Jump to content

Talk:War in Donbas/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Renaming request

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to War in Donbass. OK, so clearly the other proposals (Russo-Ukrainian war, Ukrainian Civil War, Ukrainian Anti-Terrorist Operation) don't have a consensus, the only one that got a significant amount of support was to move to "War in Donbass". In that particular section, there is a clear numerical majority in favour of that term. In addition, there is a consensus that: "war" is neutral in this case because there are ample reliable sources describing it as such and it meets the dictionary definition of the term; "2014" is unnecessary disambiguation because there is no other "War in Donbass" that has a Wikipedia article; that "Donbass" is still the most correct term we can use because "eastern Ukraine" and "south-eastern Ukraine" both inaccurately reflect the scope of the conflict; and that, overall, "War in Donbass" is the most accurate WP:NDESC term at the moment. Jenks24 (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


2014 insurgency in Donbass → Russo-Ukrainian war – Same naming convention as Russo-Georgian War. Most news outlets now referring to the conflict as a "war", especially in the aftermath of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Ukrainian Civil War would be an acceptable alternative name. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose – Talk about WP:Original research. Can't make up your mind about who's fighting who, eh? Is it Russia against Ukraine, or a "civil war" between Ukrainians? I've never seen a more flippant proposal, and it isn't at all backed by reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 21:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Am I not allowed to change my mind? I put it was a civil war originally as I was listening to BBC News at the time and they described it as such, but then I searched the web a bit more and realised that it really wasn't one. What's wrong with that? GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Because they are two entirely different things, neither is verifiable, and saying that both are "acceptable alternatives" makes it clear that you haven't thought out what you wrote, and have no experience with the topic. RGloucester — ☎ 22:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)io
Comment I'll not get too involved any further anyway, it's not my primary area of expertise to be honest, as you'll see on my user page... I've only been dragged into it because of the MH17 tragedy as planes are more of my area GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Concerning to the 1st suggestion, we can't rename an article based on allegations. Concerning to the 2nd suggestion, the insurgency is limited to Donbass, not all Ukraine.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The conflict is between pro-Russian insurgents and the Ukrainian supporters. Where does Russia actually play in? Dustin (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
At the moment, it is a matter of point of view. Ukrainian media and government both consider this a direct war with Russia. I've spoke to some people in Donetsk, and they agree with this assessment. They say there are no actual separatists, just "Little Green Men" and forcible conscripts. Note that the Ukrainian Wikipedia page for this event is written in that manner. Of course, this is all original research, nothing worth basing an encyclopaedia article on. Russia portrays it, on the other hand, as a civil war between two different indigenous Ukrainian forces. The Russian Wikipedia page is written in that manner. The thing is, it isn't our job to pick and choose between the available options floating around. We've got to report what reliable sources say. At the moment, both "civil war" and "war against Russia" are not the common names. The word "war" is sometimes used, but usually in a vague sense. I've found that the word "conflict" is much more common than war. Regardless, that's a different discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 05:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester: Perhaps 2014 civil conflict in Donbass? Dustin (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
"Civil" is inappropriate, because, as I said, that is disputed. Ukrainian sources deny entirely that this is a civil war, as you'll see in the Kyiv Post article that the guy who started this request cited. Furthermore, it isn't used in reliable mainstream western sources. It would have to be plain "conflict", as that's the only neutral descriptor that is being used in the western media, in addition to things like "insurgency". However, I'm not sure that's an improvement on the present title. RGloucester — ☎ 05:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – WP:RS issues and the fact that Russia isn't directly involved in what really isn't much of a war in the first place. United States Man (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to any renaming, and strong oppose to moving without a redirect. I am fed up with the way this article keeps changing name or splitting and migrating. I think it started off as Donetsk People's Republic, but that split and migrated and this bit became 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk, and then it got changed to 2014 insurgency in Donbass. As for moving with no redirect - that is the worst idea of all.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC) If the article is moved :(, then a redirect is needed. This article is leaving a trail or article moves and redirects. Breaking the chain messes up the user's ability to follow the edit history, as text leaps article to article.—Toddy1 (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Where are you getting the idea about it "moving without a redirect"? The edit history is entirely intact, and whenever a page is moved there is alway a redirect. RGloucester — ☎ 14:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I am getting the idea, because that is what is in the redirect proposal! See [[:2014 insurgency in Donbass]] → {{no redirect|Russo-Ukrainian war}} —Toddy1 (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
There would be a redirect if it was moved. There isn't one now, because it has been moved. RGloucester — ☎ 15:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I am sure that I have seen moves done leaving no redirect at the old article name.—Toddy1 (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
That's called a cut-and-paste move. We are not allowed to do that. Requested move discussions never result in a cut-and-paste move. Ever. That's something that would be done unilaterally and incorrectly. RGloucester — ☎ 15:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
You are mistaken. Some move discussions result in the page being moved leaving no redirect under the old page name. This is equivalent of the move taking place and the redirect page being deleted. The moved page has the article history, it just leaves no redirect behind it. The move proposal as written appears to be proposing this.—Toddy1 (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
It isn't proposing that, and I've never heard of that being done. If the proposer didn't specifically say that, I don't think that's what he meant. It certainly isn't what I meant with regard to my proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 15:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Redundant proposal – This has already been proposed by the OP, and it is a non-starter. It is hopeless POV. Furthermore, as I've explained to many people, the Red Cross did not say it was a civil war. Please read the actual press release here. Do you see the words "civil war"? No. You don't. "Non-international armed conflict", the words used, can also refer to what is called an "internationalised non-international armed conflict". In other words, that phrase does not preclude foreign involvement in the way that "civil war" does. RGloucester — ☎ 22:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - With the recent confirmation that Russia is involved, I think "Russo-Ukrainian War" should be the title of the article. This was is very similar to the Russo-Georgian War, in which Russia is siding with two breakaway states. [Soffredo] Yeoman 23:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"War in Donbass"

  • Proposal - I think something like "War in Donbass" might be appropriate. There is a lot of use of "war" and "conflict". "Civil" is contested and a matter of POV, so that must be left out. As the "war" is confined to Donbass, I think the regional clarification is needed. I'd think that this title would be a nice WP:NDESC title. It is neutral, it descirbes the situation adequately, it is recognisable, concise, and precise. RGloucester — ☎ 06:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes,on the basis that there has been no war called "War in Donbass", similar to Russo-Georgian War. I'm not sure whether I support such a chance, but I'm willing to see what other people say. RGloucester — ☎ 14:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Reaper - was there a reason for supporting that particular change of name? If there was, please could you tell us what is was. Move discussions are done, in part, on the basis of the arguments for and against.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course, please read just above your head, also many media outlets are now deciding War is the word to describe the conflict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_insurgency_in_Donbass#Arseniy_Yatsenyuk.2C_Ukraine_Primeminister_describes_insurgency_as_war_3_times_today Reaper7 (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I hope that this will be the last move for a long time. I can't see any reason why it would change. RGloucester — ☎ 16:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support for "War in Donbass" per above. Knew we'd be able to find something eventually. Perhaps close the other move request above (it has no support) and open a formal one here for War in Donbass now? Hopefully we can get it done soon and then there won't be any further changes for a while. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
No need. This discussion is already open, no reason to close it. The administrator who does will assess consensus after seven days, and if it is in support of either proposal, he will close it accordingly. RGloucester — ☎ 17:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester: War in Donbass may no longer be needed. This article by the washington post describes that conflict as a civil war, since the amount of casualties has exceeded 1,000. Even though it only takes place in Donetsk and Lugansk, it still describes it as one. Regardless, if war in donbass is a better title, let's choose that one.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Read here:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/07/20/what-do-citizens-of-ukraine-actually-think-about-secession/

