Talk:Ukrainians rally in memory of Donbass dead

Reviewer remarks

There's always a big issue with trying to work on review from a language you know nothing of. That being said, I've run the text of the first source through Google translate (it makes for pretty dire Engrish), and it appears to back up quite a few of the article's points without being a translated scuff-up.

This isn't being reported anywhere in the west. Instead We have reports of "heavy fighting" in Donetsk. So, I'm very puzzled as to what the real situation is. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[Edited above] BBC source backs up the submission, once read in-full. That starts to put some context on this. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It`s very sad if western Media write nothing about terrorism in Donetsk region as well as about a march in ukrainian cities. Though it seems you have an article about this in Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buhas_bus_attack. As for march, the article in KiyvPost is quite good as for my opinion. --A1 (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• It got mentioned in passing, but that was about it. There's a news-based saying on that which I can't currently recall. Will take a more-detailed look at this in a bit, have to deal with a mail problem for someone here... --92.40.248.157 (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking it over for a different review criterion — neutrality — I immediately see a couple of difficulties in the first paragraph. First, we avoid the word "terrorism", or "terrorist", except when reporting that someone else used that word. Second, the term "Krelin-backed" is problematic, since last I recall the Kremlin denies it. (Whether the denial is plausible isn't the point.) --Pi zero (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I changed "terrorists" to "militants", and "Kremlin-backed separatists" to "separatists". --Pi zero (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I`ve added some posters, words by V. Klytchko and a link to goverment portal with using the term "terrorists". This term is not my OR, it is widely used. --A1 (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

As a neutral news site, we can report about the use of the term, as long as we have verification; we just can't assert the judgement as fact. Wikinews neutrality requires us to label opinion as opinion even if it's widely held. --Pi zero (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3174948 [Not ready]

Revision 3174948 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Verification: A second, independent source is needed, perhaps more than one, for details of what happened in the incident on the 13th. How many were killed, and how many injured? Seems to me we should either get some sourcing for how the details are known, or report that there are varying accounts — we can perfectly neutrally report, say, that Ukrainian media say this while Russian media say that, and let our intelligent readers judge the situation for themselves. I was unable to find in the sources "Zaporizhia as well as some towns in Donetsk and Luhansk regions under Ukrainian control" "participants in Lutsk and Khmelnytsky requested the Goverment to recognise Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic as terrorist organisations officially" If Ukraine did officially recognized one or both of those as terrorist organizations, that might be good to mention. Things I fixed: In addition to a few neutrality problems, including the two mentioned above, and some minor stylistic stuff (such as wikilinks), I also addressed a problem with a lengthy passage in the first paragraph that was pretty much identical to source. Do not copy passages from source. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 3174948 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Verification: A second, independent source is needed, perhaps more than one, for details of what happened in the incident on the 13th. How many were killed, and how many injured? Seems to me we should either get some sourcing for how the details are known, or report that there are varying accounts — we can perfectly neutrally report, say, that Ukrainian media say this while Russian media say that, and let our intelligent readers judge the situation for themselves. I was unable to find in the sources "Zaporizhia as well as some towns in Donetsk and Luhansk regions under Ukrainian control" "participants in Lutsk and Khmelnytsky requested the Goverment to recognise Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic as terrorist organisations officially" If Ukraine did officially recognized one or both of those as terrorist organizations, that might be good to mention. Things I fixed: In addition to a few neutrality problems, including the two mentioned above, and some minor stylistic stuff (such as wikilinks), I also addressed a problem with a lengthy passage in the first paragraph that was pretty much identical to source. Do not copy passages from source. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

• Btw, we need a different headline, as we don't want Wikinews appearing to endorse the "terrorism" label (we can report on that judgement by others, but we don't take a position either way on it). --Pi zero (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  The main English-language source uses the tеrm "terrorism". As far as we don`t use Original researches, it would be more correct to use this term. In ukrainian-language sources we could see terms "march of peaсe" (марш миру) and "in memory of victims of terrorism" (пам'яті жертв тероризму). The second one is much more concrete and close to the fact and nearly the same as "against terrorism". And yours one is original research. It is incorrect. The reason of march was not because 13 people "died", but because 13 people were "killed" by terrorists. And don`t be afraid of the word "terrorism". --A1 (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The most important question now is whether the article headline, as the article was published, is actually wrong. It looks to me, from the sources, as if it was a rally against terrorism in memory of the people who were killed. If that is the case, the existing headline is correct and we don't have to issue a {{correction}}. It's too late to rename it now. (Peripherally, we also don't use a headline identical to one of the sources, and here one of the sources had exactly the English-language headline "Ukrainians rally against terrorism".)

Yes, the main English-language source uses the term "terrorism". Afaict, some of the Ukrainian-language sources use an equivalent Ukrainian term. But other news sites take political positions all the time; that doesn't mean Wikinews does so. We don't. We remain neutral, even if the political position happens to be one that everyone here agrees with. Our task is to publish the facts without presenting opinions as if they were objective facts. Not our opinions, and not anyone else's either.

With more of a discussion before publication, perhaps we could have come up with a headline that made it clear the protesters were using the word terrorism (or equivalent) without the headline making it appear as if we were endorsing a political position. Alas, that didn't happen. --Pi zero (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3179913 [Passed]

Revision 3179913 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 3179913 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

The renaming was done without consensus. The meaning of the word "die" does not reflect a violent character of death, while the main purpose of the event was protest against terrorism, against some actions killing peolpe. --A1 (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't apply here. Part of a reviewer's responsibility is to not let things get published with violations of Wikinews policy. That headline violated Wikinews policy, and I let you know it was going to have to be changed; unfortunately, you misunderstood why it was unacceptable. I would have preferred to consult with you about alternatives, but by the time I commenced my review — delayed because the article was revised but not submitted for re-review — there was no time left for consultation. Any further delay would have prevented the article from being published at all.

The word "die" does not reflect a violent character of death, but also does not imply a non-violent character of death.

Are the following statements both true?

• The rally was against terrorism.
• The rally was in memory of those people.

If the second is not true — if the rally was not also in memory of them — then the headline is false and we need to issue a correction. We don't want a false headline to stand without correction. --Pi zero (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong city name

{{editprotected}} "Odessa" changed to "Odesa", "Dniepropetrovsk" changed to "Dnipro", "Zaporizhia" changed to "Zaporizhzhia" https://mfa.gov.ua/en/correctua ITZQing (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

According to Kyiv on Wikipedia, these were the standard spellings in the West before about 2018. We don't rewrite history. Also note the original author, evidently a proud Ukrainian, used these spellings, so that suggests they were common in Ukraine, too. Heavy Water (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a discussion about it, it's appropriate to do WP:KYIV ITZQing (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikinews does not change old articles based on new information. We do update our categories, such as when we changed Category:Kiev to Category:Kyiv. Cheers, SVTCobra 05:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand this, but these names were decided in 1996, The "Romanization Resolution" adopted by the United Nations was in 2012, and the time of the news is 2014-2015. It cannot be considered that new information replaces old information, and the content should be corrected. ITZQing (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Not done See my reasoning at Talk:Russia launches full-scale invasion against Ukraine. --SVTCobra 08:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)