Talk:War in Donbas/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Canada military aid

Canada sent non-lethal military aid to Ukraine. [1] [2] --Leftcry (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2014‎ (UTC)


Croatia is sending military transport helicopters to the ukrainian armed forces [3] --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 03:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

  • @Lvivske: Let me get your point: You're saying that USA should be removed as a "military aider" of Ukraine, but Croatia should be added? Could you develop that? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2014‎ (UTC)
I was suggesting to add Canada, and I believe Lvivske is suggesting to add Croatia. No one said anything about removing United States. --Leftcry (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
That has been from another discussion. What is the threshold to add a country as a military aider or not (in the infobox, in the other parts of the text as in "Reactions", I guess there would be no objections to add it)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2014‎ (UTC)
I was aiming for the infobox, however if someone could add some further information about this to the article itself, that would be great. --Leftcry (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If the number of countries giving relatively small amounts of military aid becomes too many, they could simply be put into a collapsible list. See the infobox at the Korean War article for an example. Esn (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Leftcry:@Lvivske:@Esn:Right! I think both Canada and Croatia should be added either in the infobox, along with USA, or in "Reactions", and USA could be removed from the infobox, but that's yet open to discussion. By the way, Esn (since I've "pinged" you), could you express your opinion down there?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any of them should be there, Ukraine can buy or receive aid from anyone. I mentioned Croatia to add to the topic, some people want to cherry pick the US as being part of the conflict because they sent food over, while other countries are doing actually more. NATO is looking at financial aid and modernization now, does that make them part of the conflict? Of course not.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 05:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The US did more than just send food, they sent military equipment directed to this specific conflict, just like Canada and Croatia. Saying Ukraine can buy or receive aid from anyone does not apply to this as the countries who are sending military aid are specifically targeting this conflict. --Leftcry (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed! But they're not doing nothing either... well, it's very tiny, but it's something. Following the discussions, I now personally think that it should be moved to "Reactions" but until Saturday I (myself) can't do anything.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
If all such "relatively minor" military aid is moved to a section in the article instead of being in the infobox, I propose that small text be added below the "Ukraine" flag with an in-article link to the relevant section. Esn (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that might be a good idea, or like in the Korean War, as you suggested before.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Esn:Could you help with the collapsible list as in the Korean War, please, and also include Canada with the sources [4] and [5]. I've tried, but it would disrupt the presentation of the article. Croatia, by now, only has plans to provide military aid to Ukraine, so I don't think it should be added yet.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

FFS. No, Croatia shouldn't be added. No, Canada shouldn't be added. Yes, US should be removed. The idea that these countries are "supporting" Ukraine in any meaningful way is a Russian nationalist fantasy/propaganda.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I've consulted the Korean War article, and that may be a solution, anyway, since as minor as it may be, they are giving some aid to Ukraine. I agree that Croatia shouldn't be added yet, because it's still just a plan. There are reliable sources supporting it, beyond "Russian nationalist fantasy/propaganda".Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26–27 August 2014

Please add this Guardian article (mentioned in a discussion above) to the lead, right after the sentence "Russian paramilitaries are reported to make up from 15% to 80% of the combatants". It gives two numbers of 50% and 80%. I think that for that sentence, the more sources, the better. Esn (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Request withdrawn per The Devil's Avocate's comments, since this is a duplicate source. See new proposal below. Esn (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

good find / good call --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 15:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I support this request, but let's use a filled out version of the reference please. Link rot angers me! The code is here:
"'I was a separatist fighter in Ukraine'". The Guardian. 15 July 2014. Retrieved 27 August 2014. RGloucester — ☎ 15:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This is actually the same source as Business Insider. Each are referring to the same man. Another thing that needs to be clear is that The Guardian and Business Insider are not the actual sources of this information, but a single interview with this alleged militant done by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. For those not in the know about that organization, just check out the Wikipedia article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Is the original interview available? I would support replacing both of those sources with the original interview if it is. Esn (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, found it.
New proposal: please replace the current "Business Insider" source:
Armin Rosen Military & Defense Jul. 18, 2014, 11:32 PM (2014-07-18). "Putin's Strategy Of Covert War In Eastern Ukraine May Be Blowing Up In His Face". Business Insider. Retrieved 2014-08-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
...with this one:
RFE/RL (2014-07-13). "Interview: I Was A Separatist Fighter In Ukraine". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Retrieved 2014-08-28. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Both the Business Insider and The Guardian articles quote from that interview by RFE/RL, and I feel that it is always best to link to the original source of a piece of journalism.
In addition, please add this article as a source as well (recommended by LeVivsky in a discussion above; it is also an interview with a rebel fighter, and gives the number of 20% Russian citizens):
Tavernise, Sabrina (2014-07-15). "Whisked Away for Tea With a Rebel in Ukraine". The New York Times. Retrieved 2014-08-28. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Esn (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Done - Thanks for the improvement suggested. Cheers! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 August 2014