Any inclusion of "civil war" is not neutral. Many sources contest the idea of it being a civil war, and these include the American Department of Defence, NATO, and various others, such as that New York Times article and the Kyiv Post article above. "War" is an objective description, at this point. Whether it is a proxy war or civil war is up for debate, and a matter of PoV. RGloucester — ☎ 18:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support since it's mostly described as a war, and it is in Donbass. The use of 2014 could eventually be useful for some kind of disambiguation. The wars in the Balkans during the 1990s were also described as wars, not as insurgencies. But we can't be always changing the name of the article so drastically. If it's decided to be changed, I'd have also to agree that any further change should be as minimal as possible.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – I see no cons and it appears to be a decent proposal to me. I am still unsure about the inclusion of "2014", however. Dustin (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Inclusion of "2014" would be crystal-balling. There have been no other events called "War in Donbass", and hence, inclusion of the "2014" would be what is called "unnecessary disambiguation". If there is nothing to disambiguate from, we fall back on conciseness. No need to be overly precise. RGloucester — ☎ 18:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
A current event is not crystal-balling. Dustin (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstood me. Including "2014" would be "preemptive disambiguation", implying that there would be another "War in Donbass" in the future, necessitating disambiguation. That is crystal-balling. As there is no previous "War in Donbass", and any presumption about a future "War in Donbass" would be crystal-balling, the 2014 is un-needed. RGloucester — ☎ 18:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I was not completely sure, because the Turks and the Russians fought there in the 18th century, and there could also have been some war or insurgency there during the WW2 or after the October Revolution, but if none of those is not related to Donbass alone, then, I think that the use of "2014" can be avoided.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The point is that there has never been another event called "War in Donbass". There may have been previous fighting there, but never was there an event called "War in Donbass". RGloucester — ☎ 21:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
If there has not been any event called with any similar name, than I agree (again, if people looking for any other clues might find it easily). I didn't look all through the Russian-Turkish War, the war after the Russian Revolution, and the WW2, but if you can be sure of that, of course you can have my support to change the name of the article (but don't change it too often, that's something I'd like to ask you, please!) I also appreciate a lot the opinion of Iryna, if that's possible and relevant.... Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It is like Iraq War. There have been plenty of wars in the area that is now called "Iraq". However, "Iraq War" is the only one called "Iraq War", and hence doesn't take a year. RGloucester — ☎ 23:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, there were 3 Iraq wars, actually, the Iranian-Iraq war, the 1st Gulf War and the 2nd Gulf War. I can disagree with the 3rd one being called the "Iraq War" in Wikipedia, but that's not a reason why I would disagree that this article would be called "War in Donbass" or "Donbass War", or whatever you think it's more suitable to call it. As far as no other war previously was called "War in Donbass" or "Donbass War", I agree, and I support, as I already said that I would support it, as far as the name is not always changing (at least so in a so dramatic way)!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 0:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Not true at all. See OED: "Hostile contention by means of armed forces, carried on between nations, states, or rulers, or between parties in the same nation or state; the employment of armed forces against a foreign power, or against an opposing party in the state". RGloucester — ☎ 16:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem, dear fellow, is that reliable sources are using "war", as cited above. Please see the New York Times article, among others. Also, note that I provided the OED definition, and this conflict meets it to the letter. RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Support. It appears that "War in Donbass" is a better title than the current one. Only two opposes against an early consensus of several supports. The article's name should be changed. Calling the rebels "insurgents" is very POV and gives this article a strongly pro-West bias. 71.161.195.227 (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd take into account more the definitions than if it's POV or not, because POV can be used in either ways. According to Wikipedia: An insurgency is an armed rebellion against a constituted authority (for example, an authority recognized as such by the United Nations) when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents. A belligerent (lat. bellum gerere, "to wage war") is an individual, group, country, or other entity that acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. According to the Oxford Dictionary: Insurgent: noun: A person fighting against a government or invading force; a rebel or revolutionary: an attack by armed insurgents; adjective: 1. Rising in active revolt: alleged links with insurgent groups; 1.1. Relating to rebels: a series of insurgent attacks; War: noun: 1. A state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country: Japan declared war on Germany the two countries were at war for the next eight years.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support International Committee of the Red Cross being itself considered a reference in the United Nations deciding when violence has evolved into an armed conflict has assessed that it is a war, but refrained from calling it a civil war.[1] IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment – With this report, which states that the ICRC has officially termed this conflict a "war", I think all questions about whether it is a "war" or not can be thrown out. It certainly is. RGloucester — ☎ 18:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Very similar to War in the Vendée. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose – I read BBC News regularly but they never call this conflict a "War"; Wikipedia is suppose to reflect sources, not overrule them.... Secondly per Wikipedia:Article titles "Article titles should be recognizable": Most people do not know that a part of Eastern Ukraine is called "Donbass". The once that do know might think an article "War in Donbass" is about World War II in this area.... or all other armed conflicts ever held in it.... To rename this article "War in Donbass" makes the article less recognizable. Most international press label the conflict an insurgency in Eastern Ukraine. Hence "2014 insurgency in Eastern Ukraine" would be the best name for it. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Except that's not true, Yulia, as shown above. The ICRC, the body which usually decides what is a war and what isn't, specifically says that it is a war. Furthermore, so do many other sources, as shown above, such as the New York Times. No one would think it means "World War II" or anything like that, because there was no war ever called "War in Donbass". Otherwise, we'd have to change the name of Iraq War, Gaza War, and War in the Vendée, as there has been plenty of fighting in other wars in these places over time, but only one conflict in each called "Iraq War" or War in the Vendée. Almost no sources label it an "insurgency", and no one has been able to find any as such. Given that sources now call it a war, our naming must follow suit. "Eastern Ukraine", by the way, is unacceptable, as that includes Kharkiv. The war is only in Donbass, and so calling it "eastern Ukraine" would imply that war was larger in scope than in reality. RGloucester — ☎ 19:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Yulia Romero: If that's really your concern, we can deal with it in the same way that it is dealt with at Iraq War, making a disambiguation page like this Iraq War (disambiguation). Please reconsider your opposition to this proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 20:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't want this to become petty but it is really easy to find a source who uses the word "insurgency" or "insurgents". Trying to get a job at Russian TV RGloucester... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yulia, I'm the one that named this article "insurgency" in the first place. I'm well aware that the word "insurgent" is used to refer to the people fighting. However, the conflict itself is almost NEVER described as just an "insurgency". It is a conflict between insurgents and the government. Most of the articles at your link describe it as such. Either a conflict, or a war, or whatever, fought by both an insurgency and the government. None refer to the conflict solely as an "insurgency". RGloucester — ☎ 21:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I read English language sources like the Financial Times and The Economist that have always covered Ukraine, and they do not refer to something called "War in Donbass". It is not a generally recognised name for what is going on. I do not see this name used in reports on the British Government's BBC either.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I know this is personal and we should not write here in such manner, but I hope to convince Yulia towards a general consensus. I think neither RGloucester nor calling this conflict a war is pro-Russian or anti-Ukrainian. Especially considering that Ukrainian government (Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada and former acting Ukrainian president Oleksandr Turchynov consider) calls it this way.IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you see anyone calling it "insurgency in Donbass"? No. Usage is all over the place, but our current title is extremely poor by all standards, as it is used absolutely nowhere. We are using a WP:NDESC title, to avoid taking any kind of point-of-view, and because there is no clear common name. The best way to neutrally describe the current events is "War in Donbass", now, because "insurgency" only reflects on one side of the current conflict, and because the Red Cross, among other sources, call it a war. RGloucester — ☎ 21:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Why? IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Curiously, by what I've read from the document that justifies calling it a war, contrarily to what is being argued here, it's a term that doesn't favor the insurgents, actually, since being a war implies that they're not only responsible for war crimes under the Ukrainian courts, but also under international courts. And the same applies to Ukrainian government war crimes, I suppose. And it's not favorable to the insurgents in other ways, by what I've read. So, in my opinion, saying that the article being called "War in Donbass" is pro-rebel or pro-Russian biased makes no sense at all.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I also think in that direction even more. Compered to "War in Donbass", "insurgency in Donbass" is like pro-Russian, pro-rebel.IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Google search: "War in Donbass": 719,000 results; "Insurgency in Donbass": 154,000 results.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support War has been shown to be the appropriate name. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Who is calling this a war? The support opinions I see here seem to be trying to define what the wording of war means. Google hits (WP:GNUM) are not really accurate either as how many in those numbers include blogs or unreliable websites? Show some major news outlets calling this a war and then we can go from there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Knowledgekid87: I'd appreciate it if you actually read the discussion instead of commenting without reading. I've provided plenty of sources above. Most notably including the Red Cross, which determines whether war crimes trials can be brought before the ICJ and ICC. Also included are the New York Times, Kyiv Post, Reuters, all linked above. I shan't relink then. I expect you to read the discussion above. I'll throw in a few new ones now, like this article from The New Republic, this piece from The Nation, this new piece from The New York Times, this article from the Washington Post, and this article from The Economist. I'll have people note that I've fought every "war" proposal to date. The reason I support this one is because it is now supported by the sources, starting with the New York Times article that initiated my vote in support, as seen above. Now that the Red Cross has said this conflict qualifies as "war", there can be no doubt otherwise. RGloucester — ☎ 03:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/22/us-ukraine-crisis-warcrimes-idUSKBN0FR0V920140722

Can someone from the Ukraine explain why mostly Ukrainian people counter this rename? I am really curious, since not renaming is in my opinion anti-Ukrainian.IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

But for sure it is also not a traditional insurgency. So still I don't understand why could calling this an "insurgency" would be better than a "war". IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Curious, because I looked at the list of proxy wars and I saw the Spanish Civil War there... I never heard anyone call it the "1936-1939 insurgency in Spain".Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nickst: Well, there is a problem with that NickSt. There are multiple points of view. All call it a "war", but some call it a proxy war, some call it a civil war, some call it a direct war with Russia. The article has a section on that. That's why we use "war", as that is a neutral description that everyone can agree on. We can't, however, add the POV bits "proxy", "civil", or "direct", if we want to be neutral. This proposal does not want to rename the article "Traditional war in Donbass". Just plain "war". RGloucester — ☎ 15:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree with RGloucester that 'War in Donbasa' is a better name (for the time being). I am strongly against adding 'proxy' or 'direct' war. As for 'civil' imho it is somehow …strange…and difficult...to say and decide...because of the restricted territory that the events are taking place. O Grego (talk • contribs) 20:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment on what is going on. Every few weeks, some editors are trying desperately hard to find a catchy name for this conflict. Millions of people read Wikipedia, and if only we could invent a catchy name for it, maybe the name would be adopted by the media, and then find its way into the history books. Do not worry, whether the current proposal succeeds or fails, the same people will be at it again in August with a new name proposal: maybe The Santa Claus War or Putin's proxy war in Ukraine? But this goes against Wikipedia's core policies: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought".

