Talk:Ukrainian Civil War

about irrelevant values of so called disambig

@Ymblanter, Charles Essie, RGloucester, and 68.37.254.48:

• 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine - obviously, 'unrest' isn't a civil war
• War in Donbass. Indeed, in Ukrainian enemies plans, it must be a Donbass Civil War, as a begin of Ukrainian Civil War; a plenty of WP:RS sources are in Wikipedia articles. Now, "war in Donbas" is a war in Donbas, no more. Due to our struggle and international support, the main part of enemies plans of "Ukrainian Civil War" are in the past. Now the "Russian War in Ukraine" exists, see sources here, but it is a total hybrid war, not a civil war.

— Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 09:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC).

It is pretty much sufficient that there are sources calling it civil war (even if these sources are biased).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

?? Are sources (calling it civil war) wp:RS, or not? I don't see them here. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 13:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC).

This is a DAB and is not expected to have references, but if you want an example, here you are: [1]--Ymblanter (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. 06:01, Sat, Dec 12, 2015, 17:00, Wed, Dec 9, 2015. World News Daily Express: «The Daity Express is a bloody awful newspaper. It is full of lies, scandal and imagination. It is a vicious paper» (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1962). Is this the better? — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 14:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC).

It is absolutely irrelevant. The point is that the term is in use, even if by only awful newspapers, and hence it is a plausible search term and must be in a DAB.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

So, this source is the better? It called 'a pornography', see Daily Express#Richard Desmond era, or not? And must be in a DAB? — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 15:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC).

Is there smth you do not understand in my answer above?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I need a little time, now I am absolutely shocked. I remember a deep thought in 2008-2011, sorry. Thanks. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 15:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC).

It is up to you, of course, but you can just try WP:AfD. You do not need to agree with my opinion and can just let the community decide.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT, the opinion of Tom Batchelor (Daily Express) must be deleted or, at least, attributed, see analogue: Yaroslav Blanter, May 8, 2011. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 17:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC).

Well, let us look at things in perspective. You do not like that sources call the current conflict a civil war. You find a reference and call it fringe. In proper English, it is called a strawman. I tell you that if the term is in use it should be in this dab, does not matter who uses it. You do not listen. You ignore all other sources. You write an opinion about me. Then you come and insert your personal opinion into the page. This is ridiculous and borderline vandalism. Next time, I just report you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You give the only reference. I don't know any other sources, so, I ignore zero set. What may I think about this disambig? In 2008 Putin promised a civil war in Ukraine, there was a Ukrainian note of protest. In 2014 Putin said about a civil war in Ukraine. Now Putin pays enormous money to make a war in Donbas, and pays big money to paint a civil war in Ukraine. Happily, in 2016 there isn't any civil war in Ukraine, it is a strong fact: I live in Kyiv, my uncle lived in Lugansk, my friends live around all Ukraine. But what for to re-paint somebody's bloody anxiety dreams in Wikipedia? I cann't understand. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 19:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC).

What you think and what I think and what Putin thinks is absolutely irrelevant for this issue. What is relevant is whether the term is used in the sources and is a plausible search term. My claim is that it is, even if you or I do not like the sources. However, I am sure I can find many more examples of usage in English. Will do the search now again.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

See google. 1 and 2 are irrelevant, 3,4,5,6,7 are from Wikipedia. So, I cann't find another relevant independent of Wikipedia sources. Please, help me find them. As Google shows, now Wikipedia spams Putin's propaganda. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 19:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC).

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. They have a very different background but all use the term. None of them is a Russian propaganda outlet. Note that the Huffington Post has a tag "Ukraine civil war" [7]. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Plus [8], [9]. Indeed, it is a used term. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 19:46, 20:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC).

Great. Now the good thing would be to leave the redirect in peace but instead go to the article on the conflict in Eastern Ukraine and write a paragraph on the usage of the term "civil war" in relation to the conflict. But this would require checking a lot of reliable sources, not just using the term, but writing about the usage, and I am not sure I have time right now for such research. The article War in Donbass actually has a section "Labelling of the conflict", which is clearly insufficient.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am agree «to leave the redirect in peace», because the redirect is peaceful, but now we have only very provocative disambig. To leave such bellicose thing? No, it is very dangerously. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 11:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC).

I do not see any other options here. If this is a plausible search term, it should be in the disambig.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Yaroslav, I've agreed it is used search term, but I can not yet agree that the term «Ukrainian Civil War» is plausible as «2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine». May be, I misunderstand English term «plausible». Sorry, I need to consult with mediator. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 14:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC).

Oh, now I see the problem. Yes, this one can be removed as far as I am concerned.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• So, we have achieved the first serious consensus. I am very glad. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 18:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC).

to the second serious consensus

continuation of the previous chapter

There are at least two extreme opposite points of view to the war in Donbas, each supported by RS

1. war in Donbas is only Ukrainian Civil War
2. war in Donbas is only Russian war against Ukraine, there are no Ukrainian Civil War

It seems, a disambig Ukrainian Civil War to War in Donbas without any attribution is POV-pushing of the 1-st extreme point of view.

— Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 20:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC).

