Talk:War in Donbas/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Map

Why was the map changed. The old map was much more detailed. 74.102.166.27 (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

More detailed, but not as useful. The present map adequately summarises the territorial expansion and contraction from a historical perspective. A map should be for "at a glance" purposes, not for details. The previous map is still maintained at the timeline, for day to day updates, but this map allows one to quickly get a feel for the conflict in context, without having to strain one's eyes over tons of text and icons. It is professional quality, and a great improvement. RGloucester — ☎ 00:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The more detailed map was perfect for an overview, and also important for people who wanted details on the daily situation. The current map is a poorly made sketch, totally inaccurate and already out of date. The last territory it contains is from the 31st of August. The lines have slightly changed in the south, right up to Mariupol, also around Donetsk. Horlivka also does not belong to the separatists, it was a city that was being fought over. Please revert to the old, more useful map. `2003:5B:4938:7726:80DE:FEEA:F92B:FB56 (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2014

No editing skills. But could the current leading diagram on the page be replaced with the previous one? The previous diagram showed territorial exchanges and was modified regularly (see link). The current photo shows decisively less information. It doesn't make much sense for an encyclopedia to handicap information distribution, does it? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/East_Ukraine_conflict.svg 109.76.121.65 (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree here, the latter image currently used is also terribly out of date. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No. The current image is not out-of-date. It was just created, purposely after a lot of work. The territorial line hasn't moved significantly since that offensive. There have been battles, but no territorial changes, due to the Minsk Protocol. We need a map that shows the conflict from a historical perspective, not one that is impossible to read. It does not "handicap" anything, but serves as an "at-a-glance" record of the whole conflict. Maps with tons of unreadable text are not useful to anyone. That map is still maintained at the timeline, which is more suited to a day-by-day approach. RGloucester — ☎ 23:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well seeing that the article doesn't deal with a plane crash as it's primary focus does that need to be included? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Er, yes? That's one of the most significant events that has happened during the conflict, from an international perspective, which is why it was included. RGloucester — ☎ 23:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian army casualty update and correction

At least 1,184 KIA so far. The UN estimate of 1,078 months ago was too high and was not accurate in my opinion.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/at-least-1184-soldiers-killed-in-russias-war-against-ukraine-373390.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

27-28 thousand rebel volunteers in May, according to Strelkov

Quote: If I had enough weapons and specialists in Donetsk, I would launch the mobilization. First thing that minister of defense had to do was the mobilization. But I had no resources at all. So we had to take only the volunteers, but we hand’t got enough equipment even for the all volunteers. By moment I left Donetsk I still had 150 unarmed men, however I had already had several thousand men army. As far as I know 27 or 28 thousands enlisted in May. They were ready to fight in militia. But there was nothing to arm them with.

source Esn (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Casualties and losses section

The section seems quite messy. I do not think it is appropriate to label defectors as "losses" since this is a civil conflict and it would also imply that the 1,000,000 strong confederate army could also count as a 1,000,000 man loss to US forces who defected to join the confederates. Moreover defectors typically do not count as losses on most Wikipedia articles. American revolution was noted for having many parties defect such as 20,000 slaves defecting to fight for the British, but these are also not listed under US loses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Koonter (talk • contribs) 06:24 UTC

Yes, I googled "military losses desertions defections", and from looking at the articles that came up, it does appear that desertions and defections are not considered to be losses. "Losses" seems to be more or less a synonym for "casualties". This does not mean that desertions and defections should not be listed in the info box, however. – Herzen (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Should there be a separate section created within the article that talks about defectors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would not be a bad idea to have a subsection on "Deserters and defectors" in the "Counter-insurgency forces" section. (The rebels by now pretty much have a unified command structure and army, so the term "insurgency" is not really appropriate.) I am under the impression that defection was only a problem in the early stages of the conflict, before June, say. Desertion is certainly still a problem, however, and there are many prosecutions for desertion underway. The article thus far only mentions one case of desertion by Ukrainians, with the soldier fleeing to Russia. But there have also been incidents of Ukrainian soldiers leaving their posts and returning home, with the government accusing them of desertion but their denying it. – Herzen (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Desertion is pretty common even in most disciplined armies. The Wikipedia article Desertion actually talks about it and it states there were approximately 50,000 deserters in Vietnam War, but these are not listed in the "casualties and losses" box. Same with Iraq war where there was about 5,000 deserters, but these too are not listed as US losses. Nor are Americans who happened to defect to various terrorist organizations regarded as casualties or losses. Moreover Russia being a nation that uses a draft is itself well known to have draft evaders, the following article states that about 30,000 Russian conscripts get convicted of draft evasion annually but it would be inappropriate to count these as "casualties or losses".http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/fall-military-draft-begins-with-warnings-of-hazing/486859.htmlKobe's jaw (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Your mentioning that Russia has a draft reminds me of something that could be mentioned in the "Deserters and defectors" section if it is decided to create one. Yanukovich had abolished the draft in Ukraine. After the turnover in government in February, the new regime reinstated the draft in order to pursue its "ATO". The policy of the present regime with respect to a military draft should be discussed somewhere. That conscription was reinstated in May is mentioned in one sentence in Armed Forces of Ukraine. Maybe we could have a section entitled "Conscription" or "Reinstatement of conscription" in this article? This would not be the first time that a country implements a military draft because it has gotten itself into a war, so this article is the best place to discuss the current Ukrainian policy on conscription in my view. Desertions and defections could be discussed in that section. – Herzen (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem goes further: in the source about "20000 deserted" there is only a statement about policemen who are either missed or "not reliable".

"How to find, according to our estimations, almost 20 000 men, who should replace those who either deserted or lose credibility as a policeman? How we should react on certain testimony given to polygraph by servicemen, who put on their police uniform after 3 month break in Donbass? How to keep the wave of criticism and distrust to Donbass police from washing off honest people, who were behaving honestly by serving Ukraine in this tight situation?" Shishkin (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ammunition of militia(police) in Ukraine is limited and, possibly, was captured in various police stations. We can suggest that they partially participated in a conflict as refugees. Shishkin (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

32,000 rebels in Donbas

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/over-32000-mercenaries-and-russian-troops-fighting-in-donbas-general-staff-374045.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.117.10 (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to the Novorossiyan elections in early Novermber 2014

Wikipedia has long since proven itself just another propaganda arm of the NWO. It needs to be shunned, as it is a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.57.114 (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

So, what's the problem now? That people (from some regions in Donbass) actually elected their rebel leaders? Were they not considered rebels before? The hypocrisy of the Anglo-Saxonic World amazes me! They need enemies like a normal human being needs water! Either they being Russians, pro-Russians, French, Chinese, Muslims, Venezuelans, Bolivians, you name them! And they don't give a shit about Ukrainians (only if they're anti-Russians). A special appreciation to Mr. Richard (let's say, RGloucester), who thinks he has a higher morality over anyone else concerning to global issues, since he thinks he has the highest moral high ground! Again, I recommend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias, and specially for RGloucester I'd recommend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_humility. And again, a big appreciation for Iryna Harpy, for being so unbiased, and I guess also an appreciation for Herzen, since (though I don't don't agree with him on everything) he has been stubborn and quite polite facing all the anglo-saxonic racist (I dare to say) against Russians! I'm being bold, but that's what I have to do. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Does this has anything to do with this article? Some explanation maybe, I do not see, why the free people of Donbass do continue to vilolate the Minsk agreement, continue to capture territory of Ukraine and bring death and destruction over the region ? User:Herzen thinks so [3], I´m looking forward to find out. Alexpl (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you actually believe that Kiev does not violate the Minsk agreement at least as much as the rebels? Kiev forces the rebels to violate the ceasefire agreement, because Kiev forces continue to shell populated areas with no military objective. OSCE has said as much, so Ukrainian military "experts" have broken off contact with OSCE.

In any case, your claiming that my restoring Mondolkiri1's edit was some kind of statement about the War in Donbas, as opposed to my simply trying to get Wikipedia guidelines to be observed, is puzzling. – Herzen (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, but the proper away for you to address me is either as "Your Grace", or the "Duke of Gloucester". RGloucester — ☎ 14:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Technically, when addressing Your Grace directly (as I am doing now), it must be in the form I've used in this sentence. When bitching about you in the third person, the 'Duke of Gloucester' in lieu of the pronoun 'he' is the correct form (i.e., the Duke of Gloucester is a despot. Off with his head!) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, if one wants to be quite nice in the third person, one can say "His Grace the Duke of Gloucester". In fact, I prefer that form. There are no bounds to My Grace. RGloucester — ☎ 22:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Russia has not recognized the election since they back tracked saying that "respect" does not mean they will "recognize" the elections that took place in rebel area of Donbass. If you are complaining about rebels not being recognized by the west then you should also extend this to grievance to Russia as they too have no recognized them.Koonter (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Problem with "Downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17" Section

MH17 was downed on the order of Kolomoisky himself, with the intent of downing Putin's personal jet, which had crossed flight paths with MH17 farther west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.57.114 (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

About 2/3 of this section doesn't have anything to do with the airliner incident. But, it is well-cited information that perhaps should be moved to another section. RichBryan (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Rebels' casualties according to Ukrainian government

About 8 000 killed pro-Russian rebels (not Russian soldiers!!!) from the beginning of the ATO From the official Facebook page of the ATO press centre https://www.facebook.com/ato.news/posts/905346392809501 Please add this to the wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Since Ukrainian government has no information about rebels, their stats are totally wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Who cares? There is information about 27 888 killed and wounded Ukr.soldiers from the separatists. That means that information from government MUST be added too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Depends: Rebels haven't had no casualties, so they must have some. Problem is knowing them.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC) OK. Look. Information which is on the page NOW is outdated. It says about rebels: 2,000 killed,[73] 131 missing,[74] 744 captured[75][76] (according to the government)

But TODAY government claims that 8,000 rebels were killed during the conflict. I think that information from government must be updated, with the caption "according to the government" of course. Here is the exact translation from Ukrainian: https://www.facebook.com/ato.news/posts/905346392809501 "Rebels' casualties since the beginning of the ATO are tentatively 8 000 people. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine army casualty down to 917?

Reliability in Ukraine is really atrocious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRfXDZs2lPo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Change title to "Ukrainian civil war".

I'm not sure why this isn't titled "Ukrainian civil war", because the vast majority of rebels are locals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.32.113.89 (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2014‎ (UTC)

I agree that the present title is awkward. There were reports that the Red Cross has determined that Ukraine is presently in a civil war: AFP, PressTV. It is typical of civil wars that hostilities do not occur everywhere in a given country's territory. In the American Civil War, there were no hostilities in New England or New York. Yet Wikipedia calls the American Civil War the American Civil War, not the War in Southeastern America.

Original poster's observation that "the vast majority of rebels are local" is correct. Reliable western sources confirm that. That, together with the International Committee of the Red Cross referring to "non-international armed conflict in Ukraine", means that this is a civil war. Since Ukraine has experienced civil wars before, this article should probably be called Post-Soviet Ukrainian Civil War. – Herzen (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Quite simply, this is not how reliable sources refer to this conflict (and presstv is not a reliable source).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

