Talk:Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Progress

@Iryna Harpy: I think I've made progress on the Donbass section, but I'll be honest and say that I'm more of a Central European history type, so my knowledge of this area of Ukraine is somewhat limited. Do you mind checking over my work? RGloucester — ☎ 22:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm also wondering as to what's relevant for Kharkiv and Odessa. For Kharkiv, maybe something about Sloboda Ukraine. For Odessa, Russian colonisation. I'm having difficulty finding sources. RGloucester — ☎ 01:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a read through and thinking on sources for developing the background without going too far
WP:OFFTOPIC. I think I'm going to have to go on a reconnaissance mission to my old workplace to wade through the Slavic Studies archives. I don't know whether I can stomach it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I thought I'd toss something I've had bookmarked for ages into the works as I've observed some questions cropping up on RGloucester's talk page. If nothing else, it'll assist in qualifying the questions of Jewish languages. Empire of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge & the Making of the Soviet Union] addresses Soviet census issues and previous Russian Empire census issues. This, and others of its ilk, will be brought out by POV-ers in order to discredit the concept of ethnicities (other than 'Russian') as existing, and that the Ukrainian elite pushed the nationalist question. Do remember that, according to Russophiles, Ukraine is a fake country based on a fake nationality/ethnicity. Ukrainians are still Little Russians who just want to pretend they exist. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion

  • @Iryna Harpy:@RGloucester: So far, I've found these 2 sites about the Census of 1926, concerning to Ukraine: [1] and [2]. By what I see there, there was already a higher proportion of Russians in Donbass, and there was a higher proportion of Jews and Poles in the West, with overwhelming Ukrainian majorities in the middle. But I still couldn't find very useful data in terms of numbers, in that census. And I couldn't find yet information concerning to the censuses carried during Tsarist Russia (before the War of Independence). I think it would also be useful to compare the censuses immediately before and after WW2. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet Census (1937). Just a quick look at this article might provide you with some insight into why even the 1926 census is not necessarily entirely 'honest'. This paper on "THE SOVIET CENSUSES OF 1937 AND 1939:SOME PROBLEMS OF DATA EVALUATION" might give you a little more insight into the issue. There is also already information in Wikipedia regarding Censuses in Ukraine
, including under the Russian Empire.
There was a famine in 1921 which has been conflated into a Wikipedia article entitled "
Russian famine of 1921" where Ukrainians, Belarusians and, even more preposterously, Georgians are treated as being 'Russians'. In other words, I doubt that anyone will ever be able to establish anything other than extremely rough guestimates regarding the demographics of the region. It makes working up a 'background' one hell of a confusing and problematic proposition. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree that it is confusing, but it seems like a worthwhile thing to do, or at least attempt. RGloucester — ☎ 01:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy:@RGloucester: According to what I read, the censuses of 1937 and 1939 are not reliable at all, so they should be dismissed as sources. Concerning to the census of 1926, less criticism is made. Well, we can't dismiss all the censuses in the Ukrainian history! We may point out that their results might be distorted because of this or that. The last census was in 2001, and the next one will only be in 2016. It's probably the most reliable one. Maybe we could use the 1926, 1959, 2001 and eventually some censuses closer to the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1970, 1979, 1989). If there are data from the Tsarist period it would also be welcome. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not suggesting that it isn't worth trying to put together a background section. What I am trying to make you aware of is that, if you think the trolls are flying in thick and fast now, just wait until both lots of POV-ers get stuck into using background info as a political edit warring and disruptive editing nightmare. Trying to proscribe which census info should be considered as close as possible to being 'neutral' and keeping out the card carrying nationalist fanatics is going to be extremely difficult to justify. We don't have enough policies and guidelines to keep ethical evaluations in check.
That said, I'm not one to shy away from a challenge. I do see great value in providing a contained background for the readers as to pre-existing conditions and tensions in the region. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with
War in Donbass article. And the article about the unrest has been relatively calm, these days, apart from a pro-Ukrainian POV edit by an IP user and several pro-Russian POV edits by User:Russianunited, who actually attacked me and has already been warned. Anyway, I don't think we should be intimidated by the possibility of POV edits, because there are ways to deal with them.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
fall of the Soviet Empire, many Azov Greeks left for homeland (Greece). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Aleksandr Grigoryev Yes, as I said, I had already read about them. And I already had read that they gave the cities near Mariupol where they live now very similar names to those where they used to live in Crimea. Why did they move from Crimea to Southern Donbass? That's also an interesting question.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bakhchisaray Cave Monastery). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Greeks in Ukraine. It might eventually be improved.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Draft:Background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. I guess the use of the English language can be improved there. It may also contain information that you may not consider useful or that might be compressed. I've looked at the census of 2001, and made the counts on an Excel file. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Wow, it gave a lot of work to you, by what I've seen, RGloucester! Thank you also for making more concise the part I had written. And yes, I agree that the historical issues shall be developed in that draft, and there is a lot of stuff on the web about it, so it should not be difficult. Some important information may, eventually, exist only in printed books. Do those references count? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Books are just as good as web sources. Just make sure to provide full citations with page numbers, so that they can be verified. I'm nearly done with the Donbass section, and I'm going to spin-off the background section
2014 Crimean crisis to this new article. However, if you could work on the Kharkiv and Odessa sections, or provide any new information you have to the Donbass/Crimea sections, that'd be appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 22:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, I'll be glad to work on that too. By the way, I found some results of the "Donetsk District" and "Mariupol District" from the Census of 1897 (though only the spoken languages, not the ethnic groups). But I don't know what area was covered by each district. And there might be other districts as well, in the territory of the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts. [3] [4]. I'll check the names of the other cities there to see what are their current names, and where they are.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found Donbass census data from 1897 in this book, so that's all set and done. RGloucester — ☎ 02:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, great! There is also the District of Slovianosebersk (in the Luhansk Oblast): [5] Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And here are the data about the "Oleksandrivsk District": [6] and Bachmut (Artemivsk) District: [7]. The Donetsk district probably included parts in the Donbass region, in Ukraine, and parts in Russia. By the way, there is another Donetsk, in Russia, and I'm not sure to which Donetsk is it named after.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Donetsk, i.e. the city in Ukraine, was called "Yuzovka" in Imperial times. The area that is now called Donbass was mainly in Yekaterinoslav Governorate, with some parts in the Don Host Oblast and Taurida Governorate. RGloucester — ☎ 04:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the figures (excluding the Donetsk District): Total population: Mariupol district - 254,056, Slovianosebersk dist. - 174,753, Oleksandrivsk dist. - 271,678, Bachmut (Artemivsk) dist. - 332,478; Total = 1,032,965; % of speakers: Ukrainian: 60.3%, Russian: 22.7%, Greek: 4.7%, German: 4.5%, "Jewish" (Yiddish?): 3.5%, Tatar: 1.6%, Belarusian: 0.9%, Moldavian/Romanian: 0.7%, Others: 0.9%. Taurida seems to me to include Crimea, and parts of the Kherson and Zaporizhia Oblasts, I didn't find anything about being in Donbass too. Are you sure that the Donetsk District didn't have any territory in Ukraine? Because 38.9% of people there spoke Ukrainian there. And the Donetsk city in Russia is right next to the border. I'll look at the Don-Host Oblast a little later.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2014