Why can we not just wait and see what name this conflict ends up being called?—Toddy1 (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Because it is called a "war", and we know that, as the sources show it. One again, we are not creating a proper name. We are adapting the WP:NDESC title appropriately. There is no common name, and if Gaza War and Russo-Georgian War are any indication, common names are not likely to be established. We are forced to use our editorial judgement to create a WP:NDESC title that is both WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. The present title fails these points, at present. It isn't neutral, as it focuses on one side of the conflict, and it isn't concise or natural, because it isn't a common way to refer to the conflict. The proposed title is neutral, as reliable sources refer to the conflict as a "war", and because it does not take sides at all. It is concise and natural, because it instantly reveals to the reader what it refers to. It is precise, for explaining exactly what is happening: a war in the Donbass region. Like I've said, Toddy, I'm usually one to oppose these spurious move requests. We won't ever be able to satisfy everyone. However, it is necessary for the title to be neutral, precise, and concise. Compromises must be made. RGloucester — ☎ 21:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
To put it straight it is just a matter of whether to call it an insurgency or a war. And we are waiting for now, but I hope not for long as it is time to change. And to tell the truth I think that you, Toddy1 are much more prone to original thought. IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Assume good faith please. Well its not a big thing for me (I do not understand why editors spend hours trying to get articles renamed...) but I believe articles should be named after how events are commonly and thus recognizable named. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title and we should not start to name things taking cues from the Red Cross. Let alone start to decide on articles names because we see it as "a war". I don't think personal feelings should be allowed when deciding on articles names but just common names should be used... Case in point: if we call this article "War in Donbass" then the name for the article about the Congo Crisis does not make sense... Because in the Congo Crisis 100,000 were killed by warfare. Like Toddy1 I also can not see the hurry here and why can we not just wait and see what name this conflict ends up being called... Is it not more useful to improof the content of the article then its name? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Except, there isn't a common name at all, and there certainly isn't one that is neutral. The present title is not the common name. And I never said anything about using an "official" name. It isn't personal feelings. It is called WP:NDESC. If you follow this link, you will realise that many Wikipedia articles are at titles that we've made-up, given the lack of a common name, and the necessity that we be neutral. We must follow the sources. The sources say that it is a "war". Different sources vary on what "kind of war" they think it is. But they do say that it is a war. Therefore, the WP:NDESC demands that we be neutral, and use "war". I have been improving the content of the article, and I've also read plenty of sources. It is important that title of the article is neutral, precise, and concise. The present title is not. RGloucester — ☎ 20:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Lets be precise about that Congo Crisis article. In the beginnig it states it was a series of civil and proxy wars. Unfortunately articles about particular wars were not created - we have much less information about that conflict than this. Today we also have a broader article, called 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, but we are talking about an article which relates specifically to this heavily armed, broad scope killing beteen two considerable and well organized forces. And there are no personal feelings other than need of truth. Also Congo Crisis lasted for more than 5 years. If this war in Donbass would last that long with the current killing rate per time, it would cost approximately 31500 lives. 83.21.136.158 (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NDESC says use "Non-judgmental descriptive titles" and "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words"... How is "war" a "Non-judgmental descriptive title/neutral word"? As I interpretate it WP:NDESC says the article should be renamed 2014 armed conflict in south-east Ukraine.... (Kharkiv is in north-east Ukraine.) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"War" is not a judgemental word. It merely means people fighting with weapons. "Armed conflict" is what is called a euphemism, and the MoS specifically tells us to avoid using euphemisms. We call a spade a spade, we don't try and hide behind constructions meant to "mask" the reality. "Southeastern" implies a broader area than just Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. It would increase the scope of the article to areas like Crimea, Kherson or Zaporizhia, which are not part of this war. "Donbass" is precise, and is used by sources. RGloucester — ☎ 20:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Without realizing it, Yulia Romero justified, on her own way, the use of the term "War" as a title for this article. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the definition of War is: noun: 1. A state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. It fits exactly the definition I linked above. "Armed conflict" is just a euphemism for "war" that is less concise and less natural. Give that the Manual of Style specifies that we should not use euphemisms, and give the article title guidelines favour the concise, natural ,precise, and neutral, "war" must be used. I've provided about as much guideline and source-based reasoning as I possibly can. RGloucester — ☎ 23:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've been watching this RM for a few days and have yet to be convinced that there is any justification for renaming the article, full stop. At what point did this suddenly shift from being an ongoing rebellion to becoming a war? I'm not aware of anything that has necessitated a change of name (other than Yatsenuk's coalition having fallen apart: but that hasn't changed the nature of the subject). —Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Because the present title is inadequate, and does not meet guidelines for titles. It has been flawed from the start, really, and that is my fault more than anyone else's, since I started the article. It isn't neutral or precise, as it only reflects one side in what is now a multi-faceted war. It is not natural, as "insurgency" quite frankly isn't used at all to refer to the war. The separatists are referred to as "insurgents", but the war is never called an "insurgency". It is not concise, as it doesn't instantly signify to the reader what it is referring to. It masks it, in a way, like a euphemism. It doesn't give the reader the knowledge that the reader needs. It needs to unambiguously define the scope of the article, and at present, it doesn't. Now, we also have many, many sources referring to these events as a "war" (when they did not before), as shown above, notably including the Red Cross, who usually makes this determination. I don't think this ever was a "rebellion", in the conventional sense of the word. Sources vary. Some say proxy war, some say civil war, some say direct war, some say "war". Regardless, we must follow the sources, and also follow our title guidelines. The current title does not meet them. RGloucester — ☎ 02:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed that the present title is not a good one. Personally, I found myself parsing the term 'insurgent' and not being able to reconcile it with 'insurgency'. Nevertheless, I prefer to err on the side of caution in terms of renaming it without thinking it through carefully. A change to "War in Donbass" would shift the lexicon. 'War' is a POV term once applied to the content. On the simplest level, the warring parties automatically become 'separatists' versus the government of a sovereign state. What is being assigned is legitimacy to both parties despite the fact that the separatists have no legal recognition and a waging this 'war' within the boundaries of the Ukrainian state. I'd rather stick with an awkward title for a little longer than make bad decisions by not weighing up the entire package. Yes, as you've observed, there are various permutations of the use of 'war' in headlines and articles, but that is precisely the point: there are qualifiers for the use of the word 'war' in every instance. —Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how "war" is a POV term. It does not imply legitimacy of any of the participants, as has been shown in the Oxford definition I provided. I'm not sure why you think it "automatically becomes separatists versus the government". It merely implies people fighting with weapons on a large scale, which is what these events are. The qualifiers are POV additions, "war" on its own is not POV. It just implies the dictionary definition, which reliable secondary sources agree applies to this conflict. They disagree about what kind of war. Therefore, the only solution is to use "war", which means nothing more than "people fighting with weapons on a large scale", and is used by the ICRC. RGloucester — ☎ 04:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I probably should have gone with my initial response which was to support the move. Instead, I suspect I've overthought it rather than being my usual obnoxious, opinionated self. At this point, I'm probably best off thinking about butterflies and fluffy kittens and approaching the matter on a fresh head. —Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
As humans, our ability to overthink things is one of our greatest traits. Otherwise, the world would be simple and boring, and we'd never stumble across anything new. Perhaps this is all a bit more mandarin, but it doesn't usually hurt. RGloucester — ☎ 05:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've gone Hegelian at this moment. Best that I abstain from making a decision until I've played with a few flawed algorithms and get back on track. Cheers for now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
So, you're neutral, right? By the way, it was me who 1st provided the Oxford definition, wasn't it?....Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I did, actually, under Poeticbent's comment… RGloucester — ☎ 14:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
So maybe Ukrainian people try to block this rename because they think that calling it a war will give the other side a legitimacy. Firstly I was not pro-separatist at all. But now I see how Ukrainian people are obsessively countering this rename apparently just to diminish the other side of conflict. So no, I don't want to give separatists a right to rule over Donbass, but I think that on the other side their role should be not diminished. And still I consider that calling it a war is not pro-separatists. Ukrainian people tend to hide their problems until it gets really nasty. IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@IHasBecauseOfLocks:, see WP:TPNO and do not use article talk pages to cast bigoted WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. This is not a forum, and the only person you've indicted as lacking in neutrality is yourself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, yes, sorry, RGlocester! So, until now I counted 13 supports, 5 oppositions and Iryna abstained. Obviously there is no consensus. Would a qualified majority count? How much would that qualified majority need to be? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not a vote. We don't tally votes here. The discussion will continue until an administrator decides that it is suitable for closing, whether in favour or in opposition to the proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 18:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, it's that I don't know how it works, really.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Because it's simple, short, neutral and accurately descriptive. If the conflict broadens then the page might need to be renamed again, but at this point in time I agree that "War in Donbass" is the best title. Esn (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If it's up to an administrator to decide it, unless Iryna Harpy (whose opinion I take a lot into account) expresses another opinion here, I'll abstain from more comments, here, since what is clear for me, for RGloucester and another editors, has already been expressed, clearly. As I said, previously, any further change must be as definitive as possible (with possible very minor changes, like 2014 to 2014-2015, for instance, or so). RGloucester has already mentioned the Oxford Dictionary (which by mistake I thought I had the initiative to mention), a lot of credible sources, including from ICRC, the New York Times, Kyiv Post (a newspaper that can't be consider as pro-Russian, I'm quite sure), Reuters, etc.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

"2014 Ukrainian Anti-Terrorist Operation"

Do you have reliable sources for this? If so, please say what they are as part of this discussion.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose with every ounce of my being – Another one-sided title, and a totally ridiculous one at that. It doesn't even encapsulate the scope of the article. What's more, this proposed title is not the "official name of the conflict in Ukraine". It is the name of a government operation against the insurgents as part of a larger war. What's more, it is hopelessly lacking in neutrality. RGloucester — ☎ 16:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
What is the larger war called within Kiev-allied Ukraine? Esn (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I've seen "Russia's War against Ukraine", "Donbas War", "War in Donbas", and so on. RGloucester — ☎ 00:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


Rename this article from 2014 insurgency in Donbass to Ukrainian Civil War?

  • With Red Cross having official declared the conflict in eastern Ukraine as a civil war, perhaps the article should be renamed?http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-civil-war-red-cross-155410188.htm l In my opinion, this is never an insurgency. The Americans who fought for the independence of the Thirteen Colonies are not referred to as insurgents, so why should the folks in eastern Ukraine be referred to as insurgents? Many call them freedom fighters. To declare the conflict as a war treats both sides with equal respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC) [1]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ukrainian casualty update

Need to include 4 border guards killed on July 28 + 10 soldiers killed on July 29, for a total of 14 more killed.

http://uacrisis.org/rnbo-4/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/29/us-ukraine-crisis-east-idUSKBN0FY0OX20140729 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Percentage of fighters who are Ukrainian

Currently, the introduction states "Russian volunteer paramilitaries make up the bulk of the combatants". The source is the pro-rebelgovernment Moscow Times (the Reuters article mentions the top leadership, but doesn't make that claim about the fighters). Meanwhile, the article's pro-Russian insurgents section seems to contradict the introduction, saying that the Donbass People's Militia is composed of 2/3rds Ukrainians, while the Army of the South-East includes the former Berkut police force. Also, the mobilizations announced by the rebel leaders in recent days would seem to suggest that many of the new recruits are coming from the local area. Rebel sources, of course, say that either 90% of their fighters are local: [2] [3] Or 80-85%: [4]

I've edited the page in order to mention both numbers. Esn (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've also added this source from Die Welt, which contains a claim that 70% of the Donetsk fighters are local (Russian-language paraphrase of that article here) Esn (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, removed that source as it was talking about 70% support by the population, rather than 70% local militia membership. I've instead added the information about local support to the Donbass People's Militia section. I also added this rather interesting interview by a Ukrainian journalist with a Russian militiaman, in which he claims that he saw a 50/50 division between locals and Russian citizens. I would give his testimony higher credence than Casey Michel's "Moscow Times" article, which frankly sounds like regurgitated propaganda claims by somebody living on the other side of the world from the action (though I realize that per Wikipedia's rules we have to take him seriously because he earns a paycheque working as a journalist). Esn (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Moscow Times is owned by Finnish people. It is not pro Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I meant to write pro-government. Esn (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Request to remove Russia (denied by Russia) from the belligerents section