Delete "Spanish" from 'foreign volunteers' on the infobox. The consensus on Talk-page is that 2-3 volunteers don't constitute enough presence to be mentioned (Undue Weight). 79.150.54.174 (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2014 {UTC}

PS: I don't know why the edit request didn't get signed. I do it now anyway. Oscar-HaP (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support By the way, the Spanish sources I've consulted mention, more precisely 2 (not even 3) [6] [7] [8] Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. -Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 August 2014

This article is too long. Please see Wikipedia:Article size. Using the User:Dr pda/prosesize script, this article is currently 1098 kB (file size) and 105 kB (16819 words) "readable prose size". The template Template:Very long needs to be added to the top. AHeneen (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2014‎ (UTC)

It's big, because it's a very relevant and current event. If you compare this article (328,986 bytes) to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (261,754 bytes), Syrian Civil War (277,579 bytes), or even with an event that is not current, like Iraq War (254,114 bytes), it's a bit larger, but the difference is not, in proportional terms, very large.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
.Mondolkiri1 - The argument Other stuff exists is not a valid reason on Wikipedia.
The advice at WP:Article size is that articles should be limited to "30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words".
This article significantly exceeds that, and when I tried to edit it using my phone it crashed, so the request for tagging it is totally valid. - Arjayay (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian army casualty update

789 killed as of the latest update. http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/10-ukrainian-soldiers-killed-30-injured-in-eastern-ukraine-over-past-24-hours-362589.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal of 4th topic on "Status" in infobox

