use of de facto or de jure. Uncontrolled, in terms of territory, means that there is no formal (or reasonably enforceable) form of governance, and the territory suffers from lawlessness as a result. For your edification, you will be disappointed to find that I have also removed 'controlled' from the Russia infobox. De facto covers the control issue, thereby rendering the use of 'controlled' as redundant (commonly known as tautological). Note, also, that we don't make up legal qualifiers as we go along because that it WP:OR. Until I've heard back from some genuine lawyers, we don't entertain qualifiers like de jure. De facto is appropriate for the Russia article, but any other qualifiers for the Ukraine article are, for the moment, speculative (or WP:OR). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

FelixRosch seem to have a fondness for inserting recent quotes into this article claiming they are "historic". Does anyone else think Obama's "wait and see" quote is historic and will be remembered in a couple months? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. NOTNEWS. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, unequivocally NOTNEWS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If all 3 are opposed the the Obama version of this material about Eastern Ukraine, then I can re-post the death toll statistics and casualty statistics from another source. This is for consistency with the weight currently given for Maidan and its 100 death toll already on the wikipage, in comparison to the current death toll of over 300 in Eastern Ukraine which is not included on the previous wikipage. Include url: http://rt.com/news/163308-killed-injured-eastern-ukraine/ FelixRosch (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS again. This kind of stuff belongs in the child article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Jargon translation: "child article" means the subarticle of this larger one, namely 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

...in the 13th century, Ukraine was contested, ruled and divided by a variety of powers. is a confusing passage in the lede, i suggest we rephrase/clarify. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What's confusing about it? In the 13th century Kievan Rus (the state) fragmented and the territory (Ukraine) became contested by other states. --Khajidha (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this article about Ukraine the country only, if so, when did Ukraine become a country? Kievan Rus' has a separate article, are you suggesting this is a fork? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Kievan Rus is a former state on the same land as the current state Ukraine. It is a part of Ukraine's history just as England is part of the United Kingdom's history, or Gaul is part of France's history, or the Roman Empire is part of Italy's history. We can still speak of this bit of dirt as Ukraine even before the state Ukraine existed. --Khajidha (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Now qualified to meet your exacting standards, Darkstar1st. I've changed the entry to read as, "Following its fragmentation in the 13th century, the territory of Ukraine was contested, ruled and divided by a variety of powers." Considering that it is, as you have to aptly pointed out, an article which deals with Ukraine, the lead includes its history. The content is not designed to accommodate WP:POINTy arguments about the present day name any more than the article on Russia is designed to delve into the depths of the use of the name "Russia". Thank you for your input. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

you are welcome! you may be able to improve the previous sentence as well, the country being the prime candidate site for the domestication of the horse the source, what is now Kazakhstan, . Darkstar1st (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, Darkstar1st, I've amended the entry to, "The territory of Ukraine has been inhabited for at least 44,000 years, and is the prime candidate site for the domestication of the horse..." It was certainly well before Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Western Russia, etc. were inhabited by peoples who would may or may not have related DNA haplogroup markers qualifying them as being related to the current inhabitants, so presenting it as if there were a direct lineage is spurious at best.

Nevertheless, the article you've sourced is based on Bob McDonald's own interpretation of a Dr. Outram's pre-2009 study. More recent studies (2012) have actually identified current day Ukraine (i.e., Western Eurasian Steppe) as being the likely candidate. The other regions of the Eurasian Steppe have been factored in, but disentangling the data is still proving to be problematic, therefore there is no absolute answer as yet. See Mystery of the domestication of the horse solved: Competing theories reconciled. If you're interested in pursuing it further, the article provides a link to the Cambridge University study which I've spent some time reading through. If you're interested in developing the Wikipedia article on Domestication of the horse, more quality contributions are always appreciated. It's all still up in the air, and this shouldn't be a battle for claims but for sourced info. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

some of the sections have been inactive for 3+ months. would anyone object to setting the talk to auto-archive inactive thread after 30 days? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

the disambiguation page doesn't have much and i doubt anyone refers to a boat, stadium, hotel, or asteroid as simply "Ukraine". perhaps this text could go in see also or the trash. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not what see also is for. The disambiguation page is fine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

it appears to be a loop... Ukrayina redirects here, and Ukraina (disambiguation) has its own article already. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Some cleanup is needed, is all. If an entity can be referred to as "Ukra(y)ina", it should be on the Ukraina (disambiguation) page, and if an entity can be referred to as "Ukraine", it should be on the Ukraine (disambiguation) page. If an entity can be referred to using both variants, it should be on both pages. Unless you end up with the identical set of entries on both dabs (which is not going to be the case here, as it is incorrect to refer to the Polish villages as "Ukraine"), having two separate pages is just fine, even if there is a lot of overlap.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 12, 2014; 13:06 (UTC)

good points all. there are no terms in the disam that can be referred to as Ukraine, rather each link a differently spelled term such Ukraina-class motorship like in this example, or Hotel Ukrayina. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the hotel, at least, can be. You might very well be right on the rest of them, but I'm also sure that with a bit of research other qualifying entries can be found (such as Reichskommissariat Ukraine, for example).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 12, 2014; 15:43 (UTC)

the info box is confusing. The formation of this country was in 882. the info box has Kievan Rus', not Ukraine. Are these two different countries, or the same with multiple names? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You certainly seem to be easily confused. You might try reading the articles in order to understand the relationship to the modern nation-state known as "Ukraine". Paying attention to the information in these articles might just clear up some of your overwhelming "confusion". You could also do some research and actually edit the articles if you are interested in finding out something of the history of any regions in the world you don't know much about.

I note that you haven't made any such observations relating to the infobox on the Russia article. How is Kievan Rus' and Grand Duchy of Moscow "Russia"? Why does Persia redirect to Iran? If you're genuinely interested, try to do some reading before asking questions. Frankly, your queries are getting to be somewhat WP:POINTy, and your continuous postings here over the last couple of days are beginning to look very much like WP:SOAPBOX. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The referendum was taken and Crimea is now part of Russia. Whether the rest of the world considers it legal or not at this point is irrelevant. You need a Russian passport to get into Crimea and Ukranian passports are no longer valid there. The currency is being switched to the Ruble. Effectively, Crimea is part of Russia and that's probably not going to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipper3 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not quite as gung-ho about it, I think we probably should start adjusting maps to shade Crimea in a different color than the rest of Ukraine - like the maps on the pages for Georgia and Azerbaijan. Kiralexis (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You're trying to equivocate. Crimea is de-facto part of Russia. Abhkazia and South Ossetia are two regions of Georgia are protected by Russian troops under an OSCE sanctioned mission. Crimea is part of Russia and Abhkazia and South Ossetia are not. The Wikipedia community isn't entitled to their own facts. Crimea is de-facto part of Russia. If you want to feel better about yourself then you can mention that it is claimed by Ukraine based on an off-hand remark that Khrushchev made 50 years ago.

Can you provide proof that Russian troops protect Abkhazia and South Ossetia under OSCE mandate? Last time I checked, their presence there was considered as military occupation by Europeans. --UA Victory (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol, which Europeans do you ask? The Russians are Europeans. According to OSCE: http://www.osce.org/georgia-closed/44630, " The Mission's main priority was to contribute to the peaceful resolution of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict. Applying OSCE's comprehensive approach, the Mission worked in the politico-military, economic and environmental, and human areas of security. The Mission participated actively in meetings of the Joint Control Commission (JCC), the negotiation mechanism co-chaired by the Georgian, South Ossetian, North Ossetian and Russian sides." The JCC kept the peace for 20 years from the fall of the USSR. Then Saaskavilli (sp) was elected and unilaterally withdrew from the JCC and started bombarding South Ossetia with artillery. In this case, the Russians were obligating, under existing agreements, to protect the South Ossetians from the Georgians. They do not claim sovereignty over South Ossetia (though they have recognized their independence since the 2008 war). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.251.253 (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