(EC) This seems to be trying to figure what this conflict should be called. But that's not our job. We must call it by its WP:COMMONNAME, based on WP:RSs. The Red Cross is one that calls it a civil war, but only one, and it may have legal or internal reasons for doing so that don't mesh with the wider world. (And we can't use the American Civil War as the basis for any naming; we have a whole article about the still ongoing arguments of what that conflict should be called, 250 years after it ended.) That said, I can't recall actually hearing any major media calling this conflict by our present title. Sources for better name, anyone? --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The ICRC did not call it a "civil war". That has been debunked numerous times, going back to the summer. They referred to it at as "non-international armed conflict", and that was months before a variety of events, such as the August incidents, significantly changed the situation on the ground. Regardless, "non-international armed conflict" does not mean "civil war", but I don't want to play this game again, as I already did so many times before. No preponderance of reliable sources call this a "civil war". There is no better title. This is a WP:NDESC title that avoids labelling the conflict as anything other than what it is, which is a "war in the Donbass region", and is a frequently used descriptive label for the conflict. Leave well alone per WP:TITLECHANGES. There is no better title, only worse ones. The rest are POV titles, like "civil war", "Russo-Ukrainian War", and a variety of other peanut-gallery rubbish. RGloucester — ☎ 22:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"War in Donbass" is merely a good "descriptive title". Actually, the best title per WP:Common name would be Russian-Ukrainian war, because it has been most commonly used in news [4]. Independent newspapers are a good indicator since these are current events; few books were written about them so far. However, if we are taking such approach, this page should be possibly merged with 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine... But I guess we do not have consensus for that. My very best wishes (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you absolutely mad? Dear God above, this is the same rubbish all over again. No reliable sources call this the "Russo-Ukrainian War", no one calls it the "Ukrainian Civil War". "Russo-Ukrainian War" is not the "common name" of this war. The idea of "Russian-Ukrainian War" in of itself is wrong, because it defies the English language use of combing forms for wars. If there were to be such a thing as a "Russian-Ukrainian War", it would need to be called "Russo-Ukrainian", as with all other similar wars, and following standard English practice of using classical combing forms. Regardless, no sources call it that. It is a POV title, just like "Ukrainian Civil War". Pull out of a BBC article or an article from The New York Times that calls this either of these titles. You shan't find one. Merging this with 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is the worst idea in all of humanity's existence, both for issues of article length, NPOV, and conflation of various separate conflicts. The present title is WP:NDESC. RGloucester — ☎ 23:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Google news search gives 92 hits for "Russian-Ukrainian war", and Google web gives 11,000. Quickly looking at this, one could easily select, for example, 50 RS which use this terminology. For example, Andrei Illarionov tells: "This is a Russian-Ukrainian war. To be more precise, this is Putin's war against Ukraine." here, and so and soon. And remember that WP:Common name is not about the "truth"; this is simply a matter of usage. My very best wishes (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"92" hits are the equivalent of "nil", and "web searches" are irrelevant. It isn't purely a matter of usage, it is a matter of usage by reliable sources. The usage you mention is an example of a commentator calling the war what he feels like calling it, i.e. WP:SOAP. WP:SOAP is antithetical to the encylopaedia, and not used to determine article titles. If The New York Times starts calling it the "Russo-Ukrainian War", then fine. Until mainstream newspapers are calling this conflict "Russo-Ukrainian War" or "Ukrainian Civil War" in their own editorial voice, we certainly cannot use them. Even if they did, we are bound by WP:NPOV when they are not. RGloucester — ☎ 00:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you. This is obviously a civil war, but I understand that WP policy prevents WP calling it so, because few Western sources do, for obvious political reasons. You also refuse to admit that the February coup was a coup, even though it had all the hallmarks of a coup and one of America's top political scientists calls it a coup]. – Herzen (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Mearsheimer is a washed-up realist that no one gives a damn about. RGloucester — ☎ 00:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@A D Monroe III: I looked at what other Wikipedias call it. The title used by several, including the Ukrainian one, is "War in eastern Ukraine". (Russian Wikipedia can't even bring itself to call this a war, calling it an "armed conflict" instead.) I would say that English Wikipedia should follow Ukrainian Wikipedia's example. There are two main reasons for this. (1) The term "Donbass" is very obscure to anyone who is not Ukrainian or Russian. (2) Donbass contains not only parts of Ukraine, but also parts of Russia. (This fact was obliterated from the article on Donbass by a Ukrainian IP with this edit.) Thus, the current title is inaccurate, since no hostilities are taking place in the Russian part of Donbass. – Herzen (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There are Wikipedias that call it the "War in Donbass", the French Wikipedia being an example. However, what other Wikipedias do is irrelevant here. It is very hard to argue that the word "Donbass" is obscure, given the sheer amount of coverage it gets. One can hardly find a single reference to this war in recent months without the word "Donbass" nearby. The problem, however, is that "Eastern Ukraine" does not define the scope of the article, as decided in the requested move discussion that resulted in the present title. It includes Kharkiv, and sometimes other oblasts, and there is no war in Kharkiv or other oblasts. Calling it the "War in Eastern Ukraine" is both misleading, and inappropriate. We cannot use inaccurate titles. You say that there are "Russian parts of the Donbass", but you fail to realise that there are multiple different things called "Donbass", with different definitions. There is the coal mining area, defined by coal. There is the river basin itself, including parts of Rostov Oblast. There is also the common definition of the "Donbass" as used in Ukraine, which is "Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts". This is presently the most common definition of the term, and the one we use here. We have western sources, such as The New York Times and The Daily Telegraph, using that definition. Even your favourite Tass uses it. There is no question, here. RGloucester — ☎ 00:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Attempt to summarize: Our own reasoning doesn't matter; we must follow WP guidelines. Currently, we're relying more on WP:NDESC rather than WP:COMMONNAME because there doesn't seem to be any agreed single common name used by a majority of RSs. Some may call it a civil war, or involve Russia in the title, but those names are not WP:NPOV. The current name is simply descriptive, and avoids obviously favoring one view over another. Whatever the politics, it is a war (two organized military forces fighting), and it takes place in a location. Right?

That would mean we're down to only minor details. I agree that Donbass is little known in the general readership of EN WP, but "War in eastern Ukraine" is less accurate. It could be a redirect, though.

I’m not overjoyed with the current name, but I don’t think there is any better one right now. --A D Monroe III (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It is already a redirect, as is 2014 Ukrainian Civil War, and a variety of other potential POV titles. There simply is no better title. This is a descriptive title, nothing more. It allows us to remain neutral, given that there simply isn't one common name used by RSs to refer to the conflict. Once again, I think it is wrong to say that "Donbass" isn't well known to readers. Anyone reading any article on this matter will see "Donbass", and there are RS calling this a "war in Donbass". Regardless of that, we don't change the names of regions to suit other people. I'm sure most people don't know the Vendée region, but that doesn't mean we change the name of the War in the Vendée to the War in West-Central France. RGloucester — ☎ 01:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Understood. – Herzen (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

All right, you've made a decent case, so I am not going to pursue this further. If a third party wants to hat this discussion, go ahead. But your condescending "your favourite Tass" remark is not appreciated. I rarely look at Tass nowadays. Incidentally, given your remarkably naive belief that corporate media are reliable sources when it comes to Russia, I think it's high time for you to remove the Marxist userbox from your user page. – Herzen (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not naive. Whether or not I trust the corporate media doesn't matter, since my beliefs have no relevance on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I try, and sometimes fail, to put aside my personal beliefs and write the encylopaedia how it should be written. I suggest that you try to do the same. RGloucester — ☎ 01:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Russia as belligerent vs Russia incriminated

Mentioning Russia as a belligerent while adding that Russia denies it doesn't make a lot of sense. Russia is accused by Ukraine, EU the US and NATO of attacking Ukraine. Even if we put a disclaimer that Russia denies its involvement, claiming that Russia is a belligerent means we are picking sides. I suggest we do what the French wikipedia does, simply state that Russia is incriminated and by whom. The reader should decide whether he puts faith in the claims of these nations and organisations, wikipedia should not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elite Peasant (talk • contribs) 14:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Russia isn't a belligerent, not by dictionary definition, not by UN resolution, hell not even the US has gone as far as to accuse Russia of having troops directly involved--all of these would highly suggest that Russia is not a belligerent nation, by any definition.

This is a war between Ukraine and her breakaway Republics, not Russia. Solntsa90 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually both the US and NATO have said that Russian troops are involved. Hell, Russia itself has admitted that it's troops are involved - you know, those parachutists who just happened to get lost in Ukrainian territory - it just keeps claiming these are either "soldiers on leave" (nice of the Russian army to let its soldiers take their heavy equipment with them when they go on leave) or "got lost".Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources that have been cited in the article say that Russia is a belligerent. Russia denies this, just as the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Soviet Union (USSR) officially denied being a participant in the Korean War, even though the PRC sent many army corps, who it claimed were volunteers who just happened to take their equipment, artillery, etc with them when they volunteered en masse - in fact just like the claimed volunteers from the Russian Army in the present conflict in the Donbass. If you have ever been to the Museum of the Great Patriotic War, Kiev, it boasts of the Ukrainian SSR's military contribution to the Korean War.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Elite Peasant, I wish that you'd stop your WP:OR and focus on the reliable sources provided. RGloucester — ☎ 23:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources prove that Ukraine and NATO incriminate Russia, not that Russia is a belligerent. I'm not doing any original research here. Unless Russia states that the Russian Army is a belligerent or that the sources incriminating Russia are not being questioned anymore, the article should change to reflect reality. You are not the judge of what is reliable and isn't.

China officially announced sending army into Korea in the Korean war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a simple test to see if Russian military is in Donbas. Does Ukraine dare to attack Crimea which is a Russian federal district? If not, then it proves Ukraine does not dare to fight Russia. Hence it would suggest there is no Russian military in Donbas where Ukrainian army dares to fight in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That is (illogical) original research. But thanks. Anyway, reliable sources do support including Russia in the list of belligerents.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources are not reliable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor Girkin has admitted Russia's direct involvement in the fighting in this Moscow Times interview[5]. --Nug (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor Girkin says a lot of crazy things, like Ukraine would attack Crimea. He is not taken seriously by anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.252.167.225 (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, you can produce evidence that he is certifiable. IP 207.35.219.34 and IP 192.252.167.225, please desist from using this talk page as a forum. It is not only WP:TEDIOUS but smacks of tragic despair to disprove that which has been irrefutably confirmed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources actually prove that Russia is directly involved as a belligerent in conflict with Ukraine (something Russia has vehemently denied, so you can't merely say that, because news organisations report on the game of 'He-said/She-said' and tend to come up with political opinions, that this is objective, conclusive evidence that Russia is a direct belligerent in the conflict: Nothing points to that, so having Vladimir Putin's name up there as a commander in this war is absolute rubbish. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Russia is not and has never been a belligerent in the conflict. Russia was involved in Crimea, not in Donbas. That could change, but right now it's not. Wikipedia never stated Russia is a belligerent, that the Russian military is involved, that Putin is a commander in Donbas, hence the denied by Russia in brackets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.252.168.84 (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian military lying about its losses

Yesterday, 2 Ukrainian army tanks were destroyed and the crew of one of the tanks were burned alive in the destroyed tank. The Ukrainian ministry of defense only reported 1 soldier wounded in action. facebook.com wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 6 January 2015‎

Nevermind, the facebook post was about something that happened in December last year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Soap/Forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Transliteration Would anyone with a knowledge of Ukrainian/Russian transliteration into English go through this article and ensure consistency with our guidelines? These are WP:UKROM and WP:RUROM. It is getting a bit confusing, with Aleksandrs and Alexanders, Andreis and Andreys, &c. It would be much appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 00:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Just to ensure that we're on the same page, there are wikilinked articles where the names have been Anglicised per RS and per CON as to COMMONNAME (I assume). The RS haven't been consistent, hence the confusion. As a standard 'Aleksandr' is the correct transliteration of 'Alexander' in Russian, whereas 'Aleksander' (which isn't actually the norm for Ukrainian, but seems to be used and may be attributable to a Russified norm for the Ukrainian version, being 'Oleksandr'/'Oleksey') would be the norm for the Ukrainian transliteration. Andrew is 'Andrei' per Russian transliteration, and 'Andriy' per Ukrainian transliteration. Confused? I'm not... I'll go through the article and ensure that the correct name per language and transliteration system is used consistently for each instance of the same person. What happened to the easily distinguishable names like Panas and Zakhar? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC) I understand the basic principles, but I'm not sure what to do in many instances, as sources themselves vary. I imagine we should use a person's name as done by a Wikipedia article, but then there are people who don't have Wikipedia articles, like Andrei Purgin. Either way, I feel like we should be consistent, and avoid having different variants of the same person's name across the article. RGloucester — ☎ 01:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Russian Armed Forces listed in the info box as a combat unit without proof WP:NOTFORUM The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. This is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Maps need dates There are two maps, one at the top in the info box of the article and one at the bottom that shows the changes. Thank you to those who made them, it's very interesting to see the changes. It would be very helpful to have dates on the maps to see which map is from when because positions constantly change. The one at the top has as last date some day in August last year. Could anyone update it and add dates to the animated one? And is it possible to have a viewer for the animated one that can be stopped and allows to manually go forward and backward? Galant Khan (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC) There were no territorial changes between the date on the infobox map and the date of Donetsk Airport's fall, just a few days ago. RGloucester — ☎ 15:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Kiev Post: "Army drastically undermines real losses" According to Kiev Post, which is pro-Ukrainian newspaper, the army drastically lowers real losses sustained during combat operations. [6]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Mentioned it along with the source in the new Casualties of the war in Donbass article. If you could, improve the article as you see fit. EkoGraf (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC) August events The August events link to 2014-15 Russian military intervention for more information, however this page is more comprehensive. Would it be preferable if most of that information was transported over the Russian military intervention or if the hat note was removed? One of those two options ought to be done. Hollth (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Foreign inspiration/support? Fscist/Nazi symbolism and ideology. Many serious independent thinkers (and by that I do not necessary mean Russians) and some politicians (example: from Hungary, Czech Republic) blame EC some countries particularly Germany/UK and others as United States or Israel for organisation of overthrowing elected government and military support for Ukrainian troops in this Civil War (Canada, USA and Poland are sending uniforms, helmets, military food rations and medical packets for soldiers) The article doesn’t point that new goverment installed in Kiev are actively promoting the nationalist and fascist organization OUN-UPA and its “commanders” Bandera and Szuchewycz. That organization was openly cooperating with Germans in occupied territories of Poland and Russia. It has blood of more than 100.000 murdered Poles in Volhynia Massacre. To ad insult to injury there were some “remembrance” marches full of fond memories to Ukrainian SS Galizien unit! Red and Black banner of UPA is currently common, as is the Wolfsangel sign. 83.11.21.152 (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC) 1) Where are your reliable sources for these allegations (AKA your personal speculation)? 2) This is an article talk page, not a forum/soapbox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC) - http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/18/us-ukraine-crisis-farright-insight-idUSBREA2H0K620140318 http://venik4.livejournal.com/42389.html https://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/15/ukraines-romantic-nazi-storm-troopers/ http://thenewsdoctors.com/arms-or-diplomacy-u-s-foreign-policy-planners-divided-over-ukraine-strategy/ https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/06/nyt-still-pretends-no-coup-in-ukraine/ http://rt.com/news/185708-nazi-symbols-ukrainian-troops/ https://www.google.pl/search?q=wolfsangel+ukraine&biw=1067&bih=689&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=KNy4VIDlLoL5yQPz6oG4AQ&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QsAQ Enought of a proof? Or somehow not? 83.11.27.21 (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Great, let's take consortiumnews.com, rt.com, venik4.livejournal, thenewsdoctors.com, et al to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard in particular, providing the context for their being 'reliable sources'. In fact, now that you and other contributors engaging in meatpuppetry have rewritten the Wolfsangel article in order to promote your agenda, we have several instances of article content being 'improved' by using these sources. Perhaps, however, this should go before an ANI as the usual POV and WP:SPA editors have emerged and are working as a WP:TAGTEAM. How would you suggest that we approach the issue? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Oh yes if NYT has not written about sth that it simply does never happen. The common usage of Wolfsangel sign and black/red flags are fact. The state cult of Bandera and UPA is also a fact. And every person knows who were those people and what they standing for. (""In an interview with Lally Weymouth, Ukrainian billionaire businessman and opposition leader Petro Poroshenko said: "From the beginning, I was one of the organizers of the Maidan. My television channel — Channel 5 — played a tremendously important role. ... On the 11th of December, when we had [U.S. Assistant Secretary of State] Victoria Nuland and [E.U. diplomat] Catherine Ashton in Kiev, during the night they started to storm the Maidan."″) BTW. DO NOT IMPUT that I'm the part of some group, and STOP INSULTING people with other point of view!!!83.11.18.85 (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Or maybe, Iryna, this should go to ANI because your ability to impartial here is questionable, considering, according to your username, you seem to be Ukrainian yourself, therefore your views would naturally side with Ukraine. There's other uses involved too, such as L'vivs'ke, even more obviously Ukrainian (and from L'viv which has always been the stronghold of the nationalists). Also, the rhetoric I've seen from you two is the same as that of the Ukrainian government too - that all Russian-language sources are automatically unreliable (something that no Wikipedia guideline states), that every single editor that doesn't side with Ukraine is automatically part of some kind of conspiracy to "push agenda to articles". Maybe I should personally request a Checkuser done on all editors that aren't pro-Ukrainian, just to silence the "they're all sockpuppets" argument for good. And if you want to claim meat puppetry, then the onus is on you to provide evidence. Also, have you forgotten that already Viktor Yuschenko years ago declared Stepan Bandera the national hero of Ukraine? That there are statues of Bandera in most places in western Ukraine? Something BTW, which is mentioned in the appropriate Wikipedia articles, and has been referenced by sources considered reliable by your own standards. So Yuschenko was pro-Bandera, and now that we have a party even more to the right, Svoboda, in power, you're saying they don't support Bandera? Oh and the fact Bandera collaborated with Nazi Germany is also a known fact, again mentioned on Wikipedia and proved by Western historical sources. Now, tell me, how can one be pro-Bandera but not pro-Nazism? In addition, photos of Ukrainian nationalists brandishing the Right Sector OUN/UPA black-red flag are easy to find, as well as of people bearing the insignia of "Ideya natsiyi" ("Idea of a nation") which is a modified Wolfsangel. Now, I am not going to pronounce myself on whether those people are majority or minority in the Maidan movement, but they were clearly there, and some of them were clearly recruited to the army. So yeah, Iryna, let's call a spade a spade. You're Ukrainian, and therefore the chances of you siding with Ukraine are high. And so are the chances of L'vivs'ke siding with Ukraine. And I think it is in everyone's best interest if sensitive articles such as these are handled by neutral people rather than by people who are clearly tending towards one side. And yes, with that I am clearly saying I myself am NOT appropriate for the role, either, as I am pro-Russian. So someone who is on neither side should be found and put in charge. However, if I see any more accusations and guidelines-violating discrimination coming from either side, I will happily bring it to the ANI myself, as well as subject myself to all the necessary tests to prove I am not involved in any sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. - OBrasilo (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Casualties after Grad Valley Shooting in Mariupol =