Unless proven with concrete evidence or unless the Russian government officially states that it is involved in the war, the Russia (denied by Russia) should not be there. Wikipedia should be factual and unbiased, not based on personal opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Among other evidence that Russia provides support for the insurgency, including weapons and training, there's satellite imagery of Russia firing artillery across the Ukrainian border at a Ukrainian troop position. If anything, the "(denied by Russia)" text should be deleted as WP:UNDUE. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, Russia is claiming that those satellite images are faked: [5]. It is informative to have that fact mentioned in the infobox. Esn (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
There are many evidences that Russia is involved in this conflict. (Cristi767 (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC))

Such claimed evidence (surprise surprise by Americans, not by Chinese or anyone else) are not strong and do not hold up in any court. Pro Russia forces have stated that they receive help from Russian people, not the Russian state. There's a big difference in the two. Let's take an example. Suppose some American citizens go to Japan and massacre a large number of Japanese civilians. This would be the personal actions of those American citizens, and it would NOT mean the US is at war with Japan. As another example, during the Spanish Civil War, many Americans fought on the Republican side as volunteers. This did not mean the US as a country was involved in the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologise, but this is not a court of law. We report what reliable sources say. They say that Russia is supporting the insurgents, and even shelling Ukrainian forces from Russian territory. Note this Financial Times article. RGloucester — ☎ 16:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't read it - it's behind a paywall. Is there another copy of that story somewhere? Generally, I agree with Anonymous below that many American (as well as EU) news sources should be treated with some suspicion since they're generally just as much a part of this information war as the Russian ones (just like the situation with the information war during the Russo-Georgian War - look at that article once the dust has settled, and you can see plenty of misreporting on both sides by so-called "reliable sources", with the "error" always being in favour of the "right side"). With explosive accusations, it's usually best to at least make it clear which side is making the accusations.Esn (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing much we can do. Our job is to report what the reliable sources say. It isn't our job to "correct" them if they are "wrong", as that would be WP:Original research. If you register, you can read the article. It is free. The Financial Times is a reliable source. This isn't some Ukrainian propaganda outlet. RGloucester — ☎ 18:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian volunteers are already included in the volunteers section. I don't see any reason to include Russia in the belligerents section. In my opinion, Russia should not be listed as a belligerent unless the Russian government is proven (this must include non American sources such as Chinese sources) or has openly stated that it is involved in the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It really does not make much difference at this point. A war is a war. One must, however, be very cautious in the presentation of information. Accusations cannot be taken as facts. Just because some source on the internet, reliable or otherwise, accuse Russia of supporting freedom fighters, one should not, unless absolute proof is obtained, state that the Russian government is in fact involved in the war. This is called innocence until proven guilty, a pillar of Western law. No matter how emotional one may be, rationality and adherence to law is a must, especially in relation to a public, factual, unbiased source of information as wikipedia. I hope I made my point clear. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2014

Please replace following: Between fifteen and thirty-five insurgents were killed in a single incident, when two lorries carrying wounded fighters away from airport were destroyed in an ambush by government forces.[202][202][203][203]

New text: Between fifteen and thirty-five insurgents were killed in a friendly fire incident. Two trucks carrying fighters returned at high speed from the airport while firing on both sides were mistakenly attacked by other rebels.[406][202][202][203][203]

Reason in [406] "Interview: I Was A Separatist Fighter In Ukraine". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. 13 July 2014. Gasparyan: On television they said something like that the militias were transporting unarmed wounded under the sign of the red cross and Ukrainian forces fired on them. At that point, I still didn't know we'd been attacked by our own forces. I was sure it was the National Guard. Sometime in the morning of the 27th, two guys from the cover group that remained at the airport woke me up. They told me that it was friendly fire.

Hk1959 (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Article is not semi-protected. RGloucester — ☎ 15:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian army casualty update

363 soldiers killed + 1,434 soldiers wounded as of the latest update.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/official-over-360-soldiers-killed-in-east-ukraine-since-start-of-operation-358695.html

11 soldiers killed 31 wounded for today's update

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukrainian-army-loses-11-soldiers-in-past-24-hours-358812.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukranian casaulties have rised dramatically since mid-June, over 10 daily, and when the uprising started ukranian losses were low in comparison with these days standars, also there is a lot of confusion regarting the Ukranian Armend forces branches witch not only Include the Army, Air Force, Navy but also the Border Guards and the National Guards.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Though not counted as part of the regular army, National Guard including the various volunteer battalions and Border Guards are counting as soldiers IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Map of the Donetsk Oblast

To the South of the Sea of Azov is Russia, so it should be grey, not orange.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Claims of US Support to the Ukrainian Government

This edit of 11:48, 2 August 2014 puts wrong information in the infobox. It lists the US Government as supporting the Ukrainian Government in the conflict. However the text of the sources do not support this.

It has two citations for the claim in the infobox:

  • "Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine to fend off Putin-backed rebels". The Washington Times. July 22, 2014. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • "U.S. sending advisers, military gear to Ukraine". Army Times. June 5, 2014. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

The headlines (which are generally not written by article authors for Western newspapers and magazines) do seem to support the claim in the infobox. But the text of the articles says that (at the time of writing) the US will send teams of officials to "shape and establish an enduring program for future U.S. efforts to support the Ukrainian military through subject-matter expert teams and long-term advisers". In other words, at the time of writing, the US was planning to send people to evaluate helping the Ukrainian Government.

The Washington Times article says "The Pentagon has provided Ukraine with radios, individual first-aid kits, sleeping mats, neck gaiters, jackets and body armor but stopped short of offering anything that the country’s defense officials have requested that could be perceived as direct military assistance." It really is stretching it to say that the US Government is providing support to the Ukrainian Government side - you might just as well list the Red Cross.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

youtube videos have shown American equipment and supplies captured from the Ukrainian army by militia, items such as night vision goggles, communication radios, ready to eat meal rations. It is not a secret that the US provides material support to the Ukrainian military. The US government is very open about that. For instance, http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/us-meals.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not really the same thing as supplying tanks, artillery and surface to air missile systems.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
True that. Don't forget, the nationalistic LDPR, of mainstream Russian politics, is an active backer of pro Russia folks, not only in non lethal supplies such as the ones that the US provides to Ukraine, but also lethal supplies. Let's also not forget that, back in 2009, some half of Russians held negative view of Ukraine. Back in 2012 when Yanukovych was in power, a quarter of Russians held negative view of Ukraine. Now? I would say at least 90% of Russians hold negative view of Ukraine. And that translates to a LOT of backing to pro Russia folks. I would say at least 90% of Americans can't even find Ukraine on a map. The US government backs Ukraine, but the American people do not. As you can see, the difference between Russian support to pro Russia folks and American support to Ukraine is huge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.117.198 (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
How do you know that at least 90% of Russians hold negative views of Ukraine? Is that WP:OR (Original Research)?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
An educated guess. In 2009 it was 50%. In 2012 when Yanukovych was in power it was 25%. Now Yanukovych was illegally ousted from power and Ukrainian army massacres Russian Ukrainians by the thousands, what do you Russians would think of Ukraine?
So, you guess... That's indeed WP:OR!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
What the PEOPLE of certain countries support does not matter AT ALL. What matters is what kind of support the GOVERNMENT is giving.

The US is sending meals, money, and "advisors" (who usually end up doing a bit more than advising, but let's leave that be for now) to Ukraine, as sources have already stated.

The EU lifted the ban on sending military equipment to Ukraine recently (because as soon as they support your cause, it's ok for them to kill civilians), soon they will be sending military equipment as well.

But for now, adding the US as a supporter makes good sense, as that is exactly what they are.

You also claim that the LDPR is sending lethal aid to the rebels? I've seen no evidence of that, please provide sources or stop your lies. The leader of LDPR gave the rebels an armoured, unarmed Tigr vehicle, as far as I know, that's the only armoured vehicle ever given to rebels by any Russian politician. 89.215.172.157 (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)BLGR

LDPR was once quoted in the article as supporting the rebels and the supposed evidence was a flag of the party flying over a group of them... which, obviously is no evidence. But the LPDR is a far-right opposition party in Russia that represents 11.4% of the voters (significant, but far less than the FPÖ in Austria, the Front National in France or the Jobbik in Hungary).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Denial by Russia

The source to which the parenthetical phrase "denial by Russia" was included in the previous version of the article is cited to this article. However, while the article quotes the Russian foreign ministry that, "international inspectors who have been coming to check the state of Moscow's troops along the Ukrainian borders have found no violations," it does not support the wider claim that the Russian government has not supported the pro-Russian rebels in the Donbass. Unless another citation is found to support that claim, I've removed the denial by Russia phrase. Inthefastlane (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

There's three citations that each claim that Russia is not supporting the rebels. 89.215.172.157 (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)BLGR

You didn't read this article, did you? Inthefastlane (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
There are 2 other sources provided. Not just one. This doesn't mean that Russia isn't supporting the war. It just means that it's denying that it's supporting the war, which is different, though informative.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
But the article that is cited to RT doesn't say that Russia is denying that it is involved in the war in Donbass.Inthefastlane (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It makes part of the denial, concerning to the images released that are in the Washington Post source, supporting the support by Russia.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Grad rockets

I've read the Human Rights Watch several times, and I haven't read anything about those rockets coming from the rebels. The separatists are accused there for other violations, but not for using Grad rockets against civilians. I'd recommend some precise quoting in the about the use of Grad rockets. The rebels' other violations (which don't include the use of Grad rockets) are already added, later in the article.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Uh, I guess you haven't read it properly. It says "Both Ukrainian government and insurgent forces have recently used Grad rockets", though it was more concerned about the use of the rockets by the government. RGloucester — ☎ 05:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
You're quite right, about the use of both parties using Grad rockets, so I'm sorry, I missed that line. But still, I only read "against civilians" by the government. Well, with so unprecise weapons, I wonder if the rebels would choose to target them only against uninhabited fields... which would be unlikely!... but I think Human Rights Watch (and the Red Cross, and other NGOs) will investigate more about those issues.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The report was most concerned about the government usage, but it also said that everyone should stop using them, as they're imprecise and end-up killing civilians regardless. RGloucester — ☎ 12:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've seen there is another report from Human Rights Watch confirming that the insurgents are also using Grad rockets. Now it's correct.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