OSCE mission in South Ossetia was terminated by Russians. According to: http://eurodialogue.org/OSCE-RIP-in-Georgia "Russia forced the OSCE to close the Mission by vetoing the prolongation of its mandate in the OSCE's Permanent Council. Also on June 30 the U.N. Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG), which had for 15 years monitored the situation in and around Abkhazia, began evacuating its personnel, following Russia's veto against that Mission's mandate in the U.N.". Before Georgia attacked South Ossetia, there was South Ossetian attacks on Georgians. But Russians didn't stop Ossetian attacks so Georgians retaliated. Currently, Russia doesn't allow EUMM monitors to visit South Ossetia. Here is the resolution of European Parliament where Europeans called upon Russians to leave Abkhazia and South Ossetia. --UA Victory (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's talk dates. Georgia withdrew from the JCC in March 2008. Russia decided not to renew the JCC mandate in June 2008 but the OSCE remained through the end of the year. Georgia attacked South Ossetia in August 2008 according to OSCE monitors. I will quote directly from the Dr. Ryan Gris,t head of the OSCE mission in Georgia: "It was clear to me that the Georgian attack was completely indiscriminate and disproportionate to any, if indeed there had been any, provocation,” Grist said. “The attack was clearly, in my mind, an indiscriminate attack on the town, as a town." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5114401.ece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.251.253 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ryan Grist was fired from OSCE. It has been suggested that he may have been bribed by Russians. I will quote from Ryan Grist - "Grist acknowledged he crossed through Russian lines without authorization on his own initiative to determine the facts, which ultimately cost him his OSCE job. He resigned from the OSCE immediately after the war. WSJ adds Grist remains "scathing" about Georgian actions before and during the war, but says that some of his comments have been overinterpreted and quotes Grist saying "I have never said there was no provocation by the South Ossetians."" Even EU investigation acknowledged that there was Ossetian attacks before Georgia responded militarily. It seems weird that you are protecting Russian support of Ossetian separatists against Georgia while at the same time Chechen struggle for independent Chechen republic was crushed. --UA Victory (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That is an ad hominem attack on Ryan Grist. Nowhere do you dispute his claims; You only attack his character. Not only was he the "Head of Mission" for OSCE but he was corroborated by other OSCE officials. For example, Senior OSCE official, and former Royal Air Force Commander, Stephen Young corroborates the statements made by Ryan Grist. Are you going to attack his credibility as well? I am merely pointing out that Russia had an OSCE-sanctioned, Georgian approved, peace keeping mandate which required them to intervene when Georgia unilaterally attacked South Ossetia.173.79.251.253 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I do not see a conflict with these two statements: Grist: "I have never said there was no provocation by the South Ossetians." Grist: "It was clear to me that the Georgian attack was completely indiscriminate and disproportionate to any, if indeed there had been any, provocation.” Just because Grist does not presume that there was a provocation does not mean that he denies that there was a provocation. His point is that, even if there was a provocation, the response was indiscriminate and disproportionate. One statement does not contradict the other. It would take bad logic to jump from "if indeed there had been any [provocation]" to "there was no provocation".173.79.251.253 (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't attack on Ryan Grist personally. I simply quoted the fact that his objectivity was questioned by Western officials and journalists. Everybody calls Georgian attack on Tskhinvali disproportionate, but they don't give suggestions how should Georgia have responded to provocations. For comparison, Russia didn't forgive Chechens for self-proclaimed independence. After Chechen invasion of Dagestan Russians attacked and totally destroyed Grozny. --UA Victory (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but acting badly with the argument that others did as well is just wrong and shows a lack or morality. Here are three facts: 1. Georgia was attacking first. Nowhere in the Western media this was mentioned, in fact the hole war was basically blamed to the Russians by the Western media. 2. There is no proof if the shell attackers of the Georgian cities were from South Ossetia. They could even have been from anywhere else, including some CIA agents, after all. 3. The information in the Western media is neither independent nor objective. In fact it's strongly influenced by US propaganda organisations. Beyond all that, I'm not sure if a guy calling himself "U(S)A Victory" is the right person to discuss all these issues. Especially not in the Ukraine discussion threat. Actually, the USA should first send their own war criminals to prison before again gaining some international or political credibility. But this has nothing to do with the Ukraine, has it? --178.197.236.165 (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Even the Russian analyst Pavel Felgenhauer acknowledged that the Ossetian separtists were shelling the Georgians. Pavel Felgengauer wrote in Novaya Gazeta that the plan was for the “Ossetians to intentionally provoke the Georgians” so that “any response, harsh or soft, would be used as an occasion for the attack”. End of story. --UA Victory (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

To say that Crimea is part of Ukraine is comparable to say the Falklands (Malvinas) are part of Argentina.

To say that the situation in the Crimea is comparable to the the Falkland islands is not accurate. For the Falklands this is the question of an outside power (Argentina) claiming to own the islands even if the majority of it's inhabitants want to stay with the U.K. In the Crimea however this isn't a question of whether or not Russia invaded the Ukraine but a question of whether or not the referendum is real and that they are part of Russia. The idea of de jure or de facto is what's at stake here. Either Crimea is de jure part of the Ukraine or de facto part of Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.129.232 (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

How is it different? Both are questions of an outside power (Argentina/Ukraine) claiming an area where the majority of the inhabitants want to be with another country (UK/Russia). There is no difference.

The difference is that Argentina simply has a claim on the Islands. The U.K. have owned the Falklands for a very long time. In the Falklands war it was Argentina vs The U.K. but here there's no war, only a referendum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BananaBandito (talk • contribs) 01:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

How is it any less real then the referendum in the Falklands where the vote was 96.5% in favor? Or how about Kosovo? Or how about the laws currently being passed in Kiev? There is no difference, they all occur under armed occupation.

People seem to willing to forget that the current Parliament in Kiev usurped power from the legitimate President through use of force, in violation of the Constitution of Ukraine. There is no legitimate government in Ukraine.

I agree. Since the legitimacy of the current government is questioned, the persons who holds the titles of President and Prime Minister should also be up for debate. I feel we should tag this article with

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The Republic of Crimea has officially announced it's independence and secession from Ukraine. Therefore it is an independent country and can not be included on maps as part of Ukraine. Norum 02:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Since Ukraine, the UN, the EU, the US, and just about every other nation on the planet doesn't recognize the secession, the maps are still correct. JOJ ^Hutton 02:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The maps should be altered as per places like Georgia and China etc. To do otherwise would be inconsistent and smack of politics. Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't much matter if it's recognized. Wikipedia is about facts, not countries' positions on things. It's movement from Ukraine to Crimea the same as moving about within Ukraine, or is it not? I think not; thus Crimea at the very least cannot be considered an integral part of Ukraine any longer. --99.24.170.188 (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

What you or I think is irrelevant; Wikipedia is creating a Encyclopaedia based on reliable, published sources. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about facts attributable to a reliable, published source; if they do not agree with your idea of what is a fact then we can not use that ""fact".... Let's wait how reliable, published sources claim the status of Crimea is in a couple of months. To start changing maps now looks very WP:CRYSTALBALL to me. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yulia Romero is correct. Being reactionary based on a fluid situation that is only a month old and certainly not settled law in the international mind is not encyclopedic. Better to wait until the dust clears and some sort of actual de facto situation emerges than to jump the gun. Editing the maps at this point in time can actually be considered a violation of WP:NPOV as only Russia and Russian sympathizers consider this to be a done-deal. --Taivo (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Yulia Romero and Taivo. Assuming that it is a done deal is actually antithetical to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Our position is to be behind the ball, not kicking it. Aside from the fact that we don't know where to from here, I've yet to find secondary sources in agreement as to what the situation actually is. Any speculation is, of course, WP:OR, and the only consistency in the reading of secondary sources attests to the secondary sources being WP:POV. Choosing one set of sources over and above the others would be WP:CHERRYPICKING: and that is what would "... smack of politics." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

So National Geographic is not a reliable, published source? Or do we need US State Department approval? This sums it up pretty nicely: "The U.S. and other Western governments may doggedly refuse to recognize Crimea’s annexation by Russia, but one prominent American mapmaker will. “We map de facto, in other words we map the world as it is, not as people would like it to be,” Juan José Valdés, the National Geographic’s geographer and director of editorial and research for National Geographic Maps, tells U.S. News. “As you can only surmise, sometimes our maps are not received in a positive light by some individuals who want to see the world in a different light,” Valdés says." http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2014/03/18/national-geographic-plans-to-show-crimea-as-part-of-russia-on-maps