"Ukrainians dominated rural areas, but cities were often inhabited solely by Russians...", as you wrote in the draft: What about the Jews? They were typically city-dwellers and there were 36,265 Jews in those 4 districts I mentioned. Though they were only 3.51% of the total population, I guess the urban population wasn't very large either, by that time!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2014

I don't know anything about "Donetsk district", but I imagine that if it existed, it is related to the river rather than any city. The "Donetsk" in Russia was originally a Don Cossack village with an odd name, and then became "Gundrovka" in the early 20th century. Certainly the Ukrainian Donetsk was not called "Donetsk" at the time of the census. RGloucester — ☎ 12:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I got different data from those 4 districts those you indicated in the draft. And I made also a count including the Donetsk district, which also differs, with its population exceeding the one you wrote (which is natural if it's at least, partly in Russia). So, including the Donetsk district: total population: 1,488,784; Ukrainian: 53.8%; Russian: 34.1%; others: 11.3%. The Don Hon governorate you told me about maybe it was the same one where the Donetsk district was, but in the census that I've consulted, they call it the Don Voisko Oblast (it's the only division called Don there). But there was also the Kharkov governorate, for instance. It could have a part in Donbass. You were quick, sorry for not having contributed more, I was busy trying to decipher this census online. I also read parts of the book you told me, but there are missing pages on the online version.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kharkov Governorate didn't include any parts of Donbass. "Voisko" means "Host". I wish I had a map, because I have no idea where this "Donetsk district" is. It could be anywhere along the river. What governorate is it in? RGloucester — ☎ 16:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Donetsk district is in the "Don Voisko" or "Don Host" (the same as you said) Oblast. It's not called a governorate. It includes a city called "Stanitsa Kamenskaya" or "Kamenskaya". I think it is Kamensk-Shakhtinsky, in the Rostov Oblast, very close to Donbass.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as I suspected, that's not in the area where most Ukrainians are. RGloucester — ☎ 18:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But there were many Ukrainians there. I guess it also included areas in Ukraine. Well, you've asked me to work on this draft and until now I did very little, sorry. You can leave the Odessa Oblast history for me, now, if you want to have rest! It will be interesting, with all that mix of Ukrainians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Russians...Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were many Ukrainians around in different areas at this time, as the boundaries were more fluid. At least, that's my understanding. Now, however, that's obviously not a Ukrainian area...perhaps it was Russified. Anyway, I'll leave Odessa to you. Has a more complicated history. Ottomans, Romania, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 18
19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is a map, but it's from 1882. And in this map, the Kharkov governorate or Oblast also included a large portion, in Northern Donbass: [8] Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, you're right. I need to check my book again. However, the would explain why northern Luhansk Oblast is mostly populated by Ukrainians, given that it must've been part of Sloboda Ukraine. It is culturally distinct from the Donbass proper. RGloucester — ☎ 18:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mondolkiri1: Let's move this discussion to the draft talk page, so that the discussion stays with the content. RGloucester — ☎ 18:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mondolkiri1: Yeah, what've I found out from this article (JSTOR required) is that ethnic Ukrainians did have minority populations across the territories of the Don Cossacks, in addition to the Ukrainians in Kuban (which I knew about, but which I thought were not relevant here). RGloucester — ☎ 18:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RGloucester Yes, it makes sense, since the borders existed inside the Russian Empire; most people (I guess) had never frequented school, where they'd learn a standardized language, so on. I have new figures, including the Starobelsk (Starobilsk) district, in the Kharkov governorate. Including those 4 districts in Yakaterinoslav governorate and 1 in Kharkov governorate: total population of Donbass: 1,392,250; Ukrainian: 66.27%; Russian: 20.62%; Greek: 3.48%; German: 3.43%; Jewish (I guess Yiddish): 2.61%; Tatar: 1.16%; Belarusian: 1.03%; Moldavian/Romanian: 0.52%; others: 0.87%. We could consider these figures, if you don't have any additional information, since these ones are definitely the districts that there were in Donbass (Donetsk + Luhansk Oblasts). The other districts of Kharkov governorate had all their main urban centres either in the Kharkov Oblast, or the Sumy Oblast, or in Poltava Oblast. Mondolkiri1 (talk 20:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RGloucester There is a book here (still about ancient times in the Odessa Oblast history) that has one ISBN on paper and another on "cloth". Which counts?Mondolkiri1 (talk 21:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you a lot for keeping the Odessa Oblast history for me. I've discovered that it was actually a territory heavily inhabited by Romanians - Latins (my people)! I'm doing the best I can, though not as quickly as you usually do! Mondolkiri1 (talk 22:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good so far, though I recommend cutting some of the historical details and focusing on demographic trends, since that's the most important thing. Should also mention that Budjak was part of the Kingdom of Romania in the interwar period. RGloucester — ☎ 23:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right! It's time to look at the 1897 census again for me, concerning to the Odessa Oblast. Thanks for the appreciation. Maybe I'll still do something today, maybe I'll continue tomorrow. I hope it's good enough (though incomplete) until now.Mondolkiri1 (talk 00:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was the Tiraspol district which was part of the Kherson governorate, which included the territories in the Odessa Oblast, today. The problem is: Tiraspol is the capital of the self-proclaimed republic of Transnistria, in Moldova! What do I do with that? Apart from that, I already have the data for 2 districts that were definitely in the Odessa Oblast, in 1897: Ananyev (Ananyiv) and Odessa: total population: 875,804; Ukrainian: 34.07%; Russian: 29.41%; Jew; 17.83% (well, that would be worth a mention about the holocaust); German: 8.32%; Moldavian/Romanian: 4.91%, Polish: 2.31%; Bulgarian: 0.99%; Greek: 0.88%; Belarusian: 0.21%; Tatars: 0.17% and others: 0.90% (not counting with Tiraspol... should we count it??) Mondolkiri1 (talk 01:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Alright, let's stop for a minute. Most of Odessa Oblast was not part of the Kievan Rus, as far as I can tell. It was under Byzantine and Bulgarian rule, I think. Regardless, it seems that the early history is quite complicated. I'd recommend, at this point, starting the history from the Ottoman period through the Imperial Russian period. That's the most important for our purposes, and is also the most linear. That way we don't have to deal with Byzantines, Bulgarians, or the Rus'. RGloucester — ☎ 01:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can correct whatever you think it's appropriate to correct. Maybe large areas of it were parts of the Byzantine or the Ottoman Empires, like here in the 12th, 13th century, large portions of this country were part of the Almoravid or the Almohad empires/kingdoms... My city was a moorish town, it was literally Moroccan until the 12th century. Well, the borders changed a lot in history, and we can't transport them to the present. Maybe that could be a reason why the Donetsk district could be considered in Donbass, or Tiraspol district could not, I don't know! I don't have every answers, being from a country that since the Napoleonic adventures (and I curiously, I'm descendant from a Napoleonic official and there's a city in France with one of my names) hasn't had any border changes!