Nobody ever confirmed that it was separatists who fired Grad rockets. "Allegedly" should be added in the related section, otherwise biased information. Also why such speedy edit when it may happen that separatists fired rockets, while the exact same situation id Donetsk was covered pretty slow, one-sised and with a lot of doubt when there was no proof whatsoever about who fired them?89.233.128.158 (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

For use in the Infobox
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv-post-plus/at-least-1427-soldiers-killed-in-russias-war-against-ukraine-378906.html
Soldiers killed 1,427

Soldiers wounded 4,322
200.48.214.19 (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Rebel aid

abkhazia is supporting the rebels [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.15.242 (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Rin.ru isn't really a reliable source. Aside from the spin on the Kiev government being the product of a coup, the only information is that Abkhazia is sending humanitarian aid. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There is not a single guideline that would say Russian-language sources are automatically not reliable, so please stop this. Also, regarding "Aside from the spin on the Kiev government being the product of a coup," - so government change imposed by an armed insurrection is not a coup? Then what, by your definition, is a coup? - OBrasilo (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A coup is what reliable sources call a coup, and they didn't call this a coup. RGloucester — ☎ 14:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Not all sources agree on the current Kiev government being legitimate, either, yet the same argument isn't applied there. Double standards much? So basically, what Western sources say is accepted to be fact, regardless of how many sources don't agree, yet, whatever Russian-language sources say is false unless every single source agrees? No offense, but the same standards should be applied to all sources. - OBrasilo (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Democratic or Socialist

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Don't get me wrong, i don't think the kiev gov is nazi. Nazi was democratic however it was more democratic-socialism, this is an uprising into democracy because its so well organized. It was a puppet gov put into plan since the 1940s. I think maybe this gov is democratic. It goes like this Democracy-socialism-communism. They are fighting against a monarchy that turned into a socialist democracy. Russia I think is more Socialist than Democratic. I think nazi germany turned into national socialism though or some sort of dictatorship. What's ironic is Russia is now democratic-socialism. For instance america may be involved because its a democratic-republic or a democracy with a republic body, and it basically has to be involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.27.70 (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

ATO casualties

https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%85_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80_%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%96%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%83_%282015%29 this list looks good, says 170+ Ukrainians KIA since Jan 1. --78.1.90.153 (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - Wikipedia - in whatever language - is not a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The above editor meant to link WP:RS. Regardless, Wikipedia in Ukrainian can not be used as a source for anything, and neither can the English Wikipedia. Only reliable secondary sources are any good. RGloucester — ☎ 20:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Time to get the dynamic map going again

Hey, as the war sadly has started again it would be prudent to get the old map going again that shows the changes in territory, agreed? 213.100.108.86 (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this might be worthwhile, but not one seems to be working on updating the map, so it is rather useless for the moment. Is anyone good with maps? RGloucester — ☎ 23:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

HCPUNXKID is good. He also did some excellent work on the Syria maps. EkoGraf (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Casualties of the war in Donbass

Basically just a table with some links and info on casualties, whereas say Casualties of the Syrian Civil War or Casualties of the September 11 attacks, for examples, have much more substantial content. A new section could be created in the War in Donbass article with the contents of Casualties of the war in Donbass. (specifically the Deaths section) Seems like a common sense move to take. Thoughts? ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No. This article is already way too long. This is a disruptive proposal. The new article will be expanded, anyway (see WP:SPINOFF). RGloucester — ☎ 07:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Dusruptive proposal? How is an proposing to merge an article that is basically just a table "disruptive" and removing the merger tag when a discussion is still ongoing? what do you call that? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It is disruptive to make a proposal that violates Wikipedia policies (see WP:SIZE), especially when one is doing it immediately after the creation of a WP:SPINOFF article. There is no room for discussion here. Please take your disruption to other places. RGloucester — ☎ 07:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You continue to call it disruption and refuse to discuss anything. All I see is combative behavior coming from you. As EkoGraf said, leave the discussion open for a while then remove the template if after a certain time period, the Casualties of the war in Donbass article is not expanded. This is to prevent from a stub (basically just a table) being allowed to remain when it should obviously and largely inconsequentially be merged into another article. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive. Please stop this disruption, at once. There is nothing wrong with stubs. They are allowed to exist, as long as they are sourced, notable, and unique. Either way, that article will never be merged here, because this article is already too long (see WP:SIZE, again), and nothing can be merged here. I will stop you disruption if you won't. Please stop. RGloucester — ☎ 07:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that in its current form Casualties of the war in Donbass is really short and most of it is an overview table. However the article should probably be given a chance for other editors to try and expand it. So I would hold of on the merger for a month at least to see if others can improve the article. EkoGraf (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• If you don't revert yourself, Ceradon, I will take you to AN/I for ignoring Wikipedia policies, and forcefully attempting to ensure excessive page load times for users with older computers. RGloucester — ☎ 07:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• It seems that all you want to do is push your point of view and shut me up, with no concern for established policies or norms. Might I remind you that this is a "proposed merger" and there just isn't enough consensus to ascertain whether your point of view is the right one or not. I'll state this again, I don't want war (edit warring or otherwise) all I want is a calm, civilized and respectful discussion where people don't dismiss concerns as "disruption", or give barely any consideration to points of view barring their own, or actively try to demonize me by saying I'm "forcefully attempting to ensure excessive page load times for users with older computers." or that I'm "ignoring Wikipedia policies" when I'm actually acting with in established policies to try and reach consensus about whether this article should be merged or not. Can you at least try that route, RGloucester? If you answer yes, I'm willing to forget the above discussion, assume good faith and move on with a civilized discussion where ascertaining consensus, rather than insults and antagonistic remarks, would atleast be possible. So... what do you say? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Your disruption is continuing at full speed. How can I forgive you for that? There is no "point of view". There are only Wikipedia policies, i.e. WP:SIZE and [[WP:SPINOFF]. Consensus is policy. There is no room for discussion. Good bye. RGloucester — ☎ 15:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Merge Indeed, the casualties article is basically a small table, regardless of what numbers may be in the future. No need to split this off because of size. The table is essential for the main article itself. Brandmeister^talk 12:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you mad? Please see WP:SIZE. This article has a huge page size, which is already outside the guidelines. We have a casualties chart here, in the infobox, and casualties are also described in the prose. That article is supposed to be expanded with analysis of the death rate/underreporting. Please stop your disruption, or I will be forced to take action. RGloucester — ☎ 15:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Take action? Are vague threats supposed to sway us from the obvious conclusion the the article, in its current form, should be merged with this one? Since you love to cite policy, I'll throw a few at you: WP:CIVIL; WP:CONSENSUS; WP:NPA. Stop acting like a child who got a toy taken away from them and decides to throw a tantrum. Dismissing all viewpoints that don't match your own as "disruption" is itself disruptive and immature. Can we please have an adult discussion about this? Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is policy, and you can't seem to read it. The only "adult" discussion about this so-called "merger" is no discussion at all. There is no room for "viewpoints" here. The WP:SIZE policy is clear, as is WP:SPINOFF. I will be forced to request action under WP:ARBEE if you press your disruption further. If you insist on making this page unloadable, I will have no choice. RGloucester — ☎ 19:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If there's a real potential for significant expansion, such as discussing coverage in RS and/or conflicting numbers due to propaganda and someone is going to expand, then I'll change my mind. But so far the casualties article is still basically a table. Brandmeister^talk 23:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is basically a table at present. All articles start somewhere. It will be expanded (it was created to address the concerns you mention), but regardless of whether it is expanded or not, it cannot be merged here. You'd have to merge it somewhere else, per WP:SIZE. RGloucester — ☎ 23:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, reasons stated above. Since we are voting, although I wasn't intending to vote. EkoGraf (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I, too, object to being pushed to !vote over relevant articles. There's been little time for editors to develop the article, but development is underway and this current article has been groaning at the seams for months (read the archived talk!). If it can't be developed any further down the line, then (and only then) discussions for merges can be brought up. At this point, it's merely jumping the gun with no policy or guideline basis. Consensus is not a trump card that blows every other policy or COMMONSENSE out of the water. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Supplanted by second request below.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Remove New Russia from infobox since it doesnt even exists. Lithuania is giving military aid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.249.227.146 (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC) List Donetsk and Luhansk separately since the confederation doesnt exist and is just proposed. On the Ukraine side, add Lithuania under "Supported by:" like done for other wars. 199.249.227.146 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC) They actually did declare it, on June 24. EkoGraf (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Read the Novorossiya article. This isn't the case. 199.249.227.180 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Remove Novorossiya from the infobox and list its two republics seperetly Under Ukraine in the infobox, write "Supported by:" list Lithuania and Bosnia [8] War in Donbas/Archive 7 Part of the 2013–15 Ukrainian crisis Date 6 April 2014 (2014-04-06) – present (10 years, 8 months, 2 weeks and 4 days) Location Donbass, includes: Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine Belligerents Donetsk People's Republic Lugansk People's Republic Russia Ukraine Supported by: Lithuania Bosnia and Herzegovina As copied from above: Remove Novorossiya from the infobox and list the two republics separately. The Novorossiya article explains how the "confederation" no longer exists. Under Ukraine in the infobox, write "Supported by:" and list Lithuania and Bosnia 74.101.157.77 (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Title of article

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please add the following to the first sentence: "also called the Russo-Ukrainian war of 2014-2015." The majority of international independent bodies, including NATO, OBSE, EU and USA acknowledge the presence and active participation of Russian Military active personnel and equipment in this war. The current article itself states that the Russian Military is involved in the conflict. Therefore, according to the international nomenclature, this war needs to be labelled as "Russo-Ukrainian war of 2014-2015". Not labeling the conflict clearly as it should be labeled creates confusion and misinformation among the readers. 71.193.117.8 (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Whether Russian troops are participating or not has no relevance on whether this war is called the "Russo-Ukrainian War". It simply isn't referred to that way in RS non-opinion pieces. Sorry. RGloucester — ☎ 19:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, a quick unscientific glance at Google News implies that "Russian-Ukrainian war" is already more common than the article's present title. The most common names seems to be "War in Ukraine", or (more specifically but less commonly) "War in Eastern Ukraine". How about changing the title to one of those? W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

No. We've been over this many times, and the present title is WP:NDESC (not WP:UCN), becuase there is no singular neutral precise common name. "Russian-Ukrainian War" isn't even standard English. You have to use the combining form "Russo-". We can use neither of your proposed titles. Look in the talk page archives, and you'll see why. RGloucester — ☎ 20:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps usage in reliable sources has changed since it was last discussed. The current title certainly seems very odd to me now, though it might not have done half a year ago. And it's nonsense to say "we cannot use" the names that are the most common in reliable sources - we rather should be using those names (if they really are the most common - as I say, my research was brief and unscientific). W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