As I have already replied on Commons, because file:Europe-Ukraine.svg has been protected due to recent upload-war,‎ re-upload the older version by a different file name or simply use the untouched PNG version are the only ways to restore the map. But that would also mean bringing back the edit war from Commons to Wikipedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea should be shown as a disputed claimed territory in light green as prescribed by Wikipedia's conventions on orthographic maps, shown here: the conventions. Having it in dark green is akin to pretending that nothing has happened in Crimea for the past month. Ukraine has lost de facto control over the region but still claims it just as Serbia has lost de facto control over Kosovo but still claims it.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Giving weight to the story that Crimea is disputed within the article is fine, as long as its covered by reliable sources and is neutral in nature. But changing the maps is not neutral because it is not neutral based on the fact that no outside entity has yet to recognize Crimea as being part of Russia. --JOJ ^Hutton 17:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean make Crimea appear as a disputed territory within Russia correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.251.253 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

National Geographic is a reliable source correct? Or does the US State Department have to approve it?: "The U.S. and other Western governments may doggedly refuse to recognize Crimea’s annexation by Russia, but one prominent American mapmaker will. “We map de facto, in other words we map the world as it is, not as people would like it to be,” Juan José Valdés, the National Geographic’s geographer and director of editorial and research for National Geographic Maps, tells U.S. News. “As you can only surmise, sometimes our maps are not received in a positive light by some individuals who want to see the world in a different light,” Valdés says." http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2014/03/18/national-geographic-plans-to-show-crimea-as-part-of-russia-on-maps

The article on Serbia shows an orthographic map that adheres to Wikipedia's orthographic standards that shows the disputed territory of Kosovo claimed by Serbia and the Republic of Kosovo in light green. This map of Serbia's depiction of disputed territory in light green should be what is used in the case of Ukraine.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

173.79.251.253 and 74.12.195.248,if you care to take a look at the Kosovo map details, you may notice that the original map wasn't uploaded until 14 June 2009. Every article pertaining to changes in political situations is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It actually flies in the face of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to charge forward when secondary resources are still hammering it out themselves. More to the point, this specific article is not dedicated to current affairs. If you want to debate what should be done, go to the appropriate articles specifically dedicated to the current affair and put your 2 cents worth in the talk page there. As has already been pointed out to you, WP:CRYSTALBALL applies, as does WP:OR.

Why is it crystal ball or OR? Crimea is currently under de facto Russian control and there is a sovereignty dispute between Ukraine and Russia over Crimea following the referendum, multiple sources can attest to that.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

74.12.195.248 173.79.251.253, EDIT --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC) the fact that you are invoking National Geographic in the context of a news blog defining NG's proposed depiction of the map next month to be controversial fairly much sums up the ludicrous nature of your push for new maps. Even more indicting is the fact that the blog refers to the short-lived 'unveiling' of the new Russian map on Wikipedia on Tuesday (before it was put under wraps again). We are under no obligation to change content other than in a timely fashion, and certainly not in an uncertain and controversial fashion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't put in the material on National Geographic, that is by some user who is not signing their posts. It makes it look like it is part of a longer post. I sigh my posts.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers for pulling me up on my error, 74.12.195.248. I hope you will accept my sincerest apologies on this matter. In checking the history, I've ascertained that it was IP 173.79.251.253 who had referenced National Geographic. It was very difficult to keep track of the threads on this talk page due to 173.79.251.253's constant and numerous re-tweaks of every comment they'd made, and his/her failure to sign any of them. I did leave a courtesy comment on their talk page the previous day asking that they follow talk page protocols regarding this matter, but this user has continued to re-tweak (particularly inappropriate when someone else has already responded to the comment!) and fail to sign. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The ad hominems do not suit you. I cite that article as a source for the quote from National Geographic's Jose Valdes. Attacking any other aspect of the article is a red herring. Do you dispute the quote? Do you dispute the authority of National Geographic in the realm of Cartography? My argument is simple, I will quote Jose Valdes again: “We map de facto, in other words we map the world as it is, not as people would like it to be." What is ludicrous about that? I am not taking the position that Crimea should be depicted as part of Russia... I take the position that all political maps on Wikipedia should reflect political reality. The Falklands are de facto part of the UK, the Kuril Islands are de facto part of Russia, the Paracels are de facto part of China, and Crimea is de facto part of Russia. These are realities and, I argue, Wikipedia should reflect the facts. Any talk about 'too soon' or 'case-by-case basis' is just equivocation and excuses in order to avoid dealing with facts. Either Crimea is de facto part of Russia or it is not. Either Wikipedia reflects facts or it does not. If Crimea is de facto part of Russia and Wikipedia reflects facts then the map should be updated.173.79.251.253 (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Re this statement: "But changing the maps is not neutral because it is not neutral based on the fact that no outside entity has yet to recognize Crimea as being part of Russia." Hold on. Transnistria isn't recognised by any one but still gets shadded differently on the map of Moldova. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Frenchmalawi, please take some time out to read the Moldova talk page (and archives). This is still an area of dispute and, if you take a look at all other articles which could potentially contain maps depicting Transnistria, you'll find they aren't used because Transnistria is not recognised as anything other than a breakaway region. There are POV pushers who keep trying to reintroduce it... but it doesn't fly. This decision was made by means of community consensus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Community Consensus is abused by Wikipedia editors to shut down dissent. Transnistria is, de facto, independent of Moldova. Moldova exercises no authority over Transnistria. No community consensus will change that fact. Only tanks will change that fact. Until then, Trannistria is, de facto, independent of Moldova. I do not see anyone disputed the de facto state, only coming up with de jure arguments about which countries 'officially' recognizes the de facto state. Wikipedia should reflect FACTS not the position of the US STATE DEPARTMENT. Wikipedia editors abuse the community consensus to shut down minority dissent. Please explain how it is "POV" to say that Transnistria is independent when, de facto, they are? How does a community consensus magically change this fact into "POV"? 173.79.251.253 (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harp - You acknowledge that on the Moldova map, Transnistria is shaded differently. You haven't given any reason why Crimea should be treated differently. Would you like to offer reasons? How is Crimea on the Ukrain map any different to Abkhazia on Georgia map, Taiwan on China map etc. etc. Reasons would be great and happy to consider. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Frenchmalawi, as with all the other 'Aha!' moments citing maps of controversial states depicted in some areas of Wikipedia, please take a look at the date when the map depicting Transnistria was uploaded - being December 25, 2009. Take a look at the dates for the Kosovo map, South Ossetia or any other you might want to pull out of a hat for me to deliberate over and 'explain' the existence of to you: they were created and used long, long, long, long after the relevant events and ongoing issues, whereas not even a week has elapsed since this 'event' and you're demanding that a current map be made before we've had more than a whiff of the political fallout and complexities of the issue/s have really even begun?

Iryna Harpy...how long it took to take a decision on other articles is hardly a persuasive reason. Some issues are not complicated. Russian now claims Crimea as part of its territory. And so does Ukraine....You don't seem to have any good reasons for your stance. Let's just be consistent and take the same approach on all articles. Either that or follow some objective stance like a UN map...but Wikipedia does not do that. For better or worse. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Frenchmalawi, while I can appreciate that you may yearn for consistency, decisions regarding mapping and every other subject tackled in English Wikipedia is made on a case-by-case basis, and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We cannot take our cue from UN maps or any single source as some form of Wikipedia bible. That is not in the spirit of Wikipedia's objectives and how the Wikipedia's community works.