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy:, you have also been invited to contribute here... you often make more precious (very precious) contributions in the Talk Pages than in the actual articles. This is a draft. I was still worried that RGloucester had statisticaly done 95% of the job, now I guess I did 25%... you surely can do your own job too! In the Talk Page, if you prefer. Your contributions, whatever they are, are always very valuable, indeed!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester:, how do I know if the map that I provided to you is free or not? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That map is copyrighted. RGloucester — ☎ 04:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a pity. It could be useful, I think. I've also invited Iryna to participate. I'd be glad that it wasn't just you and me. And she's descendant from Ukrainians. I think she prefers to work in the back-office, which is also very useful!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather work on it from the talk page for the moment. Bear in mind that I work on a lot of articles on ex-Soviet countries and their history, as well as categories, etc. I really only weighed in on the current affairs in order to try to keep some kind of perspective on high-traffic articles via use of the talk pages, to cite check sources, plus keep on top of POV insanity from all sides.
Given the scope of the article, it's not one to be cobbled together in a couple of weeks and released without being incredibly tightly written and proscribed in the issues involved. To unleash it without being confident that it can withstand scrutiny would probably mean the unleashing of the biggest coatrack Wikipedia has ever seen. Just imagine it as a lamb tied to a tree to lure out a few packs of starving wolves, because that's exactly what it will be if not expertly handled. Demographics are just the tip of the iceberg. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Harpy It's already well sourced, but we can double-check the sources. It will be more difficult concerning to the sources that are not online. And a lot of this information in on other articles as well. It could be problematic if the other articles concerning to these Oblasts we have been writing about, would also be subject to all kinds of POV editing, in order to distort the reality. We'd have to be careful about it. I think it can wait some weeks or even more than that. But, on the other hand, this article could be explanatory concerning to the positions of both sides. It might be useful to control POV editing on the articles concerning to the unrest and the War in Donbass. But you've been an editor for a longer time than I've been, and you have that broader perspective, taking into account that you've been also been editing about other issues in the former Soviet Union.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be in a good state to me. Needs a bit more flesh in some places, but overall it seems ready to go to article space. RGloucester — ☎ 20:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RGloucester What do you think about Iryna's fears that this article might unleash a wave of POV edits?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's comes with working in such a contentious area. We can handle it, as we do other articles. I'll keep an eye on it, don't you worry. RGloucester — ☎ 23:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm brimming over with confidence... just like control has been kept over the recent events articles (from every article created for timelines being taken over by Ukrainophiles, Russophobes and their sympathisers, or Russophiles, Ukrainophobes and their sympathisers. I'm sorry to be discouraging but, having read this article, I'm not feeling very well at all. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can't be held hostage, here. What problems need fixing? RGloucester — ☎ 12:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect I'm just being melodramatic. It won't become a known quantity until it's become a known quantity, (i.e., when more users/contributors become aware of the article). I've always been prone to seeing the big picture before the details. Just take me for what I am: a worrywart. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Article looks okay, other than the map. It implies that there are some sort of large-scale pro-Russian protests or even sentiments in places where there are not. If it doesn't provide specifics, it presents a false picture. Based on election results, for example, Dnipropetrovsk, Kherson and Mykolaiv regions cannot be classified as "pro-Russian" and Odessa is about evenly divided. Someone looking at the map might assume that all these regions are pro-Russian. Themap ought to be rmeoved or at least labelled properly.Faustian (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That map is part of a template, not this article. It is connected to the main article, 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. It doesn't purport to show which regions are "pro-Russian", but which regions had pro-Russian protests (as it says in the legend), as documented at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 16:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It probably should be made clear that some of those pro-Russian protests were minor.Faustian (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a table at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine that documents that. RGloucester — ☎ 23:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is much better. On the map here, for example, Kharkiv is colored in with the RSA activity. A casual reader would think Kharkiv was a rebellious region; in reality it was one building occupied for a few hours. But it has its own color like Crimea or Donbas, as if something similarly important was happening. Also, from the table on the other article I learned that the number of pro-Ukrainian demonstrators outnumbered the pro-Russian ones in Dnipropetrovsk. But this map, which simply labels Dnipropetrovsk as a region with pro-Russian protests, suggests to the unaware reader that Dnipropetrovsk is a Russian-leaning region, because all we know based on that map, is that there were pro-Russian protests there.Faustian (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't assume the readers are stupid. If they click on the link to the main article, they'll quickly learn the "truth" if they have any misconceptions. The only point of the map is to show where there were pro-Russian protests, or RSA occupations, or whatever. It doesn't purport anything else. RGloucester — ☎ 02:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this assumption is realistic. I can easily imagine some lazy journalist glancing at this article for background info about Ukraine and as a result of the map lumping in regions such as Dnipropetrovsk as basically pro-Russian ones, based on the fact that there were protests. It would be nice if the map indicated regions where pro-Ukrainian protests outnumbered pro-Russian ones, and vice versa (such as one color labeled "Area of pro-Russian protests outnumbered by pro-Ukrainian ones" vs. "Area of pro-Russian protests that were larger than pro-Ukrainian ones). This would be more accurate and would eliminate misconceptions.Faustian (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've solved the problem by removing it from the template, as it doesn't belong there. It remains only at the main article, where everything is nicely explained. RGloucester — ☎ 13:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The images previously included in the Odessa Oblast section