No, there are many cases where we cannot use a common name. What's more, in this case, there is no one singular neutral common name. Alternatives like "Ukrainian Civil War" and "Russo-Ukrainian War", amongst others, exist in fringe sources, but they are not neutral, and we cannot use them. As a result, we are forced to make an editorial decision to use a WP:NDESC title. WP:NDESC titles must be WP:PRECISE and WP:NEUTRAL, and your proposed titles fail those criteria. We cannot use "war in Ukraine", as there have been many wars in Ukraine, failing WP:PRECISE. What's more, this war is not "in Ukraine", it is only in a small part of Ukraine (Donbass). This has been discussed many more than times than just "a half a year ago" (last discussion was in December). Regardless, "war in Donbass" does appear in many sources, even though it was not chosen on the basis of common usage (at the time, many sources were still reluctant to call this a "war" at all), but as a WP:NDESC title. Nothing has changed. Please read the prior discussions, of which there are many. RGloucester — ☎ 21:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you say things like "we are forced...", "we cannot..." Of course we can always take the decision to use the name that's most common in reliable sources, and that is what we almost always do. Why not in this case? It doesn't have to be absolutely neutral (see Falklands War, Armenian Genocide, etc.), nor does it have to be super-precise (in any case, there have doubtless been previous wars in Donbass as well). Above all we want it to be a name that readers will recognize and will be able to use themselves without sounding odd. W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no one singular neutral name that is found in sources. Are you listening? Yes, a non-neutral name that is simply the most common name in RS is acceptable, as with Armenian Genocide, &c. However, when sources conflict, i.e. when some sources say "Russo-Ukrainian War", some say "Ukrainian Civil War", and others use vague non-proper names for the purposes of headlines like "Ukraine conflict" or "Ukraine crisis", and there is no clear dominant name in RS for a particular event, we use a WP:NDESC title. If there are multiple conflicting non-neutral names, we do not pick one of them and take a side, unless one has dominance in RS. We also do not use newspaper jargon, as per WP:AT: "Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later". We must be precise. Sure, a newspaper might title a headline with "Ukraine crisis: So and So and So", but that's not indicative of the name of the conflict being described, and has no historical value. It also isn't WP:PRECISE, and hence fails our article title criteria. The present title is neutral, describe the exact scope of the events occurring, and is also found in RS (no other wars have been limited to the Donbass region, or called "war in Donbass"). It does nothing but describe the events. It issues no commentary. It is a simple reality, and that's why it is the best title, and why it is used. Now, please find something better to do than messing with WP:TITLECHANGES. RGloucester — ☎ 21:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please don't be abusive just because we disagree, I understand your argument, but you must surely also understand mine - there is no need to use a name that is very rarely used in RS when we have a perfectly acceptable name that is used much more commonly in RS. We are not "taking a side" by calling it (say) "War in Eastern Ukraine" (unless your argument is that the rebel side believe that they are not part of Ukraine any more, but that's a fringe position when we look at RS, even Russia doesn't take that view). It is a bit less precise, true, but not fatally so - the war is certainly "in" Eastern Ukraine, and it doesn't cover all of Donbass either. Nor has any other war been called by either title. All in all it seems to me the gain in recognizability is well worth the loss in precision. W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with you making a mess for no apparent reason. Again, please find something better to do. I've exactly so many times why "War in Eastern Ukraine" is no good. I'm not going to do it again. This title is stable. It is descriptive. It is the best possible title. Please STOP. Also, this name is not "rarely used by RS". No "acceptable name" is commonly used by RS. What name is that? There isn't any. The war isn't in "Eastern Ukraine", which includes Kharkiv Oblast, where there is no war. Calling it that will blow the war out of proportion, and hence non-neutral. That's not even a common name in sources, anyway. There is no proper name for the war, which is why we use WP:NDESC. We don't change the name of War in the Vendée to War in West-Central France because you think it is "less recognisable". Regardless, I'd challenge the notion that this is less recognisable anyway, as most mainstream sources use "Donbass", which (CNN) is the mainstream description (NY Times) of where (Reuters) this war takes (The Guardian) place (Forbes). This is a war in the Donbass region. The sources say so, as it is. Leave well alone. RGloucester — ☎ 22:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

In what sense am I "making a mess"?? You really don't have to get aggressive towards people who have a different opinion from your own - that's what the talk page is here for. Presumably you realize that the word "in" doesn't mean "covering the whole of". And according to Google News, "War in Eastern Ukraine" is way commoner (about 70 times commoner, if we believe the numbers at the top of the search results, which I admit we can't always) than the title you prefer. So on the face of it, given that the arguments against its precision and neutrality are weak at best, it's a clearly superior title. Obviously we two don't agree, so let's wait to hear some other people's opinions, which is what I intend to do now. (Good work with your editing of the article by the way.) W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Google News is not a valid indication of whether something is a proper name, because usage of the phrase "Eastern Ukraine" in a piece may not be referring to the war, but to the protests, or may be referring to generalised descriptions of unrest in the region, rather than the war. Use of a compass direction can happen concurrently with mentions of Donbass, given that Donbass is a part of eastern Ukraine. Regardless, even so, we cannot use "eastern Ukraine", as it is not WP:PRECISE, and because it is inherently non-neutral. There is no war in Kharkiv, and there never has been. The war is only in Donbass, and Donbass is where the conflict is commonly described as being in. I don't know why you insist there is a war in Kharkiv. Are you sure you are familiar with this conflict? I do need to be aggressive with people that are disruptive to articles, and that do not accept that this is a pointless issue that has been discussed tens of times. This is exactly the type of behaviour I hate. There are no opinions to be heard. They've all been heard at least ten times over. Now, please find something better to do than make a mess, otherwise I'll have to propose that this article be titled "Ukrainian Civil War". RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

W. P. Uzer You are right and you shouldn't take any of the more heated remarks by RGloucester too seriously. The Wikipedia policy on the names has not changed and is still the same. We give titles/names to something based on common names that are the most used in reliable sources. And your point about Google News is a valid one that we regularly use to define the common names. RGloucester simply has a policy that he doesn't accept any titles, no matter how common they are, if he thinks they are grammatically incorrect. And when someone like you, or I or Ceradon above disagree with his POV he becomes aggressive as you say, accuses us of making a mess, being disruptive, says there are no opinions to be heard, or that we simply go away. So you shouldn't get worked up about it or go into deeper discussions. If you want to make a reaqust for a renaming of the article to War in Eastern Ukraine as a common name go ahead and I will support it. War in Donbass is simply not the common name. (nor is Ukrainian Civil War RGloucester) EkoGraf (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong. There are multiple Wikipedia title criteria, including WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. You choose to apply only one of them (WP:UCN), and do so incorrectly. This proposal has been voted down enough times, and that's because it is wrong and isn't any kind of "common usage". It simply is wrong. You, EkoGraf, are one of the worst offenders. You continually take an incorrect position on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, ignore them to your liking, and have an entirely skewed concept of what WP:UCN means. The proposed title is not common as a proper name, and is incorrect. It has been proven so since day one. just as it would be wrong to create an article called War in West-Central France. It is a pure stupidity. Compass directions are used for everything, and will appear in any article about the war, but that doesn't make them part of a proper name for the conflict itself. RGloucester — ☎ 23:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You, EkoGraf, are one of the worst offenders. See what I mean W. P. Uzer? You continually take an incorrect position on Wikipedia policies You mean like you and WP: Civil? And nice way of communicating with me while trying to ask for help with the map. Nevermind, like I said, no need to go into deeper discussions. EkoGraf (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please. If you're wrong, you're wrong. I've seen it many times. WP:CIVIL is one thing, but if one's wrong, one's wrong. A spade must be called a spade. However, you rarely learn your lesson. Of course, that doesn't take anyway from your good abilities in other areas. However, when you're wrong, you're wrong. Wrong. You're good with numbers. Stick to those, and leave language to those that understand it. I don't understand numbers, so I'm happy to oblige in that department. I know at least that I'm faithful to Wikipedia policy, that I read the sources correctly, and that I don't make skewed arguments for fun. I only do what is necessary, and I will continue to do so to strike fear in the hearts of the wrong. RGloucester — ☎ 00:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I know at least that I'm faithful to Wikipedia policy...I will continue to do so to strike fear in the hearts of the wrong. I don't think WP policy condones threats. EkoGraf (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

And, on another note, as you like the Syrian department, this reminds me exactly of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant constant move requests. People make new requests every time to every possible title. "Islamic State" is more common, "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is more common, "ISIS" is more common, "IS" is non-neutral…over and over again for months, the same people making the same arguments. It is disruptive. These people don't add anything to the article in question, they just say "this title is no good, MOVE", to any possible title they can move it to. They'll skew sources, do whatever they want to try and move it to their title of the day. Then they'll file another request, and another. It is a long chain of moves through controversial titles, none particularly better than the other. It is the exact stuff that WP:TITLECHANGES tells us not to do. The reality is that until this war is long over, we won't know what the definitive name of this conflict will be, as with the name of ISIL. Moving it now is irrelevant, even if a move is warranted (it isn't). It is unproductive, and a waste of time. It is thinking in narrow terms instead of larger terms, and that's exactly why your application of title policy fails. You ignore the picture of the policy, all the nitty-gritty, and attach yourself to one piece of it which you apply incorrectly. RGloucester — ☎ 00:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That article isn't really a good example because in essence ISIS, ISIL and IS are all three common names with an equal amount of usage among people. The problem is nobody can agree on a unified name for the group (a number of news articles can be found on this issue) and some people even use all three of the acronyms. So you can see the reason for so many constant move requests going on there. EkoGraf (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That's true here too. Many people use Donbass (as has been demonstrated many times by myself and otherS). Many use "eastern Ukraine", though that might be in reference to broader events in the region, as it is a wider area. Many use both Donbass and eastern Ukraine together, as Donbass is situated in the eastern part of Ukraine, and "eastern Ukraine" is just a compass direction. Many people do use "Russo-Ukrainian War", if we include fringe sources and Ukrainian sources. Many people use "Ukrainian Civil War" if we include Russian sources. Many people use just plain "Ukraine conflict", even though that could refer to any of the events in the past year or so since Euromaidan started. Others use "crisis", even more vague. Usage is incredibly widely distributed. Many sources discuss this use. Some could propose "Nato-Russia proxy war in Ukraine", others consider it a wider "hybrid war". Many sources may include Crimea when referring to the war, thereby using "eastern" or "south-eastern" Ukraine, even though this article does not deal with Crimea. It is a mess. RGloucester — ☎ 00:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Er, where is "Russian-Ukrainian war" 'implied' to be commonly used? I've just run a thorough check of Google news and 'About 221 results' from bizarre WP:BIASED sources and some evidence for "Russian-Ukrainian hybrid war" (which actually encompasses the overall events in Ukraine over the last year, and ramifications thereof), but not one instance of RS using anything even resembling this suggestion unless you count the article by Andreas Umland in Foreign Policy Journal entitle "The West and the Evolving Russian-Ukrainian Trade War", or a quote taken from the Russian internet and used in an ecfr.eu article. How is this proposed renaming representative of the subject matter of this article? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's what I was saying, Iryna. There are sources that use it (and variants), but they're not sources we should be using here. There are even some usages in reputable sources, though they are useless opinion pieces. My point was that descriptions of this war are all over the place, which they are. RGloucester — ☎ 22:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Change the infobox

I need consensus according to an editor. Can we list the DPR and LPR as two entities since Novorossiya's existance is disputed? Also, shouldn't we list Lithuania and Bosnia under "Supported by:" for Ukraine since they are provided lethal aid? It only makes sense since we do this for the Syrian Civil War. I made an example infobox. 74.101.157.77 (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Whilst I would support removing "Novorossiya", given its non-existent status, I think it is a bit absurd to be adding Bosnia or Lithuania as a "supporter" of Ukraine because they sent one or two crates of pistols or bullets, or whatever. RGloucester — ☎ 19:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Per RGloucester, I support the removal of Novorossiya, but not the addition of Bosnia or Lithuania for the infobox as it's misleading. We aren't exactly talking bringing in troops or large scale assistance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done I'll go ahead and get rid of "Novorossiya", as I doubt anyone will object. RGloucester — ☎ 22:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Nato troops

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
nato troops launched coup in kiev yet this not say about the nato troops no proof of russian involve CLAIMED BY UKRAINE it is, stop treating as fact remove nato pov and tell TRUTH about nato troops in der UKRAIEN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.113.95 (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2015

this article is ukraine-nato pov why id the russia demomized der us troops is in ukraine mariupol, see this nato troops use ukraines as prox and this article paint picture of nato as a saitn!? whys? if der ukraien is to be represented rerpesent it as what it isl nato coup led by us troops who say out of my face when they want that is what obama says out of my face putin out of my face putin, vut but putin will not out of face wehen uou send troops to corrupt brother slavs in der ukraine there is this article must be pov attach pov atag because no russia sources are here this nato crap 138.16.106.238 (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Just because something is "there" does not mean that you have to react. If in your haste to do something just to do something then maybe leave it be for the one that has some imagination. Start with using the word "miltiary" within the context of a change order? Is that a good start? Hope it is not too complex.66.74.176.59 (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

complex what you talk it is all to get rid of this nato pov troops they mariupol is evidence no evidence of russia hwere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.106.238 (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop wasting our time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, haste makes waste. Your haste and what to expect? Waste.66.74.176.59 (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Request not made in a clear X to Y format, seems to just be generalized, and rather hard to understand, bellyaching and espousing of personal views. No WP:RS were provided either. Cannolis (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, haste makes waste. Your haste and what to expect? Waste. Volunteer Marek ? Your inability to comprehend is not a justifiable reason to thwart the actions of others. To challenge to your perceived idea of "person-in-charge" (WP is a volunteer activity, but just to remind you that there is more to this than YOU. YOU may not be the solution? YOU may not be the person to get it down? Maybe, YOU should, "Let it go! Let it go! ........"66.74.176.59 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we update this a bit?