DNR claim of the real number of Ukraine army deaths

Seems like the DNR, through its Twitter account, is presenting a supposed internal document from the Ukrainian Security Service from July 19, which claims that the real losses on the Ukrainian side are 1600 KIA and 4723 WIA. I found an English translation here. Lots of people are being quite skeptical about it, even on their side. This is obviously not something that would be a verified source by Wikipedia's standards. However, what is verified and perhaps notable is that the official DNR press agency is making this claim. Should it therefore be mentioned? Esn (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Neither Twitter posts nor blog posts are reliable sources. It would need to be found in secondary reliable sources, such as a newspaper or whatever. RGloucester — ☎ 18:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's not a verifiable source. However, if dnrpress is the official Twitter account for the DNR, then we can verifiably say that this is an official DNR claim, without judging on the veracity of the actual claim. Although... hmm. Perhaps WP:SELFSOURCE applies here. Esn (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It is possible that this is "self-serving", and also, it is a claim about a "third party", meaning that WP:SELFSOURCE doesn't apply. I'd prefer if one could find a secondary source, even if it is an obviously biased one. RGloucester — ☎ 18:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I meant that WP:SELFSOURCE applies in the sense that it couldn't be mentioned because of the reasons you stated. If you're talking about obviously biased secondary sources, though, would this count? Esn (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Something just crossed my mind. Has it actually been confirmed anywhere that https://twitter.com/dnrpress/ is officially affiliated with the Donetsk Republic? I'd like to clear up the actual status of that account, if possible, and who's responsible for it. Esn (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
This Slate article claims that dnrpress is the "official Twitter account" of the Donetsk People's Republic". So does this RIA Novosti article. Since both pro-NATO and pro-Russia news sources seem to say that it is official, would it make sense to treat all statements made on that account as being official statements of the Donetsk Republic? Esn (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
If the claims are notable, then they will be mentioned by reliable sources such as non-Russian newspapers. That would provide a reliable source for the terrorists making the claims. If non-Russian newspapers ignore the claims, then the claims cannot be notable, so there is no justification for mentioning them on Wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Toddy1 makes two very interesting points.
1. Only non-Russian newspapers can be reliable sources.
2. Notability can be determined only by non-Russian sources.
Are those views supported by the majority of editors here? Esn (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If they don't appear in non-Russian sources, we have to take them with a grain of salt. If they had credibility, secondary sources from outside Russia would pick them up. It isn't really that hard to figure out, given the information war that is now occurring. RGloucester — ☎ 16:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Alright. Does that also apply if they only appear in Ukrainian sources? Esn (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Most Ukrainian newspapers are just as reliable for news events in Ukraine as most English ones are for news events in England.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The English press has been shown to be consistently biased when issues of territorial integrity are at stake: [6] [7]. As would any country's, probably. Esn (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd priviledge both non-Russian and non-Ukrainian sources for this matter, but that's my personal opinion. Both sides are obviously not as independent as we'd wish they'd be. But they have been used, given that their information is checked and beyond any reasonable doubt.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Going back to my original question, though, would it make sense to treat statements coming from the dnrpress Twitter account as being official statements from the Donetsk Republic, given that media sources from both sides seem to accept that it is indeed their official mouthpiece? Please note I am not asking whether it can be used as a "reliable source". I am asking if what is said there can be stated to be the official position of the DNR. Esn (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to repeat my question, since no one has commented. Would it make sense to treat statements coming from the dnrpress Twitter account as being official statements from the Donetsk Republic, given that media sources from both sides seem to accept that it is indeed their official mouthpiece? WP:SELFSOURCE would likely apply. Esn (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

According to Ukrainian source[1] 3,500 soilders are missing in action near border with Russia

References

  1. ^ http://www.unn.com.ua/uk/news/1374133-p-poroshenko-doruchiv-rozsliduvati-proval-spetsoperatsiyi-na-kordoni-z-rf-zmi

94.45.129.180 (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Humanitarian concerns section, disagreement about usage of "usually" vs. "often"

Quote from source: "men are often not allowed to leave Donetsk city" [8]. @RGloucester: has the following argument:

"'not usually' and 'not often' mean the same thing. However, copying the exact words without inverted commas is a copyright violation. That's why we 'use our own words'".

That's why we currently have "men were usually not allowed to leave Donetsk city".

Firstly it isn't about difference between "not usually" and "not often", but about difference between "usually" and "often". And I disagree that "often" and "usually" have the same meaning. "Usually" means regular thing, something you expect to happen. While "often" means that something happens frequently enough. There is a good explanation of the difference by professional teacher: [9]Finalyzer (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

My dear Lord, my Father above. If you want to use "often not", use inverted commas, therefore providing attribution. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I've settled this bit by using the inverted commas on my own. As far as your report from a Ukrainian tabloid, please read WP:GEVAL. "But" in an attempt to discredit the OSCE, a Ukrainian tabloid says "x". That's a false balance. Provide reliable sources, we can include it. That source isn't reliable. Once we've got a reliable one, do not use the format of "But..." in an attempt to provide a false balance. RGloucester — ☎ 02:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
You are so crusty, and have no idea about my intentions. I don't see anything wrong with my source, why do you think it's unreliable? Do you have any proof? And don't see how it "discredits" any other source. Finalyzer (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"Insurgents" or "separatists"?

I notice that "insurgents" in the infobox has been changed to "separatists". Are they separatists, though? On the one hand, some of the top political figures wanted to join Russia, or at the very least separate from the rest of Ukraine. On the other hand, their military leaders such as Igor Girkin/Strelkov and Igor Bezler keep saying in interviews that their eventual goal is to "liberate Kiev". Esn (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"Separatist" is a political statement, whereas "insurgent" is merely a description of their actions. Therefore, regardless of whether they are "separatist" or not, they are still insurgents. Therefore, "insurgents" is to be preferred. RGloucester — ☎ 18:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

OSCE Spokesman Says Wrong to Call Ukraine's Independence Supporters "Separatists" --81.23.192.246 (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, 81.23.192.246, but we don't use neutral terms according to only one body's interpretation of it. 'Rebels' has been used in the English language press for more than a decade as a loaded term denoting a negative perspective. As insurgency defines a militant movement against a sovereign state (i.e., the sovereign state being Ukraine), 'insurrection' (insurgents) against a lawful nation-state is more neutral than 'rebellion' (rebels). It may sound strange because 'rebellion' is also a neutral term, but the use of the terms 'rebels' has been subject to POV spin-doctoring far more prominently than 'insurgents' (see the use of Afghani rebels, Syrian rebels, etc. Pay particular attention to the Wikipedia article List of active rebel groups which is being challenged for multiple issues). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
"Rebels' has been used in the English language press for more than a decade as a loaded term denoting a negative perspective" - sorry, what? It seems to me like it's the exact opposite. "Rebel" is a positive term in English, particularly in the US. Nobody was at all ashamed about supporting the "Syrian rebels", hence why Syrian state media from the beginning insisted on calling them all "terrorists" instead, and gradually saw their narrative become accepted (likely where Ukraine got the idea from). Remember who the good guys were in Star Wars? Remember how popular music artists have been admired for being "rebels" since at least the post-war period? Remember how the whole American self-image is based upon their rebellion against British rule, and how the American public is so eager to see their own history echoed elsewhere that they support many populist regime change efforts in foreign countries? Esn (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Rebel. adj not obeying Synonyms. insurgent rebellious revolutionary insubordinate insurrectionary mutinous
separatist. noun dissenter. Synonyms. rebel dissident protester heretic objector [10] SaintAviator lets talk 08:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
We can debate about what's the proper term, but fact is, per the sources, only a small number call them insurgents. Most call them ether separatists or rebels. But insurgents, only a few. And per WP policy, we go with the common name. EkoGraf (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
That's nonsense. WP:UCN is for the titles of articles, and has nothing to do with our prose, which is governed by the Manual of Style and WP:NPOV. Regardless, the idea that "insurgents" is used only by a "few" is also nonsense. It is used by such illustrious sources as Amnesty International. RGloucester — ☎ 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Eko there is no mention in the battle-box of the 370-460 ukranian soldiers that crossed the border with russia, are they captured, Missing or AWOL??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

They're both insurgents and separatists. Sources mentioning them as separatists: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10769805/Ukrainian-troops-confront-pro-Russian-separatists.html ; http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/07/22/malaysia-plane-crash-promotes-ukraine-separatist-cause/12986971/ ; http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26fe789c-126e-11e4-a581-00144feabdc0.html#axzz39kMTlJTR ; http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/29/us-ukraine-crisis-arms-specialreport-idUSKBN0FY0UA20140729 ; http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/pro-russian-separatists-in-eastern-ukraine-were-nobodies--until-now/2014/04/30/c504e687-cc7a-40c3-a8bb-7c1b9cf718ac_story.html . Sources mentioning them as insurgents: http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/05/ukraine-insurgents-disrupt-medical-services ; http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/06/30/ukraines-president-faces-decision-on-cease-fire/11751477/ ; http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine-abroad/reuters-rejecting-poroshenko-east-ukraine-insurgents-say-fight-will-go-on-351053.html ; http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-presses-offensive-against-pro-russia-insurgents-1.2696953 . I chose some articles by random, from sources that I consider reliable.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Esn, you seem to be talking of the use of an encyclopaedic lexicon as if we were writing a Hollywood script (AKA 'you can tell we're the good guys because we're wearing the white 10 gallon hats'). It seems that you're presenting an argument for the use of 'rebels' in order to align pro-Russian forces as positive reinforcement of their actions. If you being objective, why are you arguing for what you evidently believe to be a POV representation? We're not writing a script for the US government's position, the Ukrainian government's position, or for someone you want to present as being the righteous underdog. NPOV means NPOV. Incidentally, the US won independence through a revolution, not a rebellion. The terminology for the American Revolution was ascribed long before "Star Wars". Unless you have a crystal ball, we have no idea of what descriptors will be used in future research. Anyone for a pack of 'freedom fries' during intermission? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Lol Jumbo size please. SaintAviator lets talk 23:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, per WP policy, common name is the one we need to go with, and the most commonly used term for them is separatist or rebels. Insurgents is also used but not as much as the other two. EkoGraf (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Mr Graf, did you read my post above, or are you being dense? I shall quote, for your convenience: "WP:UCN is for the titles of articles, and has nothing to do with our prose, which is governed by the Manual of Style and WP:NPOV". RGloucester — ☎ 13:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
What? I honestly don't care if the article uses "rebels", "insurgents" or "separatists". You simply made what I thought was an obviously false statement (that "rebels" is a negative term in English) and I argued that you were wrong. You're over-thinking things. Esn (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian parliament sources claim over 10,000 killed in Donbas, including thousands of Ukrainian soldiers

http://rt.com/news/179048-ten-thousand-killed-ukraine/

It is known that hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers have been confirmed to have got killed in Donbas. This number consists of soldiers whose bodies were recovered from areas of battle and identified and soldiers who have died of wounds while in treatment. However, most of the time, bodies of soldiers are not recovered, bodies of soldiers were recovered but have decomposed and therefore cannot be identified, and soldiers were executed and whose bodies were not recovered. These soldiers are all listed as missing. It is not known how many Ukrainian soldiers are missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.117.198 (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