In as much as is humanly possible, I cannot, and do not, approach any subject being disputed with a POV agenda, and constantly self-scrutinise (fully prepared to change my position) should I consider that I could be allowing my my pride, arrogance or subjectivity to interfere. As per our discussion on my talk page, I am changing my 'oppose' position to 'undecided' in the RfC. I will further elaborate on why I am temporarily withholding in that section. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If it is your intent to quiz me at length about the details, I would like to know what your interest is. A little transparency would be appreciated. I'm having difficulties understanding how neutral contributors aren't still scratching their heads about how the world community is going to interpret the situation. Also, if you haven't looked at it already, perhaps you should take a look at these articles - 2014 Crimean crisis and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, both of which are using a map which reflects the ongoing events. There is yet another article, 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine using a different map. These are the articles dealing with current affairs. This article is not a current affairs article. Creating such a map is speculative in this context (read as WP:OR). I don't know how many more times I need to point this out to those who are preaching 'facts'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You keep trying to equivocate. The length of time after an event is irrelevant. The even itself is relevant. Crimea has become, de facto, part of Russia. You can disagree with that fact only. The length of time is irrelevant, it is a red herring, it is equivocation. Do you dispute the fact or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.251.253 (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Iryna, seems like you are just opposing with a lack of neutrality in this matter. The article says front and centre: 'This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.' Please apply the neutrality that you are making your arguments with. Transnistria happened in 1990, I'd be surprised if there's a wiki upload at that time. People come to Wikipedia for real-time information. It's the reason it's superior than traditional book and paper. Ukraine has already declared to pull their men out. Nothing is going to change the fact it's disputed. If you think that in the next month Putin is going to say 'Ha guys, jokes! We didn't want Crimea! Early April Fool's' and hand Crimea back and denouncing any claims, you are out of touch with reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.207.78.4 (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Iryna, Ukraine is not a current event and the temporary tag doesn't make the entire country a current event. In fact, on the news where I live, this non-event is not even being reported. In addition, The Washington Post disputes that National Geographic is a credible source for maps and praises Wikipedia editors instead for being accurate and timely. Let's live up to their expectations please by not being petty and biased. USchick (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that your local news not reporting the event is the definition of 'current event'. Further, I am not arguing whether National Geographic is a credible source for maps, but the fact that the region is in fact 'in dispute' and therefore needs to be updated as such. How in the world is it being 'biased' by saying that the region is disputed? We are not asking the map changed to reflect Ukraine losing the region, but to have the region shaded to reflect its disputed status as per wikipedia standards. Washington Post also cannot be credited as 'neutral' source, either. Would like to add...did you even read the article? Further down in the article it even pointed out that the Ukraine page has neglected to add that disputed status to its map. Courtesy of people here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.207.78.4 (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy of consensus. Which you don't have to change the maps. USchick (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see you have been busy, USchick, even featured on Washington Post. What consensus? Didn't realize Wikipedia is actually ran by an oligarchy. How about try consistency for a measure of good publishing practice? The Russian map has listed Crimea as disputed, which is a fact unless you are giving me references to articles that say otherwise. The amount of bias on here is sickening. Are people that close-minded to even admit that Crimea is disputed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.207.78.4 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Policy: Wikipedia:Consensus USchick (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You didn't answer me on citing a source that says otherwise that the region is not disputed. But nevermind that, one look at your profile tells me everything I need to know. Just a heads up, many of the other language pages have shuffled to the new map showing the disputed status. It's time that English one do the same.

The sources say that Crimea was invaded, even Russian sources call it an invasion . I would support a map showing Russian invasion. USchick (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Invasion=disputed. I hope you understand that fact. Ukraine claims the area since it is de jure theirs, Russia claims the area because de facto DUE TO THE INVASION. Dual claims = disputed. They cannot agree on who owns the area = disputed. Disputed claims on wikipedia is shaded light green. Thank you for clarifying and finding references for my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.207.78.4 (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Cyprus as a more concrete example on wikipedia of what I am referring to. 'The Republic of Cyprus has de jure sovereignty over the island of Cyprus and its surrounding waters, except for the British Overseas Territory of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, administered as Sovereign Base Areas. However, the Republic of Cyprus is de facto partitioned into two main parts; the area under the effective control of the Republic, comprising about 59% of the island's area, and the Turkish-controlled area in the north, calling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and recognised only by Turkey, covering about 36% of the island's area. The international community considers the northern part of the island as territory of the Republic of Cyprus occupied by Turkish forces.' Exact same situation here with only Russia recognizing Crimea as theirs. Note the map shade. There are already other examples people have brought up previously. Let's try to report this with less of our personal bias, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.207.78.4 (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because you have a point, doesn't mean you have consensus. nice try though. USchick (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You have an opinion: That the Ukrainian map should reflect the de jure situation (Crimea is part of Ukraine per the US State Department). I have an opinion: That the map should reflect the de facto situation (Crimea is de facto part of Russia). The difference is that I am arguing for my case with facts. You are demanding consensus but the only consensus you'll accept is recognition by the US State Department. This is a talk page... noone needs your permission to make a point or have a discussion on the merits.173.79.251.253 (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Like it or not, the Russian parliament has voted to annex Crimea. Crimea is now de facto under the control of the Russian Federation. Therefore, I am one to believe that Crimea should now be shaded light green, since the Russian sovereignty of Crimea is disputed by Ukraine, and light green is the color of disputed land. If you don't believe me, look at the pages for India, Serbia, Cyprus, any nation with disputed territory. You'll see what I mean. -A Wikipedia User

Sources state that the international community considers the occupation of Crimea to be illegal. If its considered illegal, then the map should not be changed. If an armed intruder came into your house and took over your bathroom and refused to leave, we wouldn't consider the bathroom to be his now would we? When the sources change to confirm that Crimea's status has been legally transfered to Russia, then we can change the maps. The simple fact that Russia is in military control of Crimea does not mean that the international community has accepted the legality of that control.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The acceptance of the US State Department is irrelevant. If the 'international community' refuses to accept that the Earth orbits the Sun does that make the fact any less true? The approval or acceptance of the international community does not change the fact that Crimea is, currently, a de facto part of Russia. Official recognition from the US State Department is a biased standard. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

JOjhutton, I will again refer you to the page of Cyprus. No one in the international community except Turkey has recognized the occupation. And yet the fact remains that it is a disputed territory. Therefore it should be coloured light green, as per wikipedia convention. Referring to your bathroom argument: if the intruder is in your house, it's illegal occupation, to be sure. But until you call the cops and have the force to kick him out, you have the bathroom DE JURE, he has the bathroom DE FACTO. Therefore you are in dispute of the bathroom until it is resolved one way or another.205.207.78.4 (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Since unregistered users like to argue and claim they don't need consensus to do anything, why haven't you done it already? When the English speaking Wikipedia community determines it's time to change the maps, you will see new maps in the articles. I promise. USchick (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ad hominem! Registering with Wikipedia does not make you an authority. You are contributing nothing to this discussion; you are just trolling/flaming in order to derail the conversation. Your goal is not to contribute, but to disrupt. I see that you are Ukrainian from your talk page. I do not attack you for this bias because it does not make your opinion less valid. However, your continued disruption of this thread with insults and flippant responses does speak to the validity of your argument (or lack thereof). 173.79.251.253 (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Gezundheit. USchick (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

JOJhutton, please present your argument for Crimea not being a disputed territory before edit war. I don't see a relevant discussion here provided by you explaining why Crimea is not consider 'disputed'. Your argument that Russia has illegally taken the territory does not refute the fact it is disputed. The map being uploaded does not reflect Russia annexation as you are trying to argue here.JNC2 (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC) I will happily remind you of the map colour policy if it need be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Orthographic maps. Others have explained why the area is considered disputed. Cyprus is provided as an example as to why the same convention applies despite the invasion and 'illegality' of Russian action and the lack of international recognition (For that matter, Northern Cyprus is recognized by 1 nation and Crimea is recognized by 4). You have asked me to explain in discussion and so I have. Pages from other major languages (Japanese, Spanish, Chinese to name a few) have already done the same to provide consistency. Care to explain yourself?JNC2 (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here. Recent edits by JNC2 seem to be constructive and NPOV. Crimea is a disputed territory and denoting such in the map would be useful. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to seriously self revert. There is no consensus for this map and your edits violate WP:NPOV I WILL make a report to ANI if you don't self revert immediately. Just because you were previously uninvolved is no reason for you to start reverting editors simply because you think it was constructive. This conversation is very long and is still ongoing. Your edit is deemed very contentious.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

JOJhutton, please stick to the argument rather than attacking the person. What are you referring to here in your accusation of WP:NPOV? I dare say that the majority on here is starting to lean towards the territory being disputed and you have not suggested any source that claims otherwise. As USchick pointed out earlier, I believe this is the process towards consensus.JNC2 (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh trust me, you'll be part of the ANI thread too. Your edits violate WP:BRD and WP:DISPUTE. You do not continue making reverts after you have been reverted. This article is about the country Ukraine. To call the are disputed, when the entire international commmunity doesn't see it that way, is a violation of WP:NPOV. Only Russia disputes the region, everyone else considers it still part of Ukraine. Its violates WP:WEIGHT to give so much weight to the map.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Noone has presented an argument that does not acknowledge the occupation of Crimea by Russia as a fact. Your own argument concedes it... you say that the occupation is disputed... therefore conceding that there is an occupation. The legality may be disputed but the fact of the occupation is not. There is consensus that Crimea is, de facto, occupied by Russia. I have not seen one person in this thread, not one, argue that this Crimea is not under the jurisdiction of Russia.173.79.251.253 (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Who is not acknowledging the fact that Crimea is occupied by Russia. Not me. But since the EU, US, NATO, and 13 members of the UN security council "consider this occupation to be illegal", not to mention Ukraine, its a violation of WP:NPOV to give the occupation this much weight. The map should not be shaded because nobody recognizes that this regain is anything but Ukrainian, except the occupying force.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You call on WP:BRD, and yet you have not provided any sort of constructive comments here to support the fact it's 'not disputed'. Yourself violate WP:NPOV when you have only provided your own opinion and nothing substantial to back it up. 'Only Russia disputes the region' - You can't be serious. You have just provided the argument that the region is disputed. It doesn't take the entire world to dispute a region. If Ukraine doesn't dispute it then they wouldn't be denouncing Russian claims.