RGloucester Why did you remove those images? Do you think they were not relevant? Both? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The memorial for the Holocaust isn't really relevant here, nor is a statue of Catherine the Great. This article is not about general history of those regions, but about the specific historical factors that are spoken about in reliable sources as having an underlying effect on the unrest. The poster that says "Donbass is the heart of Russia" is directly relevant for a variety of obvious reasons, given the revanchism present in the separatist cadre. The picture of Kharkiv during the Holodomor is important because that Oblast was one of the worst affected, and because it primarily affected the Ukrainian-dominated rural areas. I can't see why the Catherine the Great picture is specifically relevant to this article, as opposed to the general article about the city or oblast of Odessa. RGloucester — ☎ 20:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RGloucester Yes, OK, concerning to Catherine the Great... But if there is so much information about the Holodomor, shouldn't there also be something about the Holocaust? It doesn't have directly to do with either the Ukrainians nor the Russians, but it also had a terrible impact in the ethnic composition of the region of Odessa.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but this article isn't really about a non-existent "Jewish revanchism", but about ethnic Russians and Russophones. RGloucester — ☎ 21:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK... though I find a bit weird that the Holocaust is not mentioned in the History part of the Odessa section. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can mention it if you want, but I don't see how it has anything to do with the present situation, really. RGloucester — ☎ 21:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a sentence about it. No, it doesn't have any direct connection with the present situation, but the fact that it previously belonged to the Ottoman Empire doesn't have any direct connection either, and it's mentioned anyway.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that does have a connection, because the Russian Empire conquering it from the Ottomans was what led to settlement by Russians in the region. RGloucester — ☎ 22:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then what about the Moldavians and the Germans, etc, who are mentioned previously? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's just census data, which is included for the sake of completeness. I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that this article is not a general history of these regions. It is merely meant to highlight demographic and historical shifts that have fuelled the unrest. Whilst the near elimination of the Jewish community is important in a general history, it isn't really important in this particular history. That's why we link to the main articles. RGloucester — ☎ 22:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I don't think that a single sentence distorts the article anyway, and since it's in the context of demographic changes, I think it makes sense to talk about the Holocaust as well. It was not only the HolomodorHolodomor that provoked demographic changes.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, one sentence is fine. I'm just saying that we should avoid going into detail and stick with a gloss. RGloucester — ☎ 23:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I agree with that!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for curiosity, what does it mean to "stick with a gloss"?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, it means that we should present it very simply, and cursorily. RGloucester — ☎ 23:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RGloucester Thank you for the explanation. Sorry for this little disagreement that, apparently, existed between you and me in relation to this issue, but I'm glad that it is solved now.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'll take this one. I mainly focus on copyediting issues but will also look over the refs too. Should complete this within a day or two. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIAGA
for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "
    clear and concise", without copyvios
    , or spelling and grammar errors:
    B.
    lists
    :
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an
    appropriate reference section
    :
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B.
    Focused
    :
  4. Is it
    neutral
    ?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are
    copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
    :
    B. Images are provided if possible and are
    suitable captions
    :
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