The most recent info is from like a month ago after allLilahdog568 (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The newest information is from 31 January...not a month ago. In the intervening period, nitty-gritty goings-on at Debaltseve are documented at Battle of Debaltseve. This article is a summary of the most important events. Look to sub-articles for depth. RGloucester — ☎ 00:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2015

"miltiary" ?

66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain what it is you want done? RGloucester — ☎ 02:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Given word is in the article, and is not spelled correctly. Fixed. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Belligerents in infobox

Someone denoted that the Unites States and the European Union are one of belligerents in the conflict. What is it based on?? In such manner another might state that the United Nations or the Council of Europe are also one of the belligerents. The article omits the fact that the conflict rotates around the Budapest Memorandum, according to which all its signatories are required and obligated unconditionally to respect sovereignty of Ukraine and help it in case of aggression. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

American Advisors.

There is indeed American Advisors in Ukraine
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/22/pentagon-team-dispatched-to-ukraine-amid-crisis-wi/?page=all
. I dont know why such a Reactionary conduct being displayed by the curious fascist-edit made to the User Above. There are indeed NATO weaponry being used in Ukraine. Wikipedians should really avoid being Biased, despite the man above posted a POV. The reaction sound more like Censorship to me. Really sad. Maybe in a Future NATO troops could intervere and subsecuently this could be added to the Infobox, why all this fear?. Its there a finth column in the FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA??. Some sources for the Infobox regarding losses.
http://russia-insider.com/en/military_politics_ukraine_opinion_media_watch/2014/11/04/02-06-53pm/kiev_wildly_understating_combat
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/ukrainian-army-death-1/
200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem very well may be the knee jerk reaction that can be present with the editing style of some contributors or are blinded just as through all this discussion there exists a Ukrainian "miltiary". Haste makes waste.66.74.176.59 (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

According to the Budapest Memorandum, signatories of the document are obligated to provide any form of assistance to Ukraine in case of aggression including the Russian aggression. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft dodging and abuse of freedom of press by Ukrainian government according to Amnesty International

According to Amnesty International Ukrainian government arrested a journalist for expressing his views and urged to release him[9]. AI also mentions an epidemic of draft dodging-which I have seen covered in other mainstream new sources.This seems notable and should be covered in some way in the main article, and associated ones regarding freedom of Press in Ukraine.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the more relevant portion of that source is "the rebels, who appear to have an unlimited supply of weapons and training from Russia" and "The government has avoided officially declaring a state of war, instead referring to the operations in the east as an anti-terrorism operation, despite clear evidence of Russian military incursion."

Or how about these parts: "(A video) released last month, showed a rebel commander waving a sword in the faces of bloodied Ukrainian soldiers, slicing off their insignias and forcing the men to eat them. ", or "the rebels find two Ukrainian soldiers, bleeding and apparently severely wounded. Instead of offering assistance, they rifle through their pockets looking for telephones and valuables before kicking them. At one point, it appears that some of the rebels are about to kill the men but are persuaded not to by others."Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the more relevant portion of that source. As you are well aware Wikipedia is not based on personal opinions, and Amnesty International made main point the abuse of journalistic freedom by Ukrainian government and mass draft dodging(it was covered by even pro-Ukrainian Gazeta Wyborcza recentely). Feel free to start debate on issues you consider important elsewhere(for the record, the video is publicly available and at the end you see these two soldiers bandaged by rebels and escorted to safety, which is probably why AI didn't focus on that too much).

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What personal opinions are you talking about? Those are quotes from the source - a source which you brought up. Are you saying that "unlimited supply of weapons and training from Russia" for the rebels is not relevant to the War in Donbass and should be discussed "elsewhere"? That's a pretty strange argument. Oh wait, the personal opinion you are referring to must be that little bit of original research in your last sentence where you see it fit to evaluate a primary source - a video - yourself, rather than rely on reliable secondary sources (which, again, you're the one who brought it up).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Those are quotes from the source", yes the source in question(Amnesty International) raising the subject of draft dodging by Ukrainian civilians and abuses against journalistic freedom by Ukrainian authorities.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

And you keep forgetting these quotes, from the same source: "the rebels, who appear to have an unlimited supply of weapons and training from Russia" and "The government has avoided officially declaring a state of war, instead referring to the operations in the east as an anti-terrorism operation, despite clear evidence of Russian military incursion."

Or how about these parts: "(A video) released last month, showed a rebel commander waving a sword in the faces of bloodied Ukrainian soldiers, slicing off their insignias and forcing the men to eat them. ", or "the rebels find two Ukrainian soldiers, bleeding and apparently severely wounded. Instead of offering assistance, they rifle through their pockets looking for telephones and valuables before kicking them. At one point, it appears that some of the rebels are about to kill the men but are persuaded not to by others." Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the subject raised by Amnesty International, which is draft dodging and abuse of freedom of journalistic press by Ukrainian government.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

So what? It's relevant to this article, isn't it? You can't cherry pick sources for just the parts that agree with your POV and ignore the parts that contradict it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The article speaks clearly about abuse of journalistic freedom by Ukrainian authorities and draft dodging.Imprisoning journalist for his declarations is a serious issue, which has been raised by renown international organization like Amnesty International and is relevant to the conflict humanitarian aspect.As with other issues it needs to be covered.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That info is not really relevant to this article which is about the War in Donbass. However, the following quotations from the same source, are relevant:

"the rebels, who appear to have an unlimited supply of weapons and training from Russia" and "The government has avoided officially declaring a state of war, instead referring to the operations in the east as an anti-terrorism operation, despite clear evidence of Russian military incursion."

And these parts: "(A video) released last month, showed a rebel commander waving a sword in the faces of bloodied Ukrainian soldiers, slicing off their insignias and forcing the men to eat them. ", or "the rebels find two Ukrainian soldiers, bleeding and apparently severely wounded. Instead of offering assistance, they rifle through their pockets looking for telephones and valuables before kicking them. At one point, it appears that some of the rebels are about to kill the men but are persuaded not to by others."

Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Stuff about journalistic freedom does not belong here. It belongs at Freedom of the press in Ukraine. It is tangential, at best, to the subject matter here. RGloucester — ☎ 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"That info is not really relevant to this article" I disagree.This is directly relevant to the war, and the violation of journalistic freedom resulting in imprisonment of a journalist unwilling to get conscripted as has been noted by one of the largest organizations devoted to the issue of civil freedoms. As such I believe it should be covered.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount, Ruslan Kotsaba is a FSB operative. I suggest you to check his so-called "journalist work". The Security Service of Ukraine should have locked him up during the Euromaidan events as one of major crowd instigators. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount, please, consider that mobilization in Ukraine is mandatory (meaning, not optional) and whoever does not have real reasons to avoid it, according to law of Ukraine is subjected to criminal proceedings without exclusions. I suggest you to familiarize yourself with Ukrainian legislation before following with news. Just because some director of whatever international organization express his or her opinion has no weight in regards to dictate on how the Law of Ukraine is to be carried out. On February 5, 2015 former deputy chairman of Verkhovna Rada Ruslan Koshulynskyi was called to serve in the Armed Forces of Ukraine where he currently trains to go to frontlines. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The law on mobilization was grandfathered from the Soviet legislation and could be considered to be updated, but it is certainly not discriminatory towards that particular journalist. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Recently in the news there was a lot of "fuss" about issues of mobilization in Ukraine, while pro-Russian separatists are successfully conducting "volunteered mobilization" in the East Ukraine. "Volunteered mobilization" is an oxymoron and could not really be dictated by government, which only shows what the government of so-called Donetsk People's Republic is all about. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Chetniks in Ukraine

Why have I been reverted three times when it comes to this fact? How can you revert someone for adding information that is true? Three times. Unbelievable, it's as if this is the new Uncyclopedia.

Here are the sources: The only way that this is false is if these people are not people, but magic space lizards that are not real, like RGloucester , NeilN and Knowledgekid87 seem to believe. And if that's the case then, you better cite your sources. --Ritsaiph (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No one said anything was false. I said that it was WP:UNDUE weight to put a small group of a couple dozen people in the infobox, which is what we determined ages ago. We created a section in the prose to mention the Chetniks and other such groups: War in Donbass#Others. It does not belong in the infobox (outside of the collapsible list, where it is present). RGloucester — ☎ 03:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no input on the matter but if you go about accusing other editors of having a pro Russian agenda your argument is not going to go far, please keep an open mind and assume good faith here (WP:AGF). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ritsaiph: And you are clearly not reverting vandalism [10] so that won't fly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so you are then telling the removal of sourced information is absolutely fine on Wikipedia and not vandalism. Does this mean I can highlight all the information in this article, press the backspace button on my keyboard and then get awarded a BarnStar? Makes sense, I'm going to try this magic formula on some articles, thanks for the advice!

P.S You are a fucking idiot NeilN. --Ritsaiph (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sourced information is removed from articles all the time for a variety of reasons - WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:BLPGOSSIP to name a few. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2015

Before the following sentence:

"From the beginning of March 2014, demonstrations by pro-Russian and anti-government groups took place in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, together commonly called the "Donbass", in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and the Euromaidan movement."

I suggest the following:

On February 21st, 2014, an agreement was signed between democratically elected Victor Yanukovich and opposition leaders which was to make some concessions to the Euromaidan movement . However, the next day Right Sector militants began more violent attacks on government buildings and Union halls. The violence and terrorism propagated after February 21st intimidated the Ukrainian Parliament into voting out Victor Yanukovich. Under these violent threats the removal of Yanukovich can be defined as a coup in violation of international law. Qb220 (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

References

• No way. RGloucester — ☎ 01:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• "No way" does not qualify as a "proper explaination" of discretionary sanction. Such a response that simply adresses me as if I am ignorant of the content of "discretionary sanctions" speaks volumes of the contrived attempt to censor opposition to the obvious bias expressed in this Wiki article. The aim of Wikipedia is to promote neutral spread of information, however, this article is written from the point of view that Russia is the aggressor and suggestions with citations as I have provided are clearly being censored. --Qb220 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: sources #2 and #3 do not support the sentences in your proposed text that they follow. Also, edit requests are meant for simple, uncontroversial edits, which this is clearly not. While I am not discouraging further discussion of this issue, I would advise against reactivating this particular template, as the proposed change is outside the scope of an edit request. If not enough participants enter this discussion, take a peek at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The archives of this talk page may also show a prior consensus about this particular topic. Cannolis (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Generally, when a country invades another country and starts taking over pieces of its territory, it's accurate to describe it as the aggressor. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

New Map needed

We need a new map for the infobox, are there any free use maps out there that are updated? According to the timeline there has been territory gains and losses and we should reflect that rather than showing an outdated 6 month old map. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "six month old map". No changes took place between 31 August and late January 2015, when Ukrainian forces lost the airport battle. That was because of the Minsk Protocol. I agree that a new map would be nice, but we haven't got one. No one is working on one, and there really aren't many sources available at this moment. RGloucester — ☎ 01:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not true though, look at the timeline and what is going on around Debaltseve. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you read? I said between 31 August and late January. We're in February now. Now, there are territorial changes (see Battle of Debaltseve, an article I created). There were none for many months. RGloucester — ☎ 01:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The map used on this article spans between June and August, 2014 since then reliable sources have reported small gains and losses so no things are not the same (As much as we wish them to be). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, CAN YOU READ???????? Yes, things are NO LONGER the same. They were the same for many months, between August and late January. RGloucester — ☎ 01:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Calm down please, you are not understanding I am saying that no they were not he same for many months and we need a new map to reflect these changes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The boundaries did not change during the period from early September 2014, when the Protocol was signed, until January, when Ukrainian forces lost Donetsk airport and insurgents pushed the offensive. This is common knowledge. Again, CAN YOU READ??? I'd love to have an updated map, that would show the changes that have happened since late January. We do not have one. RGloucester — ☎ 01:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

BBC has maps that we can use as models to make our own we would have to modify it so it does not violate copyright but it can be done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it couldn't be done. I said no one is doing it. RGloucester — ☎ 01:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's a map. Narayanese (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

map of rebel territory

That's not useful at all, as it will quickly become outdated. We need an updated version of the East Ukraine Conflict map, to be updated on a regular basis. RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't say much about the current article, which was the kind of evaluation I was hoping for Narayanese (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

negotiation with 'terrorists'

gov figures and ua msm are full of ATO 'anti' terrorist operation

There is no mention that Poroshenko nedgotiated peace with 'terrorists'. And give order to stop fighting at Sunday 00:00. And agree to reform so 'terrorists' will have autonomy. Cann we add a sentence about this continius ua.gov peculiar antisemantism? The string ATO exist in titles of some quoted sources but is gingerly absent in the body of article.

99.90.196.227 (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The percentage of Russian paramilitaries ?

The intro of the article says that "Russian paramilitaries are reported to make up from 15% to 80% of the combatants". These estimates are pretty far from another and I wonder if someone should check the references.--Ezzex (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This was already debated (look for old discussions). The values are what the sources claim. Oscar-HaP (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Number of Russian troops

The number of 7500+ of Russian soldiers according to the links provided is mentioned in Ukarainian sources. CNN mentions a number of 4000-5000 according to UK estimates and 1000+ according to US estimates but nothing about coordinated NATO position. Can somebody correct this, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.24.2.40 (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Sifting Ukrainian Fact From Ukrainian Fiction"

“…Asked by Rosie Gray of BuzzFeed to how the error [as to how photos, misplacing T72 tanks, were presented as strong evidence of Russian involvement] had come about, Senator Inhofe’s office said that the images were provided during a meeting with a large delegation of Ukrainian commanders and officials who were in Washington last year when he was the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. A list of the participants in the meeting showed that it included three members of Ukraine’s Parliament and a former Pentagon official, Phillip Karber…” New York Times, FEB. 13, 2015

If it might help to clear up certain issues or misuderstandings, is there any reason why a direct quotes–from the New York Times report–might not be used in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.191.142 (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Addressed above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Russia as Belligerent, consensus needed.