IrynaHarpy, before you start reverting people's changes and claiming you have been on here, provide your own argument that the region is not disputed or that this particular page should not adhere to Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Orthographic maps.JNC2 (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we have a page protect from the admin? There is a few individuals on here who are just being argumentative and not informed about the meaning of the term 'dispute' or bother to look at examples people have presented as arguments. The arguments on here are becoming tunnel visioned with lack of any source to back their claims. UN considers occupation illegal does not refute the fact it is a dispute and if anything, backs it up.JNC2 (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I think you need a long block for disruption and as a special purpose account. You are obviously unfamiliar with Wikipedias editing process and dispute resolution. You continue to dismiss any opinion that doesn't agree with you and start reading the guidelines and policies that the more experienced and knowledgeable editors. Your problem is that you think you know more than people who have been doing this for a very long time. --JOJ ^Hutton 23:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, you reverted my reversion to the 'new' map invoking WP:3O and noted that 'it seems useful' (AKA WP:ITSINTERESTING) in your edit summary. You also told me to go to the talk page. Considering that I have been 'going to the talk page' for the last couple of days, and you have made one comment as a 'neutral' editor, I would not consider that it falls on your shoulders to make an executive decision as did JNC2 who was edit warring on the article without following WP:BRD and has only just showed up because of pressure put on him/her on their talk page (which I was about to leave a missive on).

Considering that it doesn't appear that there is going to be consensus on this page, and that it has escalated to edit warring, I think the only rational thing to do is to call for an WP:RfC where genuinely uninvolved parties can voice their opinion. This isn't a small detail to be decided between a few contributors and their dogs. This isn't even the current affairs pages which are dealing with the current affairs (please look at the SEE ALSO list in the corresponding article).

I'm going to replace the 'current affairs' tag with a hatnote pointing readers to the actual current affairs pages. At the moment, this article doesn't seem to know what it's trying to deal with and is suffering multiple personality disorder... which is confusing and unedifying for readers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Iryna, discuss the point, not to attack the people please. I came here first before the admin left the msg on the talk page after one undo by JOJ. I would like to remind both of you that you have not backed the claim that the said region is not in dispute and/or should not follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Orthographic maps as other language pages have started to. If anything I am starting to question your WP:NPOV. Please, leave me a missive that you were about to and let me know how I am wrong in this matter. I do agree on WP:RfC although I argue that the lack of concensus, as others have pointed out, is coming from lack of WP:NPOV that certain individuals have been unable to remove from their own personal bias. I have provided a comprehensive explanation with examples from other articles as to why the edit should be made. The only one I see from you is the 'lack of time stamp'. Welcome to the modern age, where Encyclopedia does not require 4 year between revisions.JNC2 (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: DISENGAGE. Don't make threats and assume good faith. You are taking this way too far.

@Iryna Harpy: Useful is a lot different than interesting. I am an uninvolved editor here, only editing for article review. A RfC would be great and I'll be happy to comment on it. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop equivocating. The fact that the occupation is recent does not change the fact that the occupation exists. The area is disputed. You have not disagreed... you're just equivocating.

Should be the map that shows the really existing disputed situation! The territory of Crimea on the map should be marked/painted by separate different color - different from the color of the domestic territory of Ukraine! Such practices already exists on Wiki for similar disputed territorial situations! Ignoring of the fact (that there was detach of Crimean Peninsula territory from the main territory of Ukraine, that Crimea was transfer/taken under full control of Russia and that was created the territorial dispute between Russia and Ukraine) - is wrong and and foolishly! Wiki - Encyclopedia of current and confirmed facts occurring in / up to this moment and not arena of political disputes! --109.67.134.154 (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The title of the Ukrainian anthem is not correct. The first line of the anthem is the following: "Neither Ukrainian glory, nor freedom has not yet died" But not "Ukraine has Not Yet Died", as it is in the article now. Of course, in English the difference between these two phrases is significant, but in Ukrainian they sound very similar. Thus, in original language, the first line is "Shche ne vmerla Ukrainy (i slava i volia)", bot not "Shche ne vmerla Ukraina.". Couse now it looks like a country is gonna die. That is lost in translation, I suppose. 46.165.187.200 (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The first line is explained here . However, that's not the title. According to published sources, the title is "Shche ne vmerla Ukraina"

. So unfortunately, what we have now is correct. USchick (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I attempted to change an article that Ukraine is Central European country (and according to other claims Eastern Europen), but my edit was rejected many times. Dispute resolution needed. Where could I complain? [Stanley514] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.138.18 (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@192.222.138.18: You need to provide reliable sources to back you assertion that Ukraine is Central European country. Currently, the CIA Factbook is cited as saying it's Eastern European. It would take some high quality sources to negate that source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

--Stanley514 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)First of all, I would be glad to know which exactly sources are regarded as reliable? CIA factbook is definitely ridiculous as a "geographical authority". If we look at the "map of Europe" based on their division: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Regions_of_Europe_based_on_CIA_world_factbook.png we will see that they define Spain as a part of Europe on it's own. The same is true about only two countries: Italy and Greece. Also there exist strong discrepancy between Wikipedia and cia factbook anyway. For example, the later defines Germany as part of Central Europe only and Switzerland as Western Europe. But in Wikipedia Germany is claimed to be located in Western-Central Europe, Switzerland is in Western and Central Europe and "note 4" gives link to a wikipage with explanation that:

"Western or Central Europe? There is no universally accepted subdivision of Europe and the issue how to name the different European regions and define the borders between them is subject to debates. Depending on the definition chosen, Switzerland can be either part of Western or Central Europe, both concepts being context-dependent and carrying cultural, economical and political connotations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Switzerland#Western_or_Central_Europe.3F

Farther, Romania is defined as a country "at the crossroads of Southeastern and Central Europe" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania Croatia as located at "the crossroads of Central Europe, Southeast Europe" (In difference from CIA world factbook which doesn't give reference to Central Europe for Croatia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia Baltic States in cia factbook map are defined as an Eastern Europe while in Wikipedia as Northern Europe only.