  • The lead is too short and does not summarise the article. To comply per
    WP:LEAD
    and meet the GA criteria it should act as a "mini article" by summarising every section. At present it is only two sentences long so I would strongly recommend expanding it to at least three paragraphs (for an article this comprehensive and large).
  • Furthermore, can something be
    bolded
    in the lead?
  • "Native inhabitants of these lands were frequently forced out" - which lands? Is this referring to Crimea?
  • Some facts in the Crimea section are unsourced. Sentences include "44.6% were Muslim" and "This association continued into the Soviet period" do not have citations
  • Shouldn't the Crimea section be renamed to History or something similar to a specific period? The content in it is more or less a brief history of Russian influence in Crimea
  • "42.2% of the population of the Crimean ASSR" - instances like these needs to be explained at their first mention. For example "Crimea had autonomy within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic as the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic" should be reworded to Crimea had autonomy within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (SFSR) as the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (ASSR) in order for the reader to understand what they mean
  • "made-up" - why is there a hyphen in made-up?
  • "For the first time in history, ethnic Russians comprised the majority of the population of Crimea" - it ins't clear when this occured
  • There are three Demographics sections in this article. Usually there would be only one level two header in any article, but all of them here mean different things. Would it make it clearer to reorganise it into one larger section?
  • "In 1858, the population of the region was 700,767. By 1897, it had reached 1,453,109" - this needs a citation
  • "According the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain" - should be United Kingdom or at least Britain if it's in the 20th century
  • "only the Roma were reported as not using Russian in daily life, citing Romani instead" - unsourced
  • The second paragraph of the Odessa Oblast section sounds a lot like demographics
  • Some sentences in the Odessa Oblast section also remain unsourced