RT is not considered a reliable source. Also, this is not "Ukrainian parliaments sources" saying this, it's a group of 34 MPs who made a faction a month ago comprised of Communists, former Yanukovych stalwarts, and Crimean MPs who now have no electorate. This is a horrible source, likely made up. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 20:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
There have been long discussions about whether RT is a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_173#Russia_Today. Esn (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
RT is just as reliable as BBC or any other state media source. No source can be "banned" from Wikipedia, don't even bother with your obvious russophobia, as it has no place here.

89.215.172.157 (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)BLGR

Whether RT is reliable or not isn't really the point, because in this case the source is actually the Ukrainian MPs. And our personal opinions based on whether they are Communists, Yanukovych supporters, etc do not actually count on Wikipedia which is based on neutrality per which we are obliged to present both sides POV, regardless of our personal feelings and opinions. EkoGraf (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I confess I've had a really hard time about POV from both sides. But each one accuses the other as being POV. Both Russian and Ukrainian sources are accepted are fine. It's like the Heisenberg principle in physics. In this case, the more we know about the movement of a particle, the less we know about its location and vice-versa. The Ukrainian and Russian sources are also likely the sources that have more information about the events, but at the same time are the most biased ones.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
"The Ukrainian and Russian sources are also likely the sources that have more information about the events, but at the same time are the most biased ones." - that's exactly it. Though I would say "Ukrainian and Novorussian/Russian", since some of the analysis coming out of Russia is pretty vague as well (many parts of Russia are much further from the front line than Kiev). Esn (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian army casualty update

568 killed and 2,120 wounded

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2014/08/11/world/europe/11reuters-ukraine-crisis-casualties-government.html?ref=world&_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link i have already changed that numbers. But its pending aproval, however what surprise me most its the high number of missing over 3,000. How could this happened are they deserters, dead, or captured. Sounds more like they simply desserted but the number of dead its high althought.

Missing soldiers include those who were captured and executed and whose bodies were never returned. In the heat of battle, it is often not possible to extract every wounded soldier, so many wounded soldiers were left behind and counted as missing. Many soldiers deserted and fled to Russia or they defected and joined the pro Russia camp.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.48.214.19 (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Missing soldiers

This number of 3500 missing soldiers doesn't seem to be taken from the reliable source. Anyway government says nothing about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Igor Girkin (Strelkov) claims 7,401 killed or injured on Ukrainian side

The original post is here, posted July 29, claiming to list losses on the Ukrainian side from May 2 to July 27. The only English-language news outlet to pick it up so far seems to be this one. Various Russian ones have picked it up (i.e. [11], [12]) but no major ones so far. The claimed numbers are:

  • 12,615 losses
    • 7401 killed or wounded
      • 2400 from "Right Sector" and National Guard
      • 2014 from Kolomoisky-funded paramilitaries
      • 115 from Security Service of Ukraine
      • 330 foreign fighters
        • 139 from the Polish private military company "ASBS Othago"
        • 40 from American company "Greystone"
        • 125 from American company "Academi" (formerly "Blackwater")
    • 14 taken prisoner
    • 5200 deserters

It then gives a long list of Ukrainian military divisions and losses from each of them.

As I understand it, the numbers can't be included in the article just based on the post itself due to WP:SELFSOURCE (because such enemy casualty numbers in a war may be self-serving). However, as Strelkov is a senior military personage, and other news outlets are reporting on the numbers, would it make sense to mention it in the infobox as an "according to the insurgents" number for Kiev military casualties? Esn (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Hm. I just noticed that though it's on Strelkov's page, the author listed at the bottom isn't Strelkov but Igor Panarin. Esn (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: I'll ping EkoGraf. He's the statistics expert around here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I highly doubt these numbers are authentic. If this is true, Ukrainian forces in Doubas would be depleted by now, seeing as how the entire Ukrainian army has something like 50,000 soldiers, which means no more than 20,000 or so could have been in Donbas to begin with.

I don't think the number is too reliable or authentic. However, since we already presented both the rebel and government claim on the number of rebel dead, it would be fair to present both sides claims on the number of dead on the government side as well. EkoGraf (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The article currently states that there are 30,000 men from the pro-Kiev side fighting in Donbass. If the numbers were accurate, this would represent a loss of one-third (supposing some of the wounded may have healed and gone back to fight). However, considering that there have been several "partial mobilization" drives in Ukraine (as well as creation of volunteer paramilitaries), the number of men in the pro-Kiev side should be constantly increasing and offset the losses. The Armed Forces of Ukraine article says that there are currently 90,000 active personnel, and 1 million reservists. One could perhaps argue that the mobilization drives (three so far) would not have been necessary if the losses were really just a few hundred men. Not that any of that can be said in the article of course, as it's original research.
If you think it's okay to add the number in, would you be so kind as to do so? I'm uncertain of the proper formatting. Esn (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I seriously doubt there can be more than a few thousands Ukrainian soldiers active in Donbas. The Ukrainian government is woefully short on funds. Even if it conscripts tens of thousands, it has no money to train them, arm them and deploy them. Only a small fraction of the 90,000 active personnel are fit for combat, and certainly not all of them can be sent to fight in Donbas all at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Is not this obvious that volunteers are fighting not only on the pro-Russian side, but also on the Ukrainian? And when someone is counting deaths they should count not only killed soldiers but also killed volunteers. IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: And what if next day Strelkov will come with another 10.000 deaths? The difference between both sides numbers is to big... Cristi767 (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Our personal opinions really don't count. Its what the sources say that counts. I will wait a little longer for the debate to continue and make an edit per what everyone agrees to that is within Wikipedia policy designations. EkoGraf (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

In my personal opinion one cannot keep their personal opinions from influencing his work. IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Concur with EkoGraf. We don't run ahead of the game. Let's see what more sources have to say on the matter and, if it is warranted, make adjustments if they are needed.
@IHasBecauseOfLocks: Actually, by applying logic, as well as the well thought out policies and guidelines to which we are obliged to adhere, it is possible to make an honest job of trying to be neutral. Many of the editors here have personal positions, disagree with each other on various points, but manage to collaborate well in recognition each other's experience skill and ability to develop good faith content.
@Cristi767: "What if" does not factor into content. You're pre-empting sourced content and treating this as WP:CRYSTAL. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it could be mentioned in the bulk of the article. To be mentioned in the infobox, since neither Polish nor American paramilitaries are listed would be weird, I guess.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
My personal opinion is actually pretty neutral, but yes, if someone's personal opinion is not neutral it is wrong. IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Just as a small note, to be neutral is also a personal position. My own personal position actually changed (though not from one extreme side to the other extreme side) with the development of the unrest and later of the armed rebellion, but I think that's not unnatural. To have less neutral personal opinions is not wrong, if one's contributions for the article are objective and well-sourced.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: During the conflict there were many unrealistic claims from both sides. And that's just propaganda. The numbers were not confirmed by anything and even the authors never come back to them. We can mention in the article, but i think in the infobox we should pay more attention to the numbers. Cristi767 (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
@Cristi767: Attention has been paid to the numbers in the infobox by EkoGraf, who has been using reliable sources for the WP:CALC on this and all of the related articles since their inception. He provided sources and his methodology months ago, and it is a waste of his time and energy having to go through it over and over again every time someone new involves themselves in the article and challenges his figures. Please read WP:AGF as relates to his stats and the fact that ongoing contributors are entirely satisfied with the veracity of his hard work. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: I appreciate all his work :-) Cristi767 (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Another number has been reported on in a mainstream news source from Pavel Gubarev, claiming 8,000 dead losses on the government side. I've added it to the infobox and also added the number above, as they seem quite similar and are obviously part of a coordinated narrative on the part of the insurgents. Also, since I raised the issue, there don't seem to have been any significant objections raised against including the numbers except that "they're unlikely". However, there has been no objective report on military deaths from either side - the numbers claiming only a few hundred deaths are based on sources entirely from the Ukrainian government, who have just as much of an incentive to minimize casualty figures as the insurgents have to maximize them. Therefore, I feel it is more helpful to include both sets of figures, and to make it clear in the infobox which "side" they both come from. Esn (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree to the addition of separatist claims of military losses until a more neutral source shows up. EkoGraf (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That's the most unrealistic figure I've heard of so far, regarding military conflicts. If this was even remotely true, the Ukrainian operation wouldn't have been only ceased by now due to complete depletion of military capacities, a long time ago in fact, but Kiev would have been forced to aknowledge total defeat and accept seperation of Donbass not being able to hold any single position they hold now there. Despite succesful attempts from insurgents side to deal some significant damage to the Ukrainian army, those losses couldn't have been more than several hundred people ( added some few hundred more to gov figures ). This definitly needs some clarificatios and clean up. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think its crazy to include this figure, it far exceeds any independent total of deaths in the War to date, let alone for one side. The number of dead foreign fighters is not plausible, if it was even a fraction of this it would have been picked up by some other non-Russian news source. The whole thing should be excluded .Daithicarr (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Please show me an "independent total of deaths". Does one exist which does not rely on sources from either the Ukrainian military or the insurgents? In this interview on a Ukrainian news site, a Ukrainian soldier discusses how the official death tally from one operation was lowered by a factor of six from the true number by the authorities, and expresses extreme skepticism about the official "380 dead" number (English translation here). Relevant quotes:
Question: When they say that we have 380 dead during the ATO, should we believe this?
(skeptical silence)
Question: Then how many times more?
Answer: I don’t know, but it’s certainly not 380.
Question: Because you only saw with your own eyes …
Answer: Myself, I did not see that many. Here is a real-life example. I was able to speak to a pilot who transported the dead. Together with the wounded, he transported 64 men. But the majority of them were “200s” [Note: Killed in Action / KIA]! There were no black bags, and the bodies were simply piled up on each other. He said that he barely washed the blood from the plane. And on TV they said that on that day there were only 10 “200s”.
Esn (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, the number is for dead and wounded, not just dead. The current official Ukrainian government number is 2118 dead and wounded, I think. The insurgent number is just under 4 times higher. Esn (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