So, if so many countries are "in between" and there is no universally accepted definition of Europe subdivisions, why Ukraine is an "Eastern Europe only" and no other veiwpoints are allowed? I believe that Ukraine has strong arguments to be named Central European. I've heard not at once that it is located "practically at the center of Europe". If you will draw a straight line from Lisbon to Ural mountains and draw a dot exactly at the middle, this one dot will be in Ukraine. Wikipedia mentions Ukraine as one of the bidders where center of Europe is located on: "modern day Ukraine: In 1887, geographers from the Austro-Hungarian Empire set up a historical marker and a large stone in what is today a part of Ukraine, believed to mark the geographic centre of Europe. The interpretation of the worn Latin inscription on the monument is debated, with some claiming that the marker is merely one of a number of fixed triangulation points for surveying purposes established around the territory of the former Empire. The external borders of Europe taken into account during the calculations are not known. According to the description, the methodology used for the calculation is that of the geometrical middle point of the extreme latitudes and longitudes of Europe, so the stone was located at 48°30′N 23°23′E. However, the actual location of the monument seems rather 47°57′46.47″N 24°11′14.4″E and not the coordinates to which they relate. This is near the village of Dilove located on the Tisza river, close to the Romanian border, in the county of Rakhiv in the Transcarpathian region.'' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_midpoint_of_Europe#Austria-Hungary And even if you simply look at the map of continental Europe you see that Ukraine is located central enough. So, if geographical midpoint of Europe is located on Ukrainian territory, why Ukraine cannot pretend to be named Central European?! Any arguments against it? Otherwise it rises suspicion that all this Europe subdivisions accepted in wiki may have nothing with scientific geography, are quack and may include some dubious political or racist undertone and therefore better should be removed at all. Stanley514 (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

→

I believe there was unrest in South and East Ukraine. As a completely good-faith edit that was not a BLP / sourcing / other actual issue, I don't think the edit warranted a warning. Aside from all that, could you please explain your revert? You only said what you did rather than why. I don't understand using intermediate directions with hyphens (i.e. South-East instead of southeast). I have very little doubt that you have reasons, but could please elaborate? I know that some users in the same situation as you with me commenting on their talk pages would take this in a bad way for some reason, but I really hope that you don't. I am not assuming any bad intent. Thank you. Dustin (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

In the first instance, this has been a bone of contention for a long time on Wikipedia. Without going into the gory details, geographical locations for Poland and Ukraine have been disputed as many times as you've had hot suppers. Grammatically, South and East Ukraine is incorrect: it would have to be southern and eastern Ukraine. There is no such use of South USA, North Canada, South France, etc. The only instance for the use of a compass point in that manner is where a country has been divided literally: West Germany; North Korea; South Korea. What is being expressed in this instance in the approximate geographical location of the unrest. Sorry, gotta make lunch. I'll chat later. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know... English can vary from place-to-place. For example, while the Pacific Ocean isn't actually divided, you would usually call the eastern part the East Pacific (with capitalized "East"). The thing with "South-East" versus "southeastern" or "southern and eastern" is an issue which should have something written about in the Manual of Style somewhere, or perhaps there already is? In any case, thanks for the quick response. Dustin (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe) (plus the archive). There have been AN/I disputes, RfC's and squabbling over English language conventions surrounding how northerly, easterly, etc. regions are described in the English language specifically for these countries. It's an awful mess, but one thing was considered certain: there is no East Ukraine, West Ukraine, North Ukraine. I'll have to rummage around my watchlists and some of my bookmarked pages where some form of convention was reached by consensus. I'm beginning to think that, as with all other headings, it may need to be lower case, as in "Pro-Russian unrest in the south-east" (or would it be "Pro-Russian unrest in the South-east"?). I think the best bet for that might be googling variants. I have encountered a few articles discussing Southern/southern Ukraine (Odessa, for example), and some discussing Eastern/eastern Ukraine, but only when dealing with a specific region. As this subheader covers the sum total of those regions (including areas often already described as central Ukraine in English texts), it needs to encompass the general locality where various forms of unrest have taken place, which happens to be the South-easternish part of Ukraine. Whew!

You are quite correct in pulling me up for leaving such a terse edit summary, and reprimanding the IP. I was engaged in discussions on and working on a few articles simultaneously. I'll leave an additional note on the IP's talk page welcoming them to engage in the discussion here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... this is quite a complicated issue isn't it? Too much stuff can get confused. Thanks for the response. I have to reply to another editor about something else, so I will say more in just a bit. Dustin (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I'll start posting some of the higher level guidelines here for you:
MOS:COMPASS --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that when a direction such as North, West, South, or East is used in conjunction with a non-direction specific location (such as my East Pacific example earlier) and it is actually used relatively commonly, you can capitalize the direction. Another thing to note is that if the direction is something like "southwest" being used with the main location as a common name, then you must capitalize both directions as South-West. In this way, if there isn't a name commonly used for southeastern areas of Ukraine, then it should be changed from "South-East" to either "southeast" or "south and east". Correct me if I am wrong there, or ask if I need to clarify on what I am saying. Dustin (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'd personally say that the best possible descriptor is "southern and eastern Ukraine". Odessa isn't really in the "southeastern" part of Ukraine geographically, but it is commonly described as being in "southern Ukraine". Directions should not be capitalised unless they are part of a proper noun. It is fairly simple. Some proper nouns do use the form "East X", "North X", &c. However, these forms are non-standard, and only apply to proper nouns. When speaking about areas in a generic sense, using the adjectival forms. The standard adjectival form of directions are the usual "southern, eastern, northern, western". Therefore, I don't think one would ever write "East Pacific". The proper way to describe such an area would be "the eastern Pacific Ocean". RGloucester — ☎ 05:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 2) East Pacific, Central Pacific, and West Pacific in fact are used relatively often. The reason I used that example is that I often edit Pacific hurricane articles, and those are the names for different tropical cyclone areas. However, that's a discussion for another day. I do agree that unless it is being used as part of a proper noun, the article should be changed to read "southern and eastern Ukraine". Dustin (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

They may be used, but that does not make them correct. They are a form of shorthand, perhaps used in jargon-like contexts, such as with your cyclones. Neither shorthand nor jargon are appropriate for encyclopaedic prose writing. RGloucester — ☎ 05:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I believe these are the basin names accepted by the United Nations World Meteorological Organization, but, like I said, that's an irrelevant discussion for another day because here, it is not applicable in the exact same way. Dustin (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it was for several reasons that the original "America" was divided into North America and South America. There are actually specific boundaries. Dustin (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I do not think the United Nations is an authority on the English language. I leave such matters to Dr Henry Watson Fowler, and his ilk. Regardless, you are right in saying that those examples are not applicable. They are jargon in a specific context (or are proper nouns), as I mentioned, and have no relevance in standard writing. RGloucester — ☎ 05:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