References

  • The toolserver picks up no dead links, but some are missing access dates

Close - not listed

I'm so sorry to do this, seeing as it had taken a long time for this to be reviewed, but in its current standing the article does not meet the GA criteria and there would also be too much work to be done for this current GAN. Overall the lead does not summairse (a requirement for GA) and also some of the prose could do with a copy edit in order for it to flow better. There are also some statements that do not have a source. It was an interesting read, and it gave me an insight on this as I feel like Russia are being antagonised by the world following this crisis. Anyway, please re-nominate once they're all done, I'll be happy to take it again. Regards ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine/GA2
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'll have a quick read through and will leave comments (if there's anything to address from the last GAN) shortly ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIAGA
for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "
    clear and concise", without copyvios
    , or spelling and grammar errors:
    B.
    lists
    :
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an
    appropriate reference section
    :
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B.
    Focused
    :
  4. Is it
    neutral
    ?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are
    copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
    :
    B. Images are provided if possible and are
    suitable captions
    :
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

  • As with the last GAN, the lead is too short and does not summarise the article. To comply per
    WP:LEAD
    , I always follow the rule that it should act as a "mini article" by summarising almost every section. It is only two sentences long so I would strongly recommend expanding it to a couple of paragraphs (this can be done by shifting content around).
  • "Native inhabitants of these lands were frequently forced out" - which lands? Is this referring to Crimea?
  • Some facts in the Crimea section are unsourced. Sentences include "44.6% were Muslim" and "This association continued into the Soviet period" do not have citations
  • Shouldn't the Crimea section be renamed to History or something similar to a specific period? The content in it is more or less a brief history of Russian influence in Crimea
  • "42.2% of the population of the Crimean ASSR" - instances like these needs to be explained at their first mention. For example "Crimea had autonomy within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic as the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic" should be reworded to Crimea had autonomy within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (SFSR) as the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (ASSR) in order for the reader to understand what they mean
  • "made-up" - does there need to be a hyphen here?
  • "For the first time in history, ethnic Russians comprised the majority of the population of Crimea" - it ins't clear when this occured
  • I notice that there are three Demographics sections in this article. Usually there would be only one level two header in any article, but all of them here mean different things. Do you think it would make it clearer to reorganise it into one larger section?
  • "only the Roma were reported as not using Russian in daily life, citing Romani instead" - unsourced
  • The second paragraph of the Odessa Oblast section sounds a lot like demographics
  • Some sentences in the Odessa Oblast section also remain unsourced