In this interview with a Ukrainian soldier (English translation here, he claims that there are "at least 4000" dead on the government side. Should the number be put in the article somewhere? Esn (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Canada sends military equipment to Ukraine

See this CBC article. Does this mean that Canada should be added under a "supported by" heading in the infobox? How much support is necessary in order for a country to be mentioned as being a "supporter" of one side? Esn (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is for direct parties to the conflict, not for those who provide aid. RGloucester — ☎ 14:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
In that case either:
1) "Supported by" loses its meaning in all other articles.
2) Russia must be removed from infobox as is by no means a direct party to the conflict.
The _only_ independently verified involvement of RU up to now, were several shootings from Ukraine to Russian territory confirmed by OBSE which was present at the time of the events. Plus it a allowing in of a couple hundred thousand refugees. All claims of any shooting from RU to UA or other active involvement were so far purely by Kiev-aligned entities and were never _independently_ verified. Note that despite many warnings/complaints about russian deployments, not even NATO or US claimed RU actually intervened.46.39.169.168 (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thinking about this further, Russia is in the infobox of this article since *before* it became a civil war - probably shows the difference of claiming someone supports an anti-gov political group - which was true in March/April - there public support in media etc. counts. And what meaning is assigned to an infobox of a Civil WAR. On this ground it should be removed *or* EU, Canada and US have to eb added as provably provide actuall military assistance - hence sharing of satelite intelligence admitted by US officials recently.46.39.169.168 (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
If anything, Russia should be removed from the supporters section. Unless the Russian government publicly states that it is providing military equipment to Donbas, Russia is not a party in the conflict. Sure, many Russians personally donate to support militia in Donbas, but they are not government. The US and Canadian governments openly state that they supply military equipment to Ukraine, so the US and Canada should be listed as supporters of Ukraine. Yes, the US government claims, notice the word claims, to have satellite images showing Russian involvement in the war, but it does not prove that the Russian government is involved.
Not how it works. We go by what reliable sources say, and reliable sources say that Russia is a direct party to the conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 15:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.117.198 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
If by reliable sources you mean western sources, then yes. There's been no real evidence shown, other than fake satellite photos.
You can't simply state that giving military equipment is considered support if you're Russia, but not if you're NATO.
http://rt.com/news/179136-nato-plane-arrives-ukraine/
I always say, innocence till proven guilty. There is no proof that the Russian government is involved in the conflict. There may be evidence from the Ukrainian and the US governments, but evidence is not proof. I'm sorry but this is the way Western law works. Russia should be removed from the infobox, whilst the US and Canada should be added to the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.117.198 (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Another article claiming the same thing as the CBC link. 89.215.172.157 (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)BLGR
Every single of those "RS" articles reference as source of claim an entity aligned directly with the Government/Kiev side of the conflict. They never claim to be a "primary" source of the report. This is signifficant as the WP article currenly is turning Reuter's "Kiev said xxx." into WPs "It is xxx.". That is an (I hope intintentional) abuse of WP:RS and smells much more like WP:OR to me.46.39.169.168 (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Units involved

Chechen, North Ossetian, Ingush and Don Cossacks are actually Russian forces. It could be hide in some subsection of "Russian" (Units involved\Foreign volunteers\). Realmentat (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried to make that alteration weeks ago but it was reverted. Esn (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
They are not in the "English" sense here. They are on the "(Novo)Russian" side. But they are not on the Russian (as in RF) side. That is why it was reverted - while probably true/clear to a person from the region who understands the nuance, that distintion is by no means clear to an outside english speaking observer. Also while on (Novo)Russian side, they are by no means "Russians". Well, except he Cossacks who are (by definition) a special class of a Russian culture (both in Unkraine and Russia). Trying to merge these into "Russian" is like trying to mergen 'Spanish', 'French' and 'English Noblemen' into "European". Just best to be avoided. :) Last note, while it is to be debated - and to be seen - only the Ukraine government portrays the conflict as "Ukrainian vs. Russian". The other side portrays it as "Nazi vs. Inhabitants of Ukraine". Truth being probably somewhere in between obviously. We shall blindly accept neither side's narrative.46.39.169.168 (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
They're from the Russian Federation, but they're not ethnically Russians (probably apart from the Cossacks). And Russians are already mentioned, anyway.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Right Sector fighters killed should not be listed as soldiers killed

They are not part of the government and do not count as servicemen. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-death-toll-doubles-to-more-than-2-000-1.2735027— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

50 000 Ukrainian soldiers in ATO

http://www.ukrinform.ua/eng/news/pm_yatseniuk_some_50000_military_participate_in_ato_325180 Update the page please

I would take that with a grain of salt. The entire Ukrainian army had about 57,000 personnel in total back in 2012. As of April 2014 that number likely shrunk quite a bit due to lack of funds, likely no more than 40,000 personnel. It is doubtful the Ukrainian government even have money to deploy more than 20,000 personnel given the huge casualties inflicted on the Ukrainian military every single day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that you underestimate Ukrainian economy and especially volunteers' help. There were three waves of mobilization and many territorial battalions created. Anyway Arsenij Yatseniuk says that there are 50 000 people in ATO and I think this is quite a reliable source to give the information in the article.

He's giving a very rough estimation of how many personnel are deployed. Some 50,000 can be anywhere from say 10,000 to say 100,000. Every time the Ukrainian government gives an estimate, it should be take with a grain of salt, like how they claim a single airstrike takes out 1,000 pro Russia folks. How many of those mobilized actually came? You get my point. Even back in 2012 when Ukraine's economy was much better, the army only had some 50,000 personnel. After two years of economic nose dive, I doubt the Ukrainian military could deploy more than 20,000 personnel. The Ukrainian military has lost just about all of its air power and a big chunk of its armored vehicles and artillery. They only had some 40,000 rifles, and by now likely no more than 20,000 rifles left. Even if a million Ukrainian men are mobilized, what are they going to be armed with? Kitchen knives?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you the hell talking about? Ukraine has great number of weapons left from the USSR. I saw numbers from 800 000 to 4 000 000 AKM/AK-74 rifles. Same with BTR-70/BTR-80/T-64 etc. I'm surprised that you know so little about Ukrainian military. Also, talking about money. Military budget 2014 is much bigger than in 2012. Also National Guard uses budget of the police. Also simple ukrainian people keep giving money to the war. And about Yatzeniuk... He said exactly what he said. (in Ukrainian language). "50 000 guys take part in the ATO today". It is the closest translation from Ukrainian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Not sure where your getting that data from, the small arms survey and other sources place the Ukrainian small arms stockpile at 7,000,000 pieces (not 40,000) they had the 4th largest in the world in 2013 ,http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/H-Research_Notes/SAS-Research-Note-34.pdf , most independent analyst puts the size of the Ukrainian armed forces over the 100,000 mark, normally 130,000-150,000. Thats before the current crisis and the establishment of volunteer brigades and the calling up of reserves. Plus they have a massive stockpile of ex soviet military equipment which could be pressed back in to service. So 50,000 is plausible. Daithicarr (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Map Issues

This map has some issues. Number one, when did luhansk and donetsk republics re-connect? The official map published on August 8 (when the changes were made) said nothing of the sort. A lot of maps i have read do not say so.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

We should put back the English map. RGloucester — ☎ 13:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I agree. We just need to update it a little.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I've requested help from a user that usually is good at maps, and by now is updating maps concerning to ISIS, but he or she has already made some work concerning to the conflict in Ukraine.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

They were never really disconnected. The communications links were contested but never really lost as far as I can gather from reports. The map used previously was a screen of the Government map basically anyway. A WP-origined map like in Syria is probably called-for to be updated only after independent reports or both sides confirm a change, not jumping ahead and backtracking next day as is now.46.39.169.168 (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect. The contributor on Wiki Commons who was updating the government screen on a daily basis has not done so since the end of July. As s/he has been keeping up with updating another language version of the map, we're hoping that they'll get on top of updating the English language map ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I meant the map was prematurely updated at end of July and (since) then, kept as is. It was based on Ukraine/Kiev official presso map and was incorrect then, though that was not obvious until several days after the publishing. Hence my note of prematurely taking one sides info at face value. If anything, the area in the center should have been marked as contested, but in no case as "under Gov control" juts because the gov said so. In hindsight, "reports" can be included as soon a reported (as can be acompanied by who claimed so). Map should be updated only after independent verification or both sides claiming same only. Same as is policy in other conflicts. First casualty of war is invariably the truth.
My 2 cents.195.212.29.88 (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Casualty figures seem unreliable-especially the "1-2 militia killed"