UN naming conventions have constantly being rejected for English Wikipedia. English language convention is a little more complex inasmuch as there is a fairly substantial English language history of the use of Western Ukraine and Eastern Ukraine. 'South' and 'east' are not a part of the equation, however, as south Ukraine includes everything along the coast of the Black Sea and, even there, some of those regions have long been referred to in English academic texts as Western Ukraine. Additionally, I have never encountered the use of South Ukraine or East Ukraine. Having spent the last hour pouring over google, the variants used are mainly South-East Ukraine, south-eastern Ukraine, East Ukraine. I'm finding myself drawn towards "southeastern and eastern Ukraine". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I still think that (EPAC, WPAC, CPAC) may be within the bounds of proper English (I have reasons, but I am NOT discussing this anymore, it's too irrelevant!) But can we agree on a change? Dustin (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Language is always relevant. We'd not be much without it. RGloucester — ☎ 05:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester, if I didn't care about language, I wouldn't have brought up this discussion in the first place. In any case, I have changed the article to "southern and eastern Ukraine" because I find that to be the least disputed form of usage. Dustin (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is the reason of the origins if Slavic people coming from Ukraine not listed. This is what the Czechs believe and is a common theory. A quote from "A History Of The Czech Lands" written by Jarolav Panek and Oldrich Tuma, Et Ali. They are archaeologist's and professors not some American book writers who have never left there own lands. I will now quote a passage on page 58 written by Dusan Tredtik. Far beyond these Germanic tribes, somewhere in the expansive regions of the central Dnieper ( Ukraine) a new Slavic- speaking people emerged at some stage during the 2nd to 4th centuries. The Romans new nothing of them neither does modern research have any clear idea about there origins. All that can be said is that archaeologists are researching the existence of the oldest Slavic settlements from the end of the 5th century in the Ukraine and confirm that about in the year 530AD masses of Slavic trans migration had begun at the boarder of the Byzantium on the lower Danube. Also google Proto Slavic and do some research, about Slavic pottery and graves. You in my opinion are very wrong about the deaths in World War II. The Ukraine’s welcomed the Nazi's at first because of the Holodomor forced famine by Stalin in 1933 (10 million died). but then the Nazi's started the superior race theory which lead to mass murder. Germans had more Slavic tribes than anyone else in the past, Obotrites, Sorbs, Wends, Polabians,Polan ,Pomerania, Veleti , Sorbs under Prince Dervan in 600ad settled in Saxony. Bavaria Slavic two tribes settled in Bavaria one located in Bamberg (Google: Bamberg Slavic graves). There are many more I could name as I have 200+ links. Also remember East Germany was part of the Soviet Empire. Anyway I believe the Nazi's and then the later return of Russians during and after in World war II. Resulted in the death total of 7-8 million Ukrainian Peoples. Please do your own research and this is not good enough what is written here. Casurgis out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.232.58 (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: if you have access to so many reliable and verifiable sources, perhaps you could contribute by supplying links rather than your WP:POV. Please read what Wikipedia is not. If you wish to contribute constructively, we welcome you aboard. If your position is that Wikipedia is wrong and it is up to some naughty imaginary body you assume controls Wikipedia being obliged to follow your instructions, please read WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Rather than criticise, we encourage those with knowledge to create an account and contribute (in fact, you don't even have to create an account). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem as promised here are many links to SLAVIC HISTORY!. Many are from present day Germany but read and learn. Also I have many more but i do work a lot so when I find time, I will give you many more links. See you in Two years time because it will take you a while to read all these links. Keep and open mind and you will see. (Protracted list of wikilinks and spam external links removed per WP:SPAM and WP:SOAP) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.14.133 (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read my response properly. If you had misunderstood my statement about supplying links here, it should have been clear that I was not asking for an exhaustive list of wikilinks as Wikipedia is not a reliable source (see WP:WINARS), plus ridiculous links to blogs and forums (read WP:RS) here, on the talk page. What I did suggest is that you try to contribute to the article constructively using verifiable and reliable sources. WP:NOTCOMPULSORY means that you don't get to delegate your WP:POV 'links' to me in order that I edit on your behalf. It should also be understood that, just as I don't know how well acquainted you are about the subject of the article, being "Ukraine" (although you've certainly given me a fair idea of your lack of scholarly knowledge and bias), by the same token you have no idea of the depth and extent of my knowledge of the subject. In this instance I'll sum up for you as "яйце курку вчить." Contribute to the article, but don't try to teach anyone what "The Truth" is. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine are Slavic and maybe the orginals. These links are from Ukraine websites: http://www.wumag.kiev.ua/index2.php?param=pgs20102/88 http://www.wumag.kiev.ua/index2.php?param=pgs20053/4 This is my personal document I have uploaded for you. It has been taken from a book "A History Of The Czech Lands" written by Jarolav Panek and Oldrich Tuma, Et Ali. They are archaeologist's and professors. Link is below and is about the origins of Slavic people coming from Ukraine: http://www.docdroid.net/f0lw/ukraine.pdf.html Sorry I went over board, we all need to be more understand to Ukraina in my opinion. Good luck Casurgis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.250.196 (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Casurgis. I've downloaded the relevant PDF & will take a look at the two other links you've provided. It fairly much confirms what has already been established about the early Slavs (including the territory inhabited around the Dnieper), although there is much more research emerging from various Eastern Slavic regions, plus DNA which puts Ukrainian, Belarus and Russian inhabitants into the same haplogroups. Most of this material would be relevant to the History of Ukraine article rather than this article. There are also related articles examining the history of the Rus', Eastern European Slavs, etc. Cheers for your input. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It is 100% tasteless for you to make Crimea light green considering it is Ukrainian territory and has been for decades. It's currently "occupied" by Russia because of a "referendum". It is NOT disputed by Russia. No country recognises it's disputed status and therefore cannot be categorised as so on Wikipedia. I demand for Ukraine to be all the same colour along with Crimea considering it is so. Db95 (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length. Please read the talk page first. Jim1138 (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't care if it's been talked about before. Crimea is Ukrainian. The whole argument about "neutrality" is utter rubbish considering 99% of the world recognise Crimea as Ukrainian. Wikipedia's going downhill majorly. You should all be ashamed.

Db95 (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Db95: If you have wp:reliable sources that would argue for changing the map, then please post them here for discussion. Per wp:verifiability, personal opinion and original research have no place on Wikipedia. Jim1138 (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Does it mean exclusively Ukrainian population? If not - what about mentioning other ethnicities? Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC) The unification that Ukraine achieved - did it? Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Korenizatsia created also the Polish Autonomous District#Marchlewszczyzna, later radically disbanded, many Poles deported to Kasakhstan.Xx236 (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Too detailed for this article: basically, it's veering towards being WP:OFFTOPIC. You're pointing to another Wikipedia article, and, as we've discussed before, Wikipedia is not a reliable source particularly as the section you're wanting to introduce is entirely unsourced.

It would serve better being expanded on in another related article dealing with that subject explicitly. For the purposes of this article, it's WP:UNDUE at the least. I can't think of an appropriate related article off hand, but I'll let you know if I think of one. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Off topic? No comments.Xx236 (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

uk:Польський національний район імені Юліана МархлевськогоXx236 (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

http://histans.com/JournALL/pro/16/2/16.pdf Xx236 (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

http://lib.chdu.edu.ua/pdf/metodser/87/34.pdfXx236 (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There exist articles Modern history of Ukraine, History of Ukraine and Ukraine#History which contain the same errors and omissions. I understand that I have to discuss the same subjects three times? Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was created in 1924 but mentioned here only when reorganised in 1940.Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just removed this passage from the section: "In the 11th and 12th centuries, constant incursions by nomadic Turkic tribes, such as the Pechenegs and the Kipchaks, caused a massive migration of Slavic populations to the safer, heavily forested regions of the north." which was brought to my attention by this edit.

Not only is it extraordinarily bad WP:SYNTH of Klyuchevsky's article, it is blatantly bad WP:POV. The move to the north-east referred to is that from St. George on Ros (lower down the Dnieper) to Kiev (in context, it read as if it were a migration to modern Russia). It also misrepresents the on again, off-again co-dependent relationship between (including solid alliance's between the Rus' and the Pechenegs) against raids by the Cumans.

I don't think that the section on the "Golden Age of Kiev" needs to be overly detailed as the main article (Kievan Rus') examines these issues comprehensively. If anyone feels that it is imperative to provide a summary of relationships with other ethnic cultures, please feel free to add them... so long as they are accurate and don't spill into unnecessary detail for the purposes of this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Why is it not mentioned anywhere in this artical?. What is happening now in Ukraine is very simlar to what happened to Czechoslovakia in 1938!. History is repeating itself and the betrayal has all ready happened. Please add to wiki pedia as Ukraina did the whole world a good deed giving up the third biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the 90s. And we own a thanks to Ukraine. Best regards Casurgis ( Links below may help)

• https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Ukraine+nuclear+non-proliferation+treaty
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
• http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/ukraine/nuclear/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.12.215 (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Added. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The following published article on recentism (and WP:Notnews) is presented for review. Wikipedia has also earned a reputation as a news source because of its rapid updating of articles related to breaking news., "How Wikipedia Won Olympic Gold", Mossop, Brian, Wired, August 10, 2012. Normally declarations of war and including war casualty statistics are not subject to deletion under policy for recentism (or, WP:Notnews). FelixRosch (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Your reference focuses solely on Olympic results. Wikipedia articles, contrary to your edits, aren't made up of quotes found in today's newspaper. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This is one example only taken from the source in Wired. You appear to be reading WP:Notnews in an unspecified manner. Are you suggesting that it is ok to include recent results from Gold awards, but somehow it is not possible to included news reports identifying a state of War as being declared? Not consistent. Your reference to WP:Notnews is not applicable and therefore reverted unless you have other Wikipedia policy rules for excluding declaration of War status and death toll statistics. These are not seen as generally being reversible events or trite events for which WP:Notnews could be applied. FelixRosch (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Use your common sense. Seriously. Updating articles about sports events with the results of said sports events is expected and necessary and usually the conclusion of updates. Updating the article saying one agency is stating one part of a country is in a state of civil war does not require a five line quote mostly about something else. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite what the large newspaper coverage across the country has been covering for over a week since the airliner was downed by missile fire. Last month you were also blocking the addition of death toll statistics being published by multiple news sources as well. Neither of these was a WP:Notnews issue although both were being deleted. For Wikipedia to mention both of these death toll statistics is part of its function for commenting on historically established military tensions and casualties being documented in multiple major news sources for over a month. These casualties are being rightfully mourned at present, and this is not a reversible incident but part of the historical facts of the escalating conflict. If you have a shorter version of reporting a death toll which is now over 500 (covering both my edit from last month and the current edit with references and cites as provided), then suggest a one or two sentence version. The most straightforward way to report that there are over 500 documented casualties in the death toll would be informative of the actual level of military escalation. FelixRosch (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again, this is the summary article for Ukraine. Text for the 2014 events is about as long as the text that covers the entire World War II when between 5 and 8 million Ukrainians died. I think your historical perspective is slightly off. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Not this again... WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. One sentence of "The Red Cross considers the Ukraine to be in a state of civil war" or something similar would be sufficient. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