On hold

OK, I realise it's almost the same as the previous GAN as it's only been a day - but I'm sure you can handle it. I have removed the question of "Great Britain" from this GAN and also removed a question regarding a citation after reading your message. In some parts such as the Odessa Oblast section there are a few citations; even if they are from the same source it is still a GA requirement for sentences with facts to have a citation (even when sometimes it does make it messy). Please let me know if you have any questions as it is essentially the same review, but I'll leave this on hold until you're happy with this. Thanks ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed most of the concerns. The only thing left for me to do is to write the lead, which I'm doing now. Please tell me if the other concerns are adequately resolved. RGloucester — ☎ 17:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing them, it should be fine. I'll wait until you've finished with the lead and this should be ready to go ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly behind schedule on this, but I hope to put in the new lead at the weekend. RGloucester — ☎ 04:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jaguar: The new lead is finally implemented! Please take a look, and tell me if you'd like me to do anything else. RGloucester — ☎ 18:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Thank you for the improvements made RGloucester! Looks like we're good to go here. The article is now overall broad, well written and comprehensive. The lead has improved in leaps and bounds, really good work. Looks like a FA candidate now. Again I apologise about closing it last time, I can be a real idiot sometimes so I hope you can forgive me on that. Anyway, well deserved promotion ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weird statement

The identifier "Muslim" is synonymous with ethnic Crimean Tatars -- there might be considerable statistical truth to it, but as written it sounds like nonsense. Can you give an actual figure for how many Tatars are Muslim and how many Muslims are Tatars? Wnt (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is what the source says (this book, page 12). The reason for this kind of confusion is because the 1897
Russian Empire Census and similar subsequent surveys did not take data on ethnicity, only on religion and language. "Muslim" in the data for Crimea is taken to mean "Tatar" by reliable sources, and was extrapolated as such by the census-takers at the time. You can read more about this interesting circumstance in this article. RGloucester — ☎ 17:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

South-East Ukrainian Autonomous Republic

In my last edit I fixed two misunderstandings related to the SEUAR. However I think it deserves a separate subsection, because it is more to it. In fact, the SEUAR article itself is extremely poor even compared with other language versions.

talk) 19:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Work on the republic's article. This is only a summary article, so it should not go into detail. RGloucester — ☎ 19:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But you should not keep wrong text either, and you must have reasonable context. My change was really minimal.
talk) 19:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Your change was incorrect grammatically, and the source says what it says. RGloucester — ☎ 19:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was no call for referendum for secession. Please provide quote.
talk) 19:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The source is cited. Perhaps you should read the cited sources before making absurd claims? It is this book, page 288. RGloucester — ☎ 19:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read carefully my request: Please provide the quote. I did read all thee sources and I don't know which one speaks about secession. Also, I would suggest you to be civil. Now, if you have in mind the quote "some in Donbas suggested they have referendum on separatism", please notice that this quote is too vague to be taken seriously when other sources go into more specific detail to understand what actually was going on. In was not "Someone"; it was in a major congress, and had good coverage. Neither "separatism" always means "secession": it can be autonomy. Finally, "referendum on separatism" is grammatical nonsense: "separatism" is political movement. How you can have referendum on a movement, beats me.
talk) 21:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
It isn't your job to decide whether an RS is grammatically incorrect (it isn't). I think you have skewed perceptions of English grammar, judging by your recent comments and phrasal destruction. RGloucester — ☎ 21:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, suppose that the phrase "referendum for separatism" is not nonsense in whatever language. The referendum discussed at the
talk) 01:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry for misunderstanding. You are right; the problem was my English. I did not pay attention to the comma in ", or for secession" and assumed that secession was described as a topic of referendum. No objection to the text now.

talk) 16:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Requested move 15 December 2016

WITHDRAWN
I was kinda confused. -
talk
)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

talk) 00:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 21:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine → Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War – 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine is just a first first stage of Russo-Ukrainian War‎. After "Russo-Ukrainian War" has become the common name for this conflict, I believe that this article should also be moved to the new title. The new title is much more common than the current one being used. Chichiguy (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – A logical change in title given the new way the articles will be organised. RGloucester — ☎ 13:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – definitely more appropriate name --Damxmare (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name

@RGloucester: what about Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War → Background of the Russo-Ukrainian War? --Renat 13:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Side comment: This article was originally about '2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine' and does a great job of identifies the fault lines along which events in Ukraine pro-Russian unrest played out. However, given the new name\scope, it fails to address any aspect of Russia involvement and years of geopolitical maneuvering in relation to Crimea for example. This conflict between Russia and Ukraine isn't just about 'social, cultural, ethnic, and linguistic factors ' as the lead currently suggest. --Jakey222 (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that is so then shouldn't the good article certification be removed or have the article returned (moved) to its original title (location)? --Alexysun (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the present juncture, it should definitely be returned to its original title. It can't claim to provide background on the present war. RGloucester — ☎ 14:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article scope is to explain the background of the whole conflict, not just the pro-Russian unrest which is a circumstance after Euromaidan. Sgnpkd (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote the article, I'm pretty sure I know what its scope is. Unfortunately, it does not address the geopolitical situation that has led to current invasion, and was never intended to do so. It was meant to explain the historical background / cultural cleavages that exist in Ukraine itself, which contributed to the 2014 unrest. If someone wants to write a new article explaining the geopolitical situation, the Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War title is available. RGloucester — ☎ 19:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