From previous discussions I discovered that Russia is involved by benefit of the doubt. Why allow doubt if you could simply state that Russia is incriminated and by whom? This is similar to the Neutral Point of View the BBC employs in their reports about the situation. Instead of claiming that Russia did this or that, they always add "according to NATO/Ukraine". It's correct and it's professional. And that counts double for an encyclopedia which, unlike newspapers, is expected to be unbiased.Elite Peasant (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

More precisely we'd have to add "according to reliable sources" everywhere (which, given our policies, would be redundant). NATO and Ukraine aren't the only ones who say this. Pretty much everyone who's not living in complete denial or shilling for Putin says it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Because this encyclopedia is only 10 yrs old, and nobody imagined back than, that all representatives of a big country would keep lying all day about beeing at war. So we have no rules for this case. Alexpl (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica was never intended to be unbiased but a display of what was British and thus what had viability and credibility. Some of the people without an opinion on the subject are those that either through avoidance do not get involved by chance or purpose.66.74.176.59 (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The preponderance of reliable sources is enough that it should be acceptable to use Wikipedia's voice in describing the involvement of Russian citizens and military hardware. Since there is non-fringe disagreement about the extent to which the Russian government is responsible, those claims should be precisely attributed. I suggest to anyone intending to clean up attributions that it would be least disruptive to do them one at a time. Rhoark (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

So the basis on which something is considered reliable here is not based on an objective standard. For example, academic consensus. It is based on personal opinion and that's unacceptable. Conflicts in the 21st century are not just waged on the battlefield but information is targetted as well. Wikipedia can not take siddes in this or wikipedia fails its own standards. Someone even had the nerve to call the other side shills, what is this, 4chan? And why are people like Igor Girkin assigned a Russian flag? The flag symbolizes the side a person fight for. Is this article just accepting that Igor Girkin is an agent of the Russian government? Elite Peasant (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the objective standard is WP:RS. No, it's not based on personal opinion. And on a topic such as this, it's a bit silly to talk of "academic consensus".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe this article can truly claim to be following WP:RS. It clearly uses sources with either a bad reputation or a biased stance (for example RFERL or Kiev Post). Second, and this is just my personal opinion, I believe the circumstances have made WP:RS not up to the task. Media has become part of the conflict and only a few sources have managed to largely retain their reliability, for example the BBC. They remain reliable because they do not accept anything as fact based on arguments from authority. There is no reason wikipedia should be unable to achieve the same.Elite Peasant (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You are free to believe what you want. Neither RFERL nor Kiev Post have a "bad reputation". You pulled that out of thin air. If you wish you can bring this up at WP:RSN. You can also make proposals to the policy itself at WP:RS. Let me do you a favor, save you time and effort, and tell you right now that there is no chance this will work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if they don't lie (but then even RT doesn't really lie), they are heavily biased which reflects itself in this wikipedia article. We make the choice to propose the viewpoint of one faction as factual, which is given the existing disagreement unwarranted.Elite Peasant (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The parliament of Ukraine adopted a resolution on 27 January 2015 where it recognizes the Russian Federation as an aggressor state. Only annexation of Crimea is nothing less as a direct form of aggression, not to mention the rest of crimes conducted by the Kremlin administration. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

But this discussion applies to Donbass onlyElite Peasant (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

When all claims of something are from one side only, and the other denies it, it becomes a "he said she said" situation. If usually reliable outlets consistently quote one side or the other, that does not make the claims true. There is clearly propaganda going on on both sides; if they didn't have widely divergent points of view THERE WOULD BE NO WAR. Claims that can be traced back to the Ukrainian Government must be treated with suspicion, considering they have claimed Russian invasions by as many as 10,000 troops at a time, and destruction by them of large Russian convoys, without a single item of photographic or satellite evidence. NATO and the USA have not provided any, either, for similar claims they have made. So putting "according to Kiev/NATO(or whoever)" would make the article much more balanced and neutral POV. In fact many of the sites used as sources DO SAY "according to X" or "Y said" and omitting that substantially alters the meaning. The info box about deaths clearly demonstrates the huge difference in "facts" depending on who it's coming from... and thereby the danger of accepting info from just one side as being objectively factual. Please correctly write "according to" where there is no direct evidence. 49.2.28.155 (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2015

First sentence of the 2nd paragraph: Between 22 and 25 August, Russian artillery, personnel, and what Russia called a "humanitarian convoy" were reported to have crossed the border into Ukrainian territory without the permission of the Ukrainian government.

Here are two statements intertwined, which is not good itself. 1. "Humanitarian convoy" should not be in quotation marks. Did the russians really send a humanitarian convoy or not? Sources? Basically, bracketing the "humanitarian convoy" in quotation marks is just a FUD, a demagogism. 2. What facts support the statement that Russian artillery and personnel crossed the border? Sources? 37.192.230.67 (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources are right there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Nothing to do. Sources are there. Quotation marks are there because it is a quotation. -- Sam ^Sing! 10:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

NONE of the sources have "humanitarian convoy" in quotes. One quotes a long sentence including these words. To strip out the context and leave these 2 words in quotes is, as the previous user said, "bracketing the "humanitarian convoy" in quotation marks is just a FUD, a demagogism". There have now been 12 or 13 of these convoys. It is ridiculously biased to use the quotes like this. 49.2.28.155 (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Russian government claims US is already providing deadly weapons to Ukraine

As reported here. However, the US should not be included as a possible party to the conflict in the infobox, in the same way as Russia currently is (despite the fact that a lot of the recent evidence of direct Russian involvement has been widely reported to be faked), because... (ready, set, GO!) Esn (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

... because: "Putin claims". Read as self-evident. Er, evidence widely reported to be faked: really? Where are the RS? Allegations against RF involvement have been backed up by RS. Whatever our personal position is on the reliability of RS may be, that's what we follow or we don't involve ourselves in Wikipedia. At best, this would only qualify for an intext attribution to Putin somewhere in the body of the article. Even there, it would have to be evaluated for WP:WEIGHT. 'Interesting' section header. Might it be that you're trying to make a point? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Number of internally displaced people lower than refugees to Russia? This is wrong

Here is the UN report: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=50017 Over a million are meanwhile displaced internally in Ukraine due to the war and over 600.000 fled to Russia. The numbers in the article are old and draw a false image. Kulmanseidl (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Insurgents, militants, separatists and rebels?

I believe it is time to address this issue. In the beginning of the conflict, we had media outlets calling the DPR and LPR affiliated fighters as insurgents and militants. Then from May to now, most outlets are referring to them as separatists and rebels. The only problem is that some editors still use these non-neutral terms "insurgents" or "militants" from 10 months ago! In fact, the only media that still uses these terms are the Ukrainian media. Imagine if in the Syrian Civil War articles some editors that are pro-Assad started labeling the Syrian rebels as anti-government insurgents or Syrian militants in all of the war related articles and nobody did anything about it? The same thing is happening here, I propose that we replace all of the words "insurgents" and "militants" with "separatists" and "rebels" in all of the War in Donbass articles. I would personally be willing to do this task if most people agree. SkoraPobeda (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No way. We follow RS, in tandem with our Manual of Style's guidance on value-laden labels. There is nothing non-neutral about either "insurgent" or "militant". "Rebel", on the other hand, is non-neutral. "Separatist" is fine. RGloucester — ☎ 03:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

But the RS themselves call them rebels a lot more now. How are you going to tell me that the word rebel is non-neutral when all of the Syrian Civil War articles call the FSA the Syrian rebels? I didn't see any "Syrian insurgents" or "Syrian militants" when I went to their pages. So why can't we remove the words "insurgents" and "militants" when we mention the separatists? SkoraPobeda (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

We have a Manual of Style, and a burden to be neutral where newspapers do not. The situation in Syria is entirely different from the one in Ukraine, so the comparison is moot. I could easily find sources that refer to the "separatists" as "Russian troops", but we wouldn't want that, would we? Please stick to neutral labels per WP:LABEL. RGloucester — ☎ 04:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

How about NAF and UAF? That sounds unbiased to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.163.96.3 (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2015

Change "War in Ukraine" to "Civil War in Ukraine" 72.253.121.52 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You are using the wrong procedure. The one you should use it at WP:RM.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No, he shouldn't use RM, as no one calls this a "civil war". RGloucester — ☎ 15:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

He/she wants to change the name Wikipedia calls the conflict. He/she appears to be trying to do this by stealth. That is wrong! If he/she wants to change the name Wikipedia uses, the honest thing to do would be to use the process at WP:RM. This gives people like you and I the chance to state whether or not we support it, and our reasons for doing so.

You need to distinguish between the outcome you desire, and the correct process that the editor should use.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I was just informing him that he'd fail at RM just as he has failed here, that's all. RGloucester — ☎ 20:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Introductory map

Where did the author of File:East Ukraine conflict.svg get his information from exactly? (User Zombear seems to have worked on several of such maps, but this should not only concern that user). The sources listed for the 'original' map date back 'as far back as' August 2014. Furthermore, I think that the colours of the map are biased too. Why choose blue for Ukraine and red for the separatists when you know these colours have particular meanings in Western symbolism? These words may sound heavy, but right now, the map just reeks of 'right' versus 'wrong', especially if that is what you are looking for in the map. Is it not possible to pick different colours or to make clear in some different way who dominates (...) which area? 82.217.116.224 (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Regular (often daily) sit-rep maps published by BOTH sides have used blue for Government and red for Separatists from the very beginning.It is one of the few things they agree on. Blue is prominent in the Ukrainian flag, red is prominent in the Novorossiya flag. Whatever other symbolism these represent in their shared culture, it would be Western arrogance to replace it with "western" symbolism. What would you choose? pink and green? purple and yellow? just reverse the colours and confuse anyone who sees any of the other maps? Just leave it be. KoolerStill (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if you understood...let's just agree to disagree for now. The other question, where the author of the image got his sources from for the last few months, remains unanswered. 82.217.116.224 (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

IMO white should be NAF since NAF wears white bands and yellow should be UAF since UAF wears yellow bands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Status of the conflict

I think the status must be changed to low level conflict , only sporadic shelling near Pisky ,Popasna and Shyrokyne near Mariupol the truce is holding for the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.102.43.60 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There's been a lot of reportage over the last week to suggest otherwise. Wikipedia isn't journalism, nor do we make predictions. It's only low level when enough reliable sources tell us that it's low level. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Only weapons of over 100 mm are not used. Small arms, Shmel thermobarics, RPGs, Spears, heavy machine guns, 23 mm autocannons, 82 mm mortars are all legit. Heck, if the conflict in Syria is a war, then so is the conflict in Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times:Ukrainian side delivered fake photographs to convince USA of Russian involvement.

Interesting article from NYT about Ukrainian side presenting fake photographs on at least two occassions to claim evidence Russian involvement in Ukraine [11] Definitely notable and needs to be included.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Just read the article. Yes, it's interesting, but hardly surprising or earthshattering. Your presentation of the article (frankly, I'm almost shocked that you didn't type the section heading in caps) doesn't actually tally with the account, but does tally with CHERRY picking the bits you're interested in promoting. It's hardly an expose on mass falsification... so, how notable is it in reality. Sounds as if you're trying to push through a little bit of UNDUE POV bias. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy Talk pages are not SOAPBOXES. MyMoloboaccount contribution deserves attention.200.48.214.19 (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The person who was responsible for the whole mess with "fake photos" published a detailed response on what has happened and it looks like they were authentic photos but their location was misattributed as result of miscommunication. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The location misattributed??? what was an image from another country, in 2008, doing there in the first place? hardly an accident coming from someone trying to sow Russian military presence in order to obtain military help through the Senator he gave the images to. THAT is the issue in that article and if you make excuses for it it casts doubts on your neutrality.49.2.28.155 (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Further RS evidence of the fact of the 'fiction' headline being the result of a mess available here. Yet another example of your jumping the gun, MyMoloboaccount. Could you please try to refrain from creating sections pointing out an article you've just found and using it for soapboxing on virtually every one of the articles revolving around the crisis/crises in Ukraine? It is distracting to the point of being WP:POINTy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Propaganda war for public opinion?

"RT: Why don’t facts seem to go anywhere in this Ukraine crisis?

Patrick Heningson: Well the main thing to understand is that most of what’s constructed regarding Ukraine that is going back twelve months or more, is really constructed and it’s focused towards a US audience and European audience. It’s a really a sophisticated war propaganda, it’s a war for public opinion because whatever the case may be on the ground Western leaders, specifically NATO-countries, they really need public opinion to be backing whatever moves they are making around the world. In the case of Ukraine this is quite an aggressive move by NATO allies led by Washington DC. So it requires a lot of very sophisticated media and public opinion forming, and I think that’s what we are seeing. This is an ongoing battle to get into people’s minds to say that Russia is the aggressor, Russia is responsible for this, Russia shot down MH17 and that justifies a sort of escalation, if you will, along the rim of Europe surrounding Russia.” Patrick Heningson on RT, March 06, 2015

To counter the claims that Wikipedia is anti-Russian, would not some of the articles on Russia benefit more of the above information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.244.67 (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Request rewriting or removal.