Well, I totally disagree. This is not a place for attributions, They should be made in the article itself.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

about responsibility of Wikipedia

Ярослав, я плохо владею нюансами английского, поэтому скажу по-русски очень важные вещи. Если это необходимо, переведу, только прошу исправить грубые ошибки перевода.

Википедия, как любая энциклопедия, формирует сознание. Она может, нарушая НТЗ, АИ, МАРГ и проч., безответственно усиливать и спамить ложную картину того, что происходит в Украине. Чтобы никто не заметил реального начала гражданской войны в Украине. А может сообщать читателям о лживости пропаганды того, что в Украине уже есть гражданская война, тем самым по мере возможности предотвращая её.

Если не играть с правилами, Википедия будет способствовать миру. Иначе — почти неизбежно становится инструментом войны. Полагаю, что утверждение (которого нет в WP:D) «it is pretty much sufficient that there are sources calling it civil war», и есть WP:GAME.

— Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 22:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC).

К сожалению, совершенно не могу согласиться. С моей точки это абсолютно противоречит как букве, так и духу Википедии. Зовите медиатора, WP:DRN.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

У меня огромный запас уважения после итога более чем пятилетней давности. Поэтому ещё не иссяк оптимизм. Отложим. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 20:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC).

Я надеюсь, Вы понимаете, что подобные фразы можно воспринимать исключительно как "он со мной не согласен, поэтому он подонок, а я-то на основании прошлого опыта думал, что он порядочный человек". Несмотря на то, что Вы не входите в мою референтную группу, мне читать это исключительно неприятно. И уж точно моего мнения о правилах английской Википедии это никак не изменит.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Не мог даже подумать о таком восприятии. Я имел в виду, что Вы, сколько помню (см. линк), глубоко вникаете в суть вопроса. Поэтому оптимизм. У меня меньше опыта: 14 576 правок (в анвики 230), у Вас 234 498 (в анвики 83 651). Поэтому отложим, я должен глубже вникнуть. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 10:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC).

experience of Russian Wikipedia

@Ymblanter: Посмотрите ru:ВП:УКР/З#Восстановлен редирект, last version. Я приводил Ваши аргументы о значениях дизамбига, никто их не воспринимает.

Пришли к следующему (квинтэссенция): есть общепринятые значения дизамбига (факты), есть спорные (мнения), очень спорные (маргинальные мнения). В другой плоскости, есть значения дизамбига приемлемые и неприемлемые: "Если в ВП:УКР найдутся посредники, которые такое поддержат, то я с таким посредничеством ничего общего иметь не буду. wulfson 19:44, 19 ноября 2016 (UTC)".

Предлагаю тот же подход применить здесь: отметить второе значение как часть информационной войны, спорное, провокационное, неприемлемое. Полагаю, есть более чем достаточно АИ, что wp:POV pushing ложного термина — это часть информационной войны, попытка некоторых (хорошо известных всему миру) сил назвать конфликт в Украине гражданской войной, развязать войну.

— Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 23:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC).

У нас другой проект со своими правилами. То обсуждение вообще нерелевантно. Касательно спорности: я бы, может, согласился, если бы речь шла исключительно про источники, аффилиированые с одной стороной (в данном случае российской). Но я по Вашей просьбе нашёл совершенно нейтральные источники, употребляющие этот термин. Так что добавление определения "информационная война" или чего-то подобного будет оригинальным исследованием.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's begin more careful analysis of all RS 19:34, 19:46, 20:12, 9 October 2016 / Начнём внимательный анализ источников 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 00:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC).

so, let's begin

• 2, Ukraine's Bloody Civil War: No End in Sight / James Carden, The National Interest, March 31, 2015 / MOSCOW – After spending several days in and around Donetsk

James Carden, Here's Why Arming Ukraine Would Be a Disaster, February 10, 2015 / The joint report by the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs calling for the United States to arm Ukraine to the tune of $3 billion a year through 2017

• 3, Jewish immigrants flee Ukrainian civil war, Arutz Sheva Staff, 29/08/16 18:05
• 4, Ukrainians turn ammunition into art to depict horrors of civil war, Reuters, Tue Sep 27, 2016 | 1:05pm (Reporting by Margaryta Chornokondratenko; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)
• 5, Zorya Luhansk are the club forced from their own home by the Ukrainian civil war... now they're aiming to take down Manchester United / By Chris Wheeler for MailOnline / Published: 16:16 GMT, 28 September 2016 (Daily Mail)
• 6, Is the EU responsible for the crisis in Ukraine? by Charles Grant / May 26, 2016
• 7, Ukraine Civil War, The Huffington Post
• 8, How Putin Ignited a Civil War in Ukraine / The forces fighting in Ukraine are usually described as "Russian-backed separatist forces." "Separatist-backed Russian forces" would be more accurate. / By Alina Polyakova, Newsweek On 7/4/15 at 1:23 PM / Alina Polyakova is associate director, Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council. This article first appeared on the Atlantic Council site.
• 9, How the Ukrainian Civil War Started, By Eric Zuesse. Global Research, May 26, 2014

— Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 20:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC).

who uses this term?

the only source i have ever seen using the phrase, was extremely partisan and unreliable. Are there any RELIABLE sources (peferably non russian) that regularly use THIS exact title instead of the other 3-5 more common options listed on the disambig page? ~~ 75.164.211.139 (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)