Casualty figures seem unreliable-especially the "1-2 militia killed", if you count even Ukrainian reports about military and militia deaths they go far above what is currently sourced. Especially the militia part, even the pro-Kiev militia units reported sometimes as many as 12 dead on single day.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Pro EU volunteer fighters, once killed, rarely get counted in the killed count. Their bodies are typically not recovered and identified. Once captured by Pro Russia folks, they are typically executed and their bodies dumped somewhere where they get decomposed beyond recognition. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/29/-sp-ukraine-rebel-igor-bezler-interview-demon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.117.198 (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The 1-2 militia dead refers to 1 or 2 Right Sector militants that were killed before all volunteer militias were integrated into the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs or Territorial Defense units under the command of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry. Now, all of the volunteer militiamen are counted in the daily death toll reports given by the Ukrainian security spokesman where they are simply referred to as Ukrainian soldiers or servicemen. EkoGraf (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
This is weak. I agree with MyMoloboaccount that the "1-2 militia killed" is especially weak. We should stick less with the labeling delivered by the Ukrainian government and more with the common sense. No one is going to understand these casualties correctly as they are now. This is an important part in an infobox in the top of the article. People who are going to start to read the article will probably just read this in the first place and will not read much more. And guess what. Try to think like someone who don't have knowledge of EkoGraf. After reading this top stuff in our article about casualties they will judge that the vast majority of Ukrainian forces are regular soldiers based on this casualties info. But what is the truth? Probably completely different. I have even read that the vast majority of Ukrainian fighters are paramilitaries.
But of course it is hard to tell and count the bodies for now. We have different arguing sources. So try to keep it in mind for a time. IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
It`s outdated information actual at the beginning of April 94.45.129.180 (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Did you mean August? IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong place for WP:CALC. We stick to official sources. Guestimates are WP:OR. My thanks to EkoGraf for keeping stats on track. The usage of expression like "seem unreliable" and "But what is the truth? Probably completely different." demonstrate your own WP:POV. Your doubts are simply your doubts. You're welcome to them, but they are not encyclopaedic. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia is defenietely not a good encyclopedia when it is misleading and is not representative. WP:POV means not sticking only to sources provided by one side of the conflict, even if this side is internationally recognized as the owner of the territory this war is taking place. This does not mean it is the only good source of informations on the Wikipedia. And we are not talking about guestimates, but about misleading labeling of facts. The leading German think tank German Institute for International and Security Affairs issued a paper about Ukrainian forces engaged. I am not fluent in German, so it will take time for me, but it suposedly says that the vast majority of Ukrainian fighters are paramilitaries. http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/aktuell/2014A52_kle_pst.pdf IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Therefore, how do you propose to work out how many are paramilitary fighters, how many are regular army, and what numbers of which have been killed? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like to find more different sources firstly. And I think that more imporant is to give a less precise estimate of casualties, but less misleading. When it comes to conflicts in the third world some international institutions publish their estimates about casualties count and it would be good to include them when they will be published about Ukraine. P.S. I do not want to say the third world includes Ukraine. IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a big problem with the casualty numbers in the infobox - people keep changing them without fixing the citations. There does not seem to be a section on overall casualties in the conflict. (If there is, sorry, but I failed to find it.) Maybe there should be. This could record whatever method is being used to build up or update the casualty figures. What is currently going on in the info-box for casualties is hard to verify.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

62.152.228.6 (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)I would say there are far more dead ukraine fighters than is stated here. 2200 injured and just 600 killed? A bit disproported.. Also after all those flops we already saw by ukraine army on videos, pictures provided by the separatits forces i think that the dead tool may be in thousands right now... Also the 1-2 militants killed is reduced. On the video from 11 august we saw 13 right sector fighters dead and that organisation even commented about it62.152.228.6 (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think most people suspect that numbers are underestimated. But currently the Wikipedia has pretty much rules about validation of sources. IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

None of the pending revisions appeared to be either vandalizing or edit warring, so...

...I accepted the revisions up until now. If you feel that one of the revisions was in fact edit warring, you may still revert it and do not need the reviewer right to do so. Dustin (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Serbian volunteers

There are only identified volunteers fighting for separatist side, which were identified to be a group of Chetniks fighting under command of Bratislav Živković. Not a single Serbian was identified as volunteering for Ukrainian side. Putting Serbian flag under Ukrainian units is based solely on Serbian PM's media statement, which was again, solely made to relieve pressure on his own government for neglect on the subject, not on any intelligence data. IMO, that info should be removed until verified by identified individuals or group of individuals known to be on Ukrainian side.

The link that is used as a source to the claim, is also a media statement by Serbia's PM, which is solely his own political stunt, because it threatens his credibility. I suggest relying on independent sources or sources that are written in English/Russian, since majority of Serbian media is actively and aggressively supporting current Serbian PM, hence allowing any kind of unverified political sloganeering to come through as a verified fact.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.18.94 (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I've read and it's indeed a political statement. Shall it be removed, from the Ukrainian side?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe someone registered should do it. I'm an unregistered user mostly operating on military articles. So my changes are usually undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.18.94 (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I've undone yours because you disrupted the entire presentation, but I've read, and it's indeed a political statement. I'll wait for a confirmation from another editor(s) to delete the Serbians from the Ukrainian side.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed his edit. He accidentally screwed up the page, but I removed the volunteers and fixed the page. RGloucester — ☎ 19:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, you removed the Serbian volunteers from the wrong side, actually. The Chetniks presence had already been confirmed by other sources apart from that political statement.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that i glanced trough sources for other volunteers, i see same thing. Many of these supposed volunteers are nothing but an article appeared somewhere in a local national media making nothing but rumors. Someone should at least scan these articles through google translator to check out if anything credible is there. Apart from Russian nationals, so far, by name and surname, only volunteers from Serbia, Belarus ( on both sides ) and Georgian on Ukrainian side seem to be confirmed. Rest is nothing but rumors. If someone posts a reference, it should at least be screened. Azeri, Albanian, Croatian volunteers claim is unconfirmed, and is based on nothing but unverified news headlines which are usually directed at audiences of respective nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.101.1 (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Since I'm from the Iberian Peninsula, and I'm at least as fluent in Spanish as I'm in English, I've checked about the Spanish volunteers, and it's true (though those are no longer in the infobox)... but they're only 2!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Volunteer Marek to show only higher number of alleged Russian citizens taking part while erasing lower estimates.

User Volunteer Marek has been constantly erasing lower estimates from the lead and putting in higher ones, even when the higher estimate of 80% is itself doubted by the source he uses and termed "anecdotal" The estimate of 80% btw comes from a single interview with "Armenian volunteer". I suggest either removing this rather dubious statement or presenting both figures with explanation from where the higher comes from.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this could use better sourcing. But what the source actually says is "which means that at best, a fifth of anti-Kiev militants in eastern Ukraine were allowed to transit through Russian territory.". I.e. The 20% is a "even if we assume that the bullshit these guys are saying is true..." kind of thing. It's not meant as a serious estimate. Hence, "up to 80%" is much more accurate reflection of the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
It's actually "these guys", but a single "Armenian Volunteer", and you forgot the part where the source states "this is anecdotal". "Hence, "up to 80%" is much more accurate reflection of the sources"your Personal View. 20% is presented in the source as more reliable data, and for NPOV purpose should be used here as well. You can't put "anecdotal" 80% in the lead and erase any mention of lower estimates, just because you don't agree with them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
No, the "20%" is presented in the source as "even if we take the bullshit at face value" kind of estimate. This is a weird thing to argue about actually. Also, I don't appreciate you putting my name in the subject heading up there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
"the "20%" is presented in the source as "even if we take the bullshit at face value". It isn't, it nowhere says such thing. You are pushing your personal POV here.It's obvious that when faced with two estimates presenting only the highest one, who the source itself names as only "anecdotal" is not Neutral.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount, please see the section above where questioning the figures began a few days ago. We're still at a loss as to where reliable estimates can be found. MyMoloboaccount, please desist from creating section titles which are attacks on other users (per WP:TALKNEW). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Error on the Luhansk Oblast map

On the map of the Luhansk Oblast Krasnyi Luch is to the South East of Antratsyt, but in the reality Antratsyt is to the South East of Krasnyi Luch, as is shown on the Google. Precisely I am talking about this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lugansk_province_location_map.svg 79.186.246.246 (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: That's right. Since I guess you created the svg files and I don't understand very much about it, could you correct it, please?--Mondolkiri1 (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not an SVG, it is coordinates. Change the coordinates to the appropriate ones for each town, and it should be fixed. I haven't got time to look them up right now. RGloucester — ☎ 14:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Casualties of separatists

650 killed separatists is too low. I guess it should be few thousands right now. Anyway the government even doesn't give exact numbers because it cannot count them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Pro Russia folks do not keep track of casualty. Pro EU folks only report how many of their folks were confirmed killed, that is, bodies recovered and identified or died of wounds. Missing soldiers are likely more than confirmed killed soldiers. 198.36.117.198 — ☎ 22:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but government and pro-government sources often give information about killed rebels. According to them there are several thousands of them. Maybe we should write about it? Something like "Several thousand killed" (according to the government) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a good idea. Unless you want to put it under "Government Propaganda". I remember myself reports of about 20.000+ "dead" insurgents ... only quickly thinking of official reports I can recollect. Information war.46.39.169.168 (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The highly suspect separatist claims of almost 8,000 dead and wounded plus 3,500 missing are under casualty's,either they should be removed or the governments claims should be added for sake of balance. Daithicarr (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Government claims should probably be added, if available. Can you find a source of a senior official making a claim about the number of dead insurgents? As for the "3,500 missing" claims, that is not a separatist claim and is wrongly labeled as such in the infobox. It is actually a claim from Russian state media, allegedly from a senior Ukrainian official. Esn (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You can look sources in the Ukrainian wiki. It gives number 3000+ killed rebels and sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC) It seems a plausible number given the rebels supposedly claimed 1,000 dead before the last ceasefire and the fighting has been much heavier since. http://www.interpretermag.com/pro-russian-separatists-say-their-fighters-death-toll-has-reached-1000/ Can I just cite the Ukranina wiki or should I cite each of the articles on the Ukranina wiki? Also in Ukranian (or Russian, im not sure). Daithicarr (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Separatits have been boosting their casualties before the truce in order to pressure Russia to intervene, portraying situation as more dramatic. Now that Russian intervention seems more unlikely, they've stopped doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.15.2 (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_in_Donbas/Archive_2&oldid=1181675218"