Following its annexation of Crimea, Russia intervened in different ways throughout the war in the Donbass region. Reports and statements by the US State Department repeatedly accused Russia of orchestrating the April unrest across eastern and southern Ukraine.[652][653] Russia denied these reports.[654] As the unrest escalated into a war in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, Russia supplied arms, armoured vehicles, tanks, and other equipment to the forces of the DPR and LPR.[152][655] A significant number of Russian citizens and military men have fought in the war as volunteers, something that the leaders of the DPR and LPR admitted.[9] Recruitment for Donbass insurgent groups was performed openly in Russian cities, using private and military facilities.[656][657] Reports of direct Russian military involvement culminated on 25 August, when the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) said that it captured a group of Russian paratroopers on active service in Ukrainian territory.[658] The SBU released photographs of them, and their names.[659] On the following day, the Russian Defence Ministry said these soldiers crossed the border "by accident".

In the original quote from the Russian Defence Ministry stated this in a matter of fact manner, not sarcastically as the quotes around "by accident" would imply. The quotes need toe be removed or the entire section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.197.151.8 (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The quotes are there because it's a quotation. Please sign your comment with four tildes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

But the problem is those quotes were added by third party sources. If we look at older sources they are not there. In order to maintain NPOV I suggest we use the exact same quote from one of the thousands that do not quote the final two words in some sort of attempt to hint the reporters doubts. Here is one souce without those quotes (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/ukraine-says-video-proves-russian-soldiers-are-in-east-ukraine/505867.html) If need be I can provide 32 other souces that do not add quotation marks in some weird non-neutral attempt to express doubt.

173.197.151.8 (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Albania supported Kosovo with arms during the Kosovo war. Why shouldn't Russia support ethnic Russians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.243.108.64 (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not a page for political discussions or expressing personal political opinions. Comments such as the last one are practically meaningless. Please sign your comments. EriFr (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

UK Support

The united kingdom has deployed troops to ukraine to train and advise the ukrainian military. I had added them to the infobox as "supporting", but another user reverted. See here [[12]].XavierGreen (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This is totally WP:UNDUE weight for the infobox. This is 35 men, deployed for two months. According to the BBC, this is simply training in "medicine and defensive tactics". That's minuscule, and mostly irrelevant. Non-lethal aid has been completely ruled out by the British government. Putting a big note in the infobox that says "Supported by Britain" implies real support, when there isn't any. 35 trainers in "medicine and defensive tactics" do not qualify as "support" in any real sense. This is an attempt at WP:GEVAL, and it simply cannot be tolerated. There will be no "supported by Britain" note in the infobox. RGloucester — ☎ 19:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You do not own the page, your talking like you think you do. The medical training is only one part of the mission, they also are their to train Ukrainian soldier in field operations (ie, combat). Its not irrelevant, its a major act that has been talked about in various news sources for months. Other conflict infobox pages include similar states that provide support.XavierGreen (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with RGloucester. This is WP:UNDUE and it's a form of POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

How is it pov pushing? What point of view of view am i pushing exactly?XavierGreen (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You're trying to establish a false equivalence between the Russian backing of the rebels, and the negligible non-significant actions of the UK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no way someone could construe equivalence in the manner you are suggesting when the number of UK troops is listed in the infobox as well as i attempted to do before i was reverted.XavierGreen (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Your "inclusion" in the infobox posited the "UK advisors" as being part of the combat force along with Ukrainian troops. In reality, they are providing strictly non-lethal training far away from the conflict zone in Mykolayiv. RGloucester — ☎ 23:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The sources do not say that the training is strictly non-lethal. And no, the edits in the info box did not say that the british troops were engaged belligerants, hence why they were listed as "supported by". As i stated before there are a great many military conflict pages which list participants of conflicts that only provide rear area supporting troops.XavierGreen (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the edit and sources, it seems justified. I see no POV pushing or Undue.Western military training and equipment deliveries are notable.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:GEVAL. If the UK had frontline troops or was supplying the Ukrainian military with tanks, artillery, and SAMs like Russia is doing with the separatists, I'd say yes, absolutely include them. But stationing less than three dozen advisers away from the combat zone to provide non-combat training? I suppose it would look like a nice counterweight to that Russian tricolor on the other side of the infobox, wouldn't it? I think not. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I had listed them as supporting rather than than as an active combatant, which is concurrent with the current established conventions on wikipedia in regards to infoboxes such as these. Look at the Northern Mali Conflict page and Syrian Civil War page for instance.XavierGreen (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Other articles are irrelevant. There are no established conventions, and it is likely that those infoboxes have been subject to PoV pushing. Regardless, they are "not supporting" anything. Speaking of which, I wonder what PoV warrior weaseled the words "supported by" in front of Russia in the infobox. That ship has long since sailed. Someone, please fix this grave error. RGloucester — ☎ 00:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The Northern Mali Conflict infobox is a nightmarish disaster and cannot be defended. The Syrian Civil War infobox actually proves my point, though. The countries listed under "support" for each faction (except for the universally loathed ISIL, natch) have actually supplied, or are actually supplying, lethal arms. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Simply training or supplying Ukrainian Army outside of the area of conflict does not qualify as involvement in the War in Donbass. I am telling also about providing lethal weapons. Consider this example: Israel provided military drones for Russian army, and they were actively used in Donbass for directing artillery fire, resulting in deaths of many thousands. Does it qualify Israel as a "supporting participant" of the war in Donbass on the side of Russia? Some could argue that, yes, it does, but I think that would lead us too far. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Isreal has not deployed troops to the Ukraine, the UK has.XavierGreen (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No, no it hasn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Training is not involvement in the actual war, and it does not change a lot in this particular case, given the negligible number of "advisers". Providing lethal weapons, such as drones to Russia, is a lot more important involvement. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

How can you keep spouting this "deployed troops to Ukraine" nonsense? You're not fooling anyone. We understand what you're trying to do, which is to pass off 35 guys providing non-lethal (medical, psychological, defensive) training far away from the combat zone as a real "deployment". RGloucester — ☎ 20:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No, no it hasn't. I am pretty sure it has[13]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, no it hasn't. Are you having trouble reading your own source? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

In fact, one could make a much stronger case that UK supports Russia against Ukraine by still providing a lot of deadly weapons to Russia [14]. My very best wishes (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Volunteer Marek - 35 British military personnel have been deployed to Ukraine to train and advise the Ukrainian military, that is specifically stated in the sources provided. @My very best wishes- That is a ludacris statement, the source you have posted specifically states "In March the former foreign secretary announced the suspension of all export licences to the Russian armed forces for any equipment that could be used against Ukraine."XavierGreen (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

At this point you're simply NOT LISTENING. Also, you're confusing a rapper with a word which means "absurd".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@XavierGreem. The source I quoted presents this statement as a lie. The publication in "The Guardian" was entitled "UK arms export licences for Russia still in place despite claims of embargo". And they continue delivering weapons to Russia right now according to other publications. However, this does not qualify UK as a combatant on the side of Russia (or Ukraine), which is my point. My very best wishes (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"Like I said, no it hasn't" Pretty sure Telegraph is reporting UK deploying troops to Ukraine:British troops will be deployed in Ukraine to train soldiers fighting Russian separatists, David Cameron has said [15] as to BBC it states following British military personnel have started training members of the Ukrainian army fighting pro-Russian rebels, the BBC has learned.The 35 trainers are working in the southern city of Mykolaiv. There is nothing else to add. Major news sources in UK and Prime Minister of UK have stated that indeed UK troops are being deployed to Ukraine.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be noted in the article somewhere, but it does not mean that UK is a side of the conflict. Nothing should be in the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no apparent consensus to include the United Kingdom as a combatant in the infobox. We can revisit this discussion if the UK begins supplying heavy weapons or commits troops to fight the Russians. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Reduce the use of quotation marks where they weaken NPOV

Using quotation marks to describe belligerents' rhetoric seems fine, but we should reduce their use in passages that are primarily intended to describe events.

Probably fine:

demonstrators regathered for a 'people's assembly' outside the building and called for a 'people's government'

Turchynov vowed to launch a major "anti-terror" operation

Needs work:

which prompted the Ukrainian government to launch a "counter-terrorism" operation to retake the city. (just say "an operation")

They said that they would use force if needed to defend the building from "criminals and terrorists" (just say "defend the building")

etc.

The quotation marks aren't technically wrong (they really are quotes), but they often read more like scare quotes. Both sides receive this treatment, but I think it more often slants against the Ukranian government. I don't see any reason to believe there was bad faith, but I think they weaken NPOV nonetheless.

Dmurvihill (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2015

The Russian army is not involved in the war in the Donbass. Somarzen (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Amortias (T)(C) 19:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine side casualty update

At least 2,053 killed and 6,331 wounded.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/at-least-2053-soldiers-killed-in-russias-war-against-ukraine-385834.html

207.35.219.34 (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian Army - 1205 dead, VDV - 336 dead (for the total of 1541), occupying forces – 14,600 dead. SO the minimum should not be 2,053 but 1541.

http://gordonua.com/news/war/Volonter-Rychkova-Za-242-dnya-oborony-doneckogo-aeroporta-pogib-1541-ukrainskiy-soldat-i-14600-okkupantov-75466.html?hc_location=ufi Goliath74 (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The number 2,053 are Ukrainian soldiers only.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2015‎

French military intelligence disagrees that Russian troops made plans to invade Ukraine

This is what appears in a statement from General Christophe Gomart on the National Assembly's website: "The real difficulty with NATO is that US intelligence is dominant, while the French intelligence is more or less considered - hence the importance for us to supply sufficiently commanders of the NATO French origin information. NATO announced that the Russians would invade Ukraine while according to the information of the DRM, nothing came to support this hypothesis - we had indeed found that the Russians had not deployed command or logistics, including field hospitals, to consider a military invasion and the units of second level had made no movement. Subsequently showed that we were right, because if Russian soldiers were actually seen in Ukraine, it was more of a ploy to put pressure on Ukrainian President Poroshenko as an attempted invasion."

Is this statement enough to add France as being one of the countries that denies a Russian invasion of Ukraine? Esn (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. He is saying that French military intelligence showed that the hot air from deniable Russian-sources about Russian tanks soon being in Kiev could be ignored because the Russians had not deployed the supporting troops essential for such an invasion. In his opinion, US intelligence had been taken in.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this statement is not noteworthy? Consider also this, from Spiegel:

Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine

I think we could work something into the article along the lines of "Both Berlin and Paris have criticized NATO for uncritically echoing unfounded claims made by Washington and Kiev, unnecessarily and dangerously exacerbating tensions with Moscow" based on these two sources.– Herzen (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Both references are about the build up of Russian troops on the Russian side of the border and the alleged threat of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine (similar to that by Germany on 22 June 1941). The article does have a few references to Ukrainian fears about the threat of a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, but the issue has been down-played in the article - presumably because Wikipedia does not attempt to predict the future.

If you wanted to use the sources, a suitable way might be to create a section on the threat of a full scale 22 June 1941-style invasion by Russia. You could then use the Spiegel article as a reliable source that the Russians only had 20,000 troops apparently ready to invade Ukraine instead of 40,000 as claimed by specified Americans. If the article had such a section, it would be useful to cite articles on what those specified Americans were saying (as well as the debunking Spiegel article). It would then be appropriate to cite the Assemblee-Nationale source on how and why French military intelligence claimed to be superior to US military intelligence.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"If Russian soldiers were actually seen in Ukraine, it was more of a ploy to put pressure on Ukrainian President Poroshenko than an attempted invasion". It doesn't seem as if the good general believes that there was a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, nor is he certain that any Russian soldiers were actually seen in Ukraine. Esn (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

remove Russian armed forces from infobox

They are clearly not doing combat. It is arguable if they train NAF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. No. They clearly are "doing combat". I encourage you to read the sources cited in the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

These are not neutral sources. These are American sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

All sources, cited as proof for involvement of the Russian Armed Forces, are either just accusations without evidence, or have only circumstantial evidence, which original source, when properly back-traced, lead either to the Ukrainian services, or western agencies, allied with the Ukrainians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.11 (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You guys are pretty funny, but Russia is in the infobox and it ain't going anywhere. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point - it's not about if the Russia should be in the infobox, or not - of course it would be there, albeit with a note that the Russian government deny its involvement (this is the english Wikipedia after all); it's about the veracity of the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.10 (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Russia's laughable denial of involvement is immaterial to the reality that Russian troops have been verifiably documented to be on the ground and fighting in eastern Ukraine. The article already notes in several places that the Kremlin maintains the fiction that "I triple guarantee you, there are no Russian soldiers in Donbass" (pardon my paraphrasing), as is proper. It doesn't belong in the infobox, as Russian military involvement is a repeatedly, exhaustively proven fact despite Putin's game of deception. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

And it appears there is already a note on Russia in the infobox that its government denies involvement, for whatever that's worth. Personally, I don't even think we should have that note, but them's the breaks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-is-a-liar-fake-nato-evidence-osce-confirms-that-no-russian-troops-no-tanks-have-crossed-the-russia-ukraine-border/5399457. So on one side we have Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research and on another we have Kudzu1 personal opinion. Is article written by Ottawa professor reliable source, is what OSCE (even though heavy biased pro West organization) reliable source. Please advise?