I propose the inclusion of "Military intervention of the Russian Federation" or similar, as a 4th topic on "Status" in the infobox. Since we have until 30 August to actually be able to update the article, I'd be glad to read opinions about this proposal (also in order to try to avoid further edit-warrings that prevented the edits at this point).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester:@Iryna Harpy:@EkoGraf:@Esn:@Tobby72:@Lvivske:@MyMoloboaccount:@Volunteer Marek:@Yulia Romero:@Soffredo:@The Devil's Advocate: I'd like to read your opinion about this, and, as you may notice, I have opened this query to the widest range of positions that occurred to me.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Just because Kiev and the U.S. make an allegation does not mean it is true. We should not act as though that is the case.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Kiev who? RGloucester — ☎ 02:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
It won't be very helpful if you keep signing with tildes... But I'm reading it.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, @RGloucester:, I hadn't noticed it was you... I was seeing a lot of posts here signed by tildes and I was wondering what was going on, actually.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
There was a glitch with the signature system. It has now been fixed. RGloucester — ☎ 02:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank, you, @The Devil's Advocate:. I hope your opinion will be taken into account, but it was a too simple answer. Could you develop it a little bit more?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
From reviewing the sources, it seems to me they are all just some variation of "Kiev says" or "U.S. says" and little more. The video of captured troops is not very reliable because the remarks are bizarre and seem scripted. Russia says that was an accidental incursion and there is no hard evidence presented that contradicts their story. As such, these fall under allegations and should not be treated as fact, which is what you seem to be suggesting we do here.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Whilst I don't support this proposal (as unclear and too soon), for the moment, it strikes me that TDA's comments here are suggesting that we do original research. Perhaps he should read an article from a reliable source. RGloucester — ☎ 02:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Or, perhaps this will suit his fancy. RGloucester — ☎ 03:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure where you get that I am suggesting we do original research. What I am saying is that the sources are discussing allegations and no compelling evidence has emerged. Stating something as fact in the infobox is not warranted absent such evidence. Unfortunately, this is already happening with the inclusion of Russia as a belligerent in the infobox, but there is no reason why we need to magnify that problem.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
What is "compelling" or not is not for you to decide, and that is where I feel that the "original research" comes into play. I've presented two articles here. One is an article from The New York Times, which says that there is "abundant evidence" in this matter, and has said so without attribution. In other words, The New York Times, a reliable source, thinks that there is "compelling evidence". I also provided a BBC article that provides "evidence" and "analysis" that might suit your fancy. RGloucester — ☎ 03:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from the article the "abundant evidence" they cite consists entirely of the allegations from Kiev, its forces, and Western officials. One of the soldiers cited in the article literally says he has zero proof despite being on the front-line. The BBC article is not even talking about direct intervention. It is talking about a single tank some experts suggested was most likely given to the rebels by Russia because it is not known to be in the Ukrainian arsenal. See? No original research on my part.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is, it wasn't just one accidental incursion that occurred, and the sources are not coming only from USA. They're coming from USA, Britain, France (France24, a News channel that I watch often, actually), Al Jazeera (from Qatar)... It's supported by sources! So, any counter-argument is welcome, but it has to be substantiated!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
TDA, your use of "as far as I can tell" is proof of "original research". You're trying to poke holes in reliable sources with your own little analysis. That's inappropriate. It isn't for you to determine whether the soldier has proof or not. It is for reliable sources, such as The New York Times, to do. The article from the BBC is quite clear about the implications of that tank. Alas, there is no point in considering a discussion with someone who seeks to right great wrongs. RGloucester — ☎ 03:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I was describing what I saw in the article. "As far as I can tell" is no more than allowing that I might have missed something. Do you see any evidence mentioned in the article that is not just an allegation? Looking over the headlines most articles are phrasing it as "Ukraine says" or "U.S. says" and so it does appear these are just allegations at the moment. Since you yourself state the situation is unclear, I am not sure why you are mocking me for basically saying the same thing. Original research refers to putting our own ideas into the article, which is not what I am suggesting.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what an "allegation" is. Are we in a court of law? The court for encyclopaedic fripperies? RGloucester — ☎ 04:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
For the moment, I'd hold off. RGloucester — ☎ 03:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester:Thank you for your opinion.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Though, maybe looking at the map, you might change your opinion until 30 August! It would be impossible that the insurgents on their own, would take all that territory in less than a week! But here we are to discuss it!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course, that would definitely be original research.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, what I said in the previous paragraph would indeed be original research (by itself). It's not to be taken as an argument, per se. Just a personal opinion, which must have no relevance for the discussion (it was just between me and RGloucester).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The difference though, is while I say that "maybe ... you might change your opinion...", you actually use your original researches as arguments, which is very different!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Where do you see original research exactly? I read the sources, noted the sources only present evidence that x said y, and said we need more than just one side's allegations before stating something as fact in this article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Here and there it sounded like original research: "it seems to me", "As far as I can tell" (as RGloucester said), "I might have missed something"... Well, could you mention a source to support your suppositions?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Being tentative in my description of what the sources contain is not original research. Oy vey!--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, contrarily to what you may eventually think I'm not biased on this subject here, and one of the 1st things that really shocked me in these events actually were the clashes in Odessa (not in Donbass).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
So, let it be! Let's move on and continue the actual discussion!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems to be that TDA is just playing games here. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 03:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, as I said I asked for a whole range of opinions. Even if it includes "truthers" of any kind.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Could someone please make a list of all the references that are to be used for making this proposed change? So far I see 2 in this topic. The BBC article is only an allegation based on the presence of a T-72 tank among the rebels which supposedly could have only come from Russia. However, it seems that President Poroshenko was recently photographed standing in front of the same type of tank. So much for that.
As for the New York Times article... let me just make a quick list of the sources they give within their article (particularly interesting ones in italics):
"Western and Ukrainian officials described"
"Ukraine’s military said"
"Russia, which has denied it is helping the insurgents, did not acknowledge the military movements"
"said a senior American official"
"Andriy Lysenko, a spokesman for the Ukrainian military in Kiev, said"
"Ukraine accused Russia"
"The Obama administration accused Russia"
"Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany [...] telephoned [Putin] on Wednesday to request an explanation" (article doesn't specify about what)
"fleeing soldiers described"
"it was unclear whether the assailants were Russian forces or members of the Donetsk People’s