PS, citing articles outside WP does not change WP's WP:NOTNEWS policy. Note, it's not a guideline or essay, it's a policy. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Substituting short version of Red Cross MH-17 edit by User:Evergreen. Agree with User:Evergreen that short version is sufficient for the multi-sentence version. FelixRosch (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Still contains unnecessary detail so trimmed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The entire section has become WP:UNDUE yet again. There are details (such as the Red Cross calling it a 'civil war') which are being kept in check on the 2014 insurgency in Donbass article as there is no one take on the situation (including NGO opinions). The protracted quotes from Poroshenko are also UNDUE. Why is this article now featuring information that doesn't align with the main articles dealing with subject matter? If anyone wishes to contribute by working on the main articles constructively, they are welcome to join us at the relevant articles. This article, however, is not a surrogate for would be journalists to bypass the content screening process. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Like --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone WP:BRD with this removal of superfluous WP:RECENTISM and of the policy and consensus-based decisions being ignored over and over again. The latest addition (which I assume was in order to redress WP:POV imbalance) was also the last straw. Go to the current affairs articles and keep information belonging in the multiple articles about recent events where they belong. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Like SaintAviator talk 07:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

To User:IrynaHarpy: Your mention of a "BRD" is ambiguous and does not make clear what edit you are reverting and who made the edit you are reverting. You mention a "BRD" but your edit on the Page was for a full Paragraph blanking of anything and everything in the section after the Petroshenko election which was edited by multiple editors over a period of four to five weeks. If it is a BRD then give the edit number which you are reverting and the editor name whom you are reverting. If your intention was to fully accomplish a paragraph blanking then an RFC would be called for since multiple editors were involved over a period of four to five weeks in editing the full paragraph which you appear to want to fully blank out, and all of them should be given a chance to respond first. There is no difficulty with your making either the BRD of the RFC and this note is for clarification purposes at this time. Otherwise, if it was a BRD then provide the edit number for the edit you are reverting and the name of the editor who is being reverted. FelixRosch (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand what a WP:RFC is for. First a regular discussion should be held. If the discussion fails to resolve the issue then open an RFC to get outside input. IrynaHarpy followed standard Wikipedia practices which you still seem to have trouble grasping. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem grasping anything you state here, and it is User:IrynaH who has for some reason called this a "BRD". My request is still that if it is BRD, that the edit number and the editor be identified by name. If you are fearful of an RFC on this, then you must know that the normal process for blanking out a full paragraph would require establishing consensus first, before the paragraph blanking. No difficulty taking either path, the BRD or the RFC; just clarify the ambiguity in giving the edit number and the name of the editor who is being reverted. From what you are saying, it does not appear to be a BRD, but User:IrynaH should normally be the one to clarify this. FelixRosch (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And this shows your understanding of Wikipedia practices is faulty.

User:IrynaH who has for some reason called this a "BRD" -> She is correct. It is a bold edit.

if it is BRD, that the edit number and the editor be identified by name -> No understanding of WP:BRD

you must know that the normal process for blanking out a full paragraph would require establishing consensus first -> wrong

Please actually read WP:BRD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding was that Iryna's edit was the bold edit. That said, I'm about ready for an RfC since FelixRosch is WP:IDHT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Concur with NeilN and EvergreenFir statements. Also agree wtih Iryna Harpy's edit. Kirin13 (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrator Andrew Lih is attributed as stating the correct position: "Wikipedia has also earned a reputation as a news source because of its rapid updating of articles related to breaking news." FelixRosch (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@FelixRosch: Andrew Lih has an opinion, not the "correct position". For content issues it matters not a whit that he is an admin. --NeilN talk to me 16:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC) (Reposted at request of User:EverGreen on "Ukraine" page)

Both of you are then stating the IrynaH has done the Bold edit part, and if both of you are correct in this, then my edit today was the Revert part of the BRD so that the Discussion can now take place. I would have preferred for IrynaH to answer for herself since she is reliable on this Talk page but she has not answered since this morning. My understanding is that the Discussion phase can now take place without further reverts until consensus is reached. My reasons for re-posting the material after the Poroshenko election which was deleted boldly are the following: (1) Deleting all of this material is an excessive deletion and not necessary; (2) The full deletion of the missile attack and airline fatalities is unrealistic since an international incident like this over Ukraine can not be fully ignored by deleting it here; (3) The issue of mass emigration in the 1000s crossing the borders is accurate and verified with no reason for fully deleting it; (4) The Red Cross designation that a state of Civil War exists in Ukraine is very significant since War Crimes trials against the leaders who authorized the missile attack are now made possible in International Courts of Justice (and are reported to already be in preparation) now that the Red Cross has declared a state of Civil War; (5) The issue of WP:Notnews and recentism raised by various editors here (the name of this section here on Talk) is not in agreement with general interpretation by administrators at Wikipedia like Admin:AndrewLih, and his opinion should be respected: "Wikipedia has also earned a reputation as a news source because of its rapid updating of articles related to breaking news."; (6) No-one wants this page to include a daily ledger of newspaper headlines, however, no one has done this and the information about the missile attack,etc, should not be deleted. One of you is likely to close out this discussion soon, and since multiple editors were involved in creating the material User:Iryna wishes to delete all at once, the normal time frame of 48-72 hours should be allowed for the discussion comments to be collected of all editors involved. FelixRosch (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Felix - Yes, I'm saying your revert was the R in BRD. You were correct to make it from what I can tell. Anyway, I'll repeat that AndrewLih's comments are their own personal opinion. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, however, are Wikipedia policy. My understanding is that there is a hierarchy of pages on Wikipedia: pillars, policy, guidelines, and essays, in descending order (see WP:POLICIES). Multiple experienced editors have said they feel the section contains news and has undue weight, a problem predicted by WP:RECENTISM. If it helps any, here's how I think about it: if Wikipedia existed 70 years ago, what would this page look like? It would have a lot more detail about events WWII, Communism, etc. and the page would be 3 times as long. Would this be a good thing? No, as the details are not necessary. The version we have now contains enough detail and breadth of historical events that we get the important stuff in Ukrainian history, but not too much of any one thing. It is that level of depth and breadth that we wish to maintain for current events. Let's take the Red Cross as an example. Will the Red Cross's declaration be that important in 10 or 15 years? Probably not. Should it be included on a page dedicated to a detailed account of the current unrest? Sure! But unless we start having multiple international organizations calling this a civil war, stating the opinion of one organization is giving it undue weight. Wikipedia should always be behind the times; ideally we publish about what others have published about what others have published about. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@FelixRosch: How is my opening sentence, "I've gone WP:BRD with this removal..." so confusing to you? Yes, I was the one who removed the superfluous WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM that has accumulated here yet again. Frankly, I'm getting tired of having to read WP:WALLSOFTEXT left by you on this and the Russia article trying to justify violating Wikipedia policy in order to act as a journalist on both articles. You're the only contributor who believes themselves to be correct in the face of multiple editors having formed consensus based on policies and guidelines disagreeing with you.

You appear to have developed some strange sense of WP:OWN with regards to appropriate WP:NOTNEWS content for this and the "Russia" article, yet you're notable by your absence when it comes to the articles dealing with the current events. These are not your personal articles away from the madding crowd. I don't even know whether you're aware that you're making executive decisions even in using sources defining it as a 'civil war' (that is confined to Donbass and discussions as to whether it should be described as a 'war' or 'conflict' have been underway for over a week on that article alone). Please stop piling more content into what should be a highly proscribed section. Your push for adding what is, essentially, an op ed is not appreciated, runs contrary to policy, plus flies in the face of the carefully scrutinised, neutral language in the main articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FelixRosch reported by User:Moxy (Result: ) -- Moxy (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone now disagreeing with Iryna Harpy's edit? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm not. Do other editors concur that my redaction should be reinstated? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Concur. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Iryna Harpy's edit. Kirin13 (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As ample time has been provided for any arguments for retaining the WP:UNDUE content I removed. From discussions and consensus here, I've taken it that my redaction was agreed on as being a positive move and, therefore, have restored my brief version. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)