201.103.94.240 (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"verifiably documented", "exhaustively proven", but by whom? The problem is, when back-traced, most of the so called "documents" and "proofs" lead to the same origin - either Ukrainian services, or agencies, allied with them. Which definitely put a shade of doubt even on reliable sources. And I'm not sure that personal opinions about russian politics are relevant on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.11 (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

All this rubbish has happened many times before. For example, they denied that the Soviet State was responsible for the Katyn massacre; they denied that the people who seized government installations in the Crimea in 2014 were Russian Spetsnaz/Army; eventually they admitted it. It is the same today as always.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I was left with the impression, that the talk pages are supposed to be discussion about the quality of the article content and its sources, not a political dispute. Obviously I was mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.10 (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Whoever started this thread is doing a horrible job of building consensus. The only argument seems to be that the information is from sources that they considered biased. Unless you can convince enough editors and build consensus in support of your claim, then this thread is a waste. Myopia123 (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is proven or not regarding Russian REGULAR soldiers is not up to Kudzu1. It should be up to the international court. Of course there are Russians fighting in Ukraine, but it is REGULAR soldiers that count. For one thing, I have not seen a single Russian air force bombing sortie on Kiev. Do you?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.200.29 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 3 April 2015

Nice red herring. The information in this article is well-sourced. Not liking it is not a valid reason to remove or undercut reliably sourced content. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Red herring? Are you referring to sources that claimed there are Nukes in Iraq? Is this reliable source http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2015/2/10/its_not_just_brian_williams_inside. I mean that women got Pulitzer price if I am not wrong? So what is your outrage on this one?

201.103.94.240 (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you honestly think Ukrainian army can withstand REGULAR Russian forces backed by airpower? If so, you are delusional. Look what happened in Crimea. Ukrainian soldiers never dared to fire a single bullet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.200.29 (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to boast about the awesome power of the vaunted Russian military, boy is this not the website for you. WP:NOTFORUM. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Again arrogance! Amazing. Well http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10740256/Nato-military-chief-Russia-could-take-Ukraine-in-three-days.html is source that you like. So what NATO general said there? You believe in those, don't you? How come this is not now relevant source now? Could you explain? Btw mentioning Afghanistan one fact, Soviets where fighting Afghan armed and supported by US. US quite contrary is even supported by Russia, and? I mean where did that Rambo go? Your comments are bitter to everyone and you rushed to delete my comments that are, as well as here, well argument-ed as you can see. Please provide arguments for your arrogance?

201.103.94.240 (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia that contain information which I do not like being discussed so openly. I don't go bitching and moaning on them. Provide WP:RS and build WP:CONSENSUS or deal with it. Myopia123 (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

In Western society, proof is everything. If you don't have proof, then don't put something in the infobox. News articles are not proof. It's like some people claim a Russian Buk shot down MH17, well, that's a CLAIM, that's not a PROOF. You cannot say there are Russian REGULAR soldiers fighting in Ukraine sent by the Russian government unless you have PROOF.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.219.200.144 (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2015‎

Unlike Western Society, all Wikipedia requires are Reliable Sources. These people really need to read this page which discuss RS's in detail and then come back here. Myopia123 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There is ACCUSATION that there are Russian regular soldiers in Ukraine. There is no proof of this. Not a single Russian regular soldier has ever been captured as proof. Accusations should not be put into the infobox. Only things that are proven should be put into the infobox. This is a matter of ethics and morality. Wikipedia has a responsibility to provide true information to its readers, not unproven accusations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.219.200.144 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2015‎

Actually there is proof and in fact a whole bunch of Russian regular soldiers have been captured [16]. This is a matter of reliable sources, so drop it, Russia stays as a combatant in the infobox for good. You might try a different website as an outlet for your "opinions".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Or here, here or here. Basically, they're not even pretending anymore (which makes a whole bunch of people who've participated in these discussions in the past look really silly now).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

US supplying lethal arms to Ukraine

Poroshenko reviewed the Ukrainian army a couple of days ago and what do you know, we have a photo showing an American flag and an M107 Barrett large caliber sniper rifle. This is proof the US is now involved and supplying lethal arms to Ukraine. This needs to be added to the infobox.

photo proof

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=231579&d=1428313367

207.35.219.34 (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Bone up on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Don't forget to sign your posts! -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

How do I sign?

Four tildes. A reminder is right above the text field when you edit any Talk page: "This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes..." -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that you register an account? Best regards /EriFr (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)t

It's only proof that they have american flags in Ukraine. And also, the muzzle does not look like the muzzle of an M107 Barrett. And even if it is, here's video of Berkut police officers using one during the maidan protests, which means there's nothing shocking about M107's in Ukraine. Ipso facto, nothing new here. Myopia123 (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. It is M82A3. The one in the video is APR rifle, not Barrett. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should add Switzerland to the info box. Dmurvihill (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. While we're at it, we can add Liechtenstein, because it's well known as Switzerland's little friend. We should add Sweden, because it gets mixed up with Switzerland by some people, so there must be something going on there. Austria is a lot like Switzerland, in that it's an Alpine country that speaks a lot of German and claims to be "neutral", which is an obvious smokescreen for nefarious activities. And speaking of suspicious "neutral" countries, what about Costa Rica? It says it's a sovereign country, but it's in the Americas, its name sounds a lot like "Puerto Rico" which is a U.S. territory, and it doesn't have its own military, so it is clearly just a front operation of the United States and Vicki Nuland. And if Switzerland is a belligerent, we need to list Roger Federer as a combatant because of all the times he has beaten Russian players at tennis. He is definitely involved. Am I forgetting anyone? -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Speaking on German like lands here is what they said http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-blackwater-mercenary-units-behind-kiev-regimes-outburst-in-ukraine/5382461. I guess article in German directly from source would not suit standards. So let me see how it works. US and EU give ("borrow") money to Ukraine for as IMF and what not lawn of course to sustain Ukrainian falling economy. In turn Ukrainian government use some other money not exactly that money to buy arms and services from US :-) ... I mean thay did not use same notes but different ones :-). So on one side they get money to sustain economy, on the other they take money from that economy that they had to make sustainable in first place and buy arms. They are never conditioned by IMF, WB i.e. EU and USA to cut costs on public spending (like military) and focus on economy. Interesting. So Greeks should cut all public spending to get aid, Ukraine can buy military hardware and contracting services of course from US and EU. Could it be that this money is exactly given Ukraine not to help its people but to make it capable to sustain military campaign one one side and to in-debt it at the same time on the other. Could it be that US is actually arming and supporting Ukrainian illegal government that US brought to power at first place for money given under "economy aid" is obviously servicing other needs that US and EU are apparently aware of for as Todd brilliantly pointed bellow they are signing contracts with arms dealers in US and EU. https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/06/nyt-still-pretends-no-coup-in-ukraine/

201.103.94.240 (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, and that sounds like a great thesis for your term paper. But this is Wikipedia, and editorialization, synthesis of sources, and original research are discouraged, as is the undue use of opinion and commentary pieces. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You have not acknowledged some other arguments from western media I presented above on this pages. Would you let me know why? Here is proof of what you with sarcasm call thesis. From ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/03/why-is-the-u-s-sending-1-billion-to-ukraine/ you can see that Ukraine got 1 billion of help e.g. on this occasion. Now they got money from EU too and money is around 10 billion for as they said cumming years http://europa.eu/newsroom/files/pdf/ukraine_en.pdf . I believe US will match it for this 1 billion mentioned in reference before was just initial aid. At the same time Ukraine annual defense budget is now more then 5.7 billion http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ukraine/budget.htm/ . Interestingly their budget was short 5 billion :-) . Now this are rough numbers and you can see sources are of your preference except the last one. I leave you to check facts and dig deeper for I have no time, and do simple mathematics and see how interesting are the numbers. On one side country need money yet it is increasing its military expenditure on the other is getting money as dept mostly to compensate for that expenditure and more. Ukraine is getting in enormous debt as you can see for this is big money and someone is selling arms to them and cashing it big. Now we know who will own dept of Ukraine, and Todd rushed to give us example who is selling them arms. Nothing of this is thesis but conclusion unless you do not trust Todd. Facts are that US and EU are getting Ukraine in Dept and as Todd pointed out bellow selling arms to Ukraine and military contractors as SPIEGEL pointed out. These are facts and sources are presented. I leave you to make logical conclusion without much of synthesizing. What would be your counter arguments. Does it look as West is arming and military supporting illegitimate government in Ukraine to you now? Do we put US in box same as we did with Russia after SPIEGEL, EU report, ABC news reported and what Todd presented bellow. Please advise?

201.103.94.240 (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Not my job. Ask your faculty adviser. Seriously, this isn't a forum, articles aren't a coat-rack for original research and synthesis of sources, and personally, I really don't care that much about what you're talking about. My only goal here as a Wikipedia editor is to keep content neutral and up-to-date. I'd encourage you to review WP:NOT, if you get a chance to take a break from your dissertation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

And specifically to the idea of putting the United States or the European Union in the infobox: no, that's original research and undue. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Systems such as Buk and Grad should not be classified as weapons - humanitarian assistance is a better description for them. Russia should be listed in the same category as the Red Cross.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Here a nice photo of the president posing with a sniper rifle, note the silencer on the muzzle. It looks like a Brügger & Thomet APR338. Perhaps the president is interested in shooting?-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Press release dated 12 December 2014, that Ukrinmash (part of Ukroboronprom - a Ukrainian government organisation) had signed the contract with Barrett Firearms (an American company) for the supply of weapons to the Ukrainian security services and the national guard. See also [17]-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

request to rename War in Donbas to Conflict in Donbas

Neither Ukraine nor Russia have ever declared war. This is an Anti Terror Operation, so it should be called Conflict in Donbas rather than War in Donbas. If it is a war, then both sides are liable to war crimes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2015

There is a process on Wikipedia for proposing changes of article names that allows for a discussion of the proposal. You need to make the proposal at WP:RM. You might want to consider other potential names that include anti-terror operation in the title. If you need some help with this, leave a message on my talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Declarations of war are not required to make a war. This is a war, is described as such by all international bodies, and yes, the participants are subject to the law of war according to the ICRC. RGloucester — ☎ 13:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per RGloucester. Clearly described as a war by a preponderance of reliable sources. Can you imagine if we were to go back through a history of even the most recent wars around the world, determine whether or not a state of war was ever officially declared (or whether the way it was done met the appropriate technical requirement for the legal mechanism of declaring war), and retitle all the articles accordingly? -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Per RGlucester and Kudzu1 (also, they ARE liable for war crimes, declaration or not).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This was clearly all out war. Not an insurgency, unrest, riot, uprising, a "Ukrainian Spring" or anything of the sort.

There is no war in Yemen, so why should it be a war in Ukraine? No international organization, by it UN or Red Cross, has the authority to declare a conflict as a war. Only the belligerents have that authority. And that has not happened in Ukraine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk • contribs)

No war in Yemen, you say? Why not take a jaunt over to that part of the world, and go for a stroll down the docks in Aden? Once you return, you can report your findings to us. RGloucester — ☎ 22:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The fine editors who are following the Yemeni conflict are very much calling it a war. Dmurvihill (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Not "Neutral point of view" about humanitarian convoy.

Quote:

"Between 22 and 25 August, Russian artillery, personnel, and what Russia called a "humanitarian convoy" were reported to have crossed the border into Ukrainian territory without the permission of the Ukrainian government. Crossings were reported to have occurred both in areas under the control of pro-Russian forces and areas that were not under their control, such as the south-eastern part of Donetsk Oblast, near Novoazovsk."

Comments: 1. It clearly should be mentioned that in August there already was a humanitarian crises (catastophe) in Donbass. And the crises was caused by social-economic blockade and by goverment shelling living and densely populated areas of Donetsk, Luhansk and other Donbass cities. 2. Also it shoud be clearly mentioned that Donbass filled with russian and russian-speaking majority. Russian Federation feels deep empathize with them and have obligations to save lives of innocent people. 3. Delete quotes "humanitarian convoy". It was a humanitarian convoy and it was inspected by plenty of organisations (including Red Cross) on russian territory and on the border. 4. Firstly Ukraine agreed the convoy and at the moment the convoy was on the border Ukraine rejected and Russian Federation waited few days for an agreement. 5. Finally there is no any evidences and proofs that there were artillery and personnel in the convoy. Maybe Department of States and Ukraine goverment says that there were but Russian goverment says that there were not artillery and personnel. Until there is no facts it should not be in the article.

Result (please correct gremmar cause English is not my native: "In the beginning of August social and economical blockade of Donbass region and constant 4-month shelling of living and densely populated areas of Donetsk, Luhansk and other Donbass cities by Ukraine goverment caused thousand of deaths of civil people and a humanitarian crises (catastrophe) in the region. At the second decade of August Russian Federation decided to send a humanitarian convoy to Donbass as region populated with russian and russian-speaking majority. Russian Federation got Ukraine goverment permission but later it was revoked. The convoy stand on the border between 22 and 25 August waiting for the permission. It was inspected by Red Cross members and other organisations. Russian humanitarian convoy were reported to have crossed the border into Ukrainian territory without the permission of the Ukrainian government."

No. The current version is neutral. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Article text is based on reliable sources. Like it is now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it worth to mention origins of the humanitarian crises in Donbass? And if you telling about "reliable sources" according to wich it was an artillery and personal convoy you should make a refferences. There is no refferences right now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.21.143.7 (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2015

objection to government and separatists, should be Ukraine and New Russia

both are states, so the terms Ukraine and New Russia should replace the terms government and separatists in the article and the infobox

207.35.219.34 (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope, it shouldn't be, per WP:COMMON. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

New Russia is a state, just as Kosovo and Taiwan are states. This is reality. 207.35.219.34 (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Russia withdrawing from all copyright treaties

Has anyone else read that Russia is withdrawing from all copyright treaties? This is big news because in 2010, 34.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) was Intellectual Property.

173.79.49.64 (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

rename to Russian Ukrainian war?

Ukrainian rada passed motion declaring February 20, 2014 as the first day of the Russian Ukrainian war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9jx4LYpmUbQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.58.89.32 (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

globalsecurity.org calls it Russo-ukraine war . Not sure, if this is a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.10 (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

globalsecurity is not reliable and not accurate 207.35.219.34 (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)