@

WP:BRD. In the first place, the original title and scope was Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. I know, because I am the one that wrote the article. While it was briefly moved a year or so ago, the article never truly dealt with the whole conflict at large. It is obvious that this article's scope cannot adequately address the current war, as it is primarily about domestic factors within Ukraine. Therefore, the solution is to make a new article about the background to the war, rather than copy and pasting random content into this article. RGloucester — ☎ 05:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

In that case the current article should be deleted, as it is pointless having two articles covering the causes of the same conflict. Most of it is random stuff anyways, the demographics of Ukrainian regions and their administrative histories that the article is mostly composed of are not in anyway linked to the unrest in the article. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're not the same conflict. There was genuine domestic unrest in Ukraine in 2014, which preceded Russia's turning that unrest INTO a conflict. Geopolitical factors were not at play as they are now. In any case, this article is listed as a good article. Perhaps instead of going around copy-pasting content from article to article, sometimes without attribution (I've seen you do this elsewhere today), you might try actually writing an article... RGloucester — ☎ 05:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now proposed this article for deletion. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: You based the whole article on your idea that there was "genuine domestic unrest" in 2014, but you don't give any sources to support that idea - which is certainly not mainstream. Mainstream historians like the ones I mentioned below clearly state that the unrest was a result of decisions made in the Kremlin. That you followed a non-mainstream idea when writing this article seems to be the main cause of most of the problems of this article. Rsk6400 (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a good source written even before the start of the unrest: Snyder, Timothy (3 February 2014). "Don't Let Putin Grab Ukraine". The New York Times. The current crisis in Ukraine began because of Russian foreign policy. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problems of this article

  1. Looking through the references, I saw that the article strongly relies on news articles (virtually none of them later than 2014). Experts of Ukrainian history like Timothy Snyder, Andreas Kappeler, or Serhii Plokhy are completely absent.
  2. The only academic book quoted in the lead section is by
    RT
    .

Rsk6400 (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sakwa is in line with other researchers but his 2014 work is outdated, as much more information have become available after.
Furthermore, in the source referenced - Frontline Ukraine - Google Books - on p. 155 I don't see what's supporting wikipedia article text.
In overall, news and outdated sources should be removed, and article rewritten using modern sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. According to

MOS:LEAD
, the lead section should summarize the article. While the body of the article is mostly about the development of the ethnic composition of some regions, the lead is about supposed causes of the Revolution of Dignity and the subsequent events.

4. The main cause (according to the three historians I mentioned above) of the conflict is totally absent from the article: Decisions made in Moscow. ManyAreasExpert, that's also a problem of the supposed Sakwa statement (Thanks for checking !).

5. The lead says: The tensions between these two competing historical and cultural traditions erupted into political and social conflict during the Euromaidan That's a narrative told by some of Putin's friends, but not by serious historians. Kappeler calls Yanukovych's government "kleptocratic" and both Snyder and Plokhy are well in line with the idea that the main cause of the Revolution of Dignity was fighting a corrupt president whose rule became more and more authoritarian. Of course, the Euromaidan was sparked by Yanukovych's refusal to sign the agreement with the EU, but for many Ukrainians the EU meant (and still means) the hope of a life with less corruption and less poverty. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My idea is to wait for replies for some time and then take the article to WP:Good article reassessment. ManyAreasExpert, I think you are right, the article should be rewritten, and I think it has to be rewritten from the scratch. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Important aspects have been omitted:

6.1. The existence of a Ukrainian national movement starting in the 19th century in both Russian- and Austrian-ruled Ukraine, e.g. Taras Shevchenko and Mykhailo Hrushevsky.

6.2. The intentional suppression of Ukrainian language and culture during several periods of Moscow's rule.

6.3. The Holodomor as a man-made (i.e. Stalin-made) famine which has shaped Ukrainian relationship with Russia to this day.

6.4. The non-ethnic character of Ukrainian national identity according to many Ukrainian intellectuals.

6.5. The colonial character of Moscow's rule over Ukraine.

6.6. The importance of controlling Ukraine for the imperialist ideas of Russia's elite. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Many of the aforementioned problems add up to a grossly non-neutral article: Nos 1., 2., and 6., but even more importantly nos. 4. and 5. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_background_of_the_2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine&oldid=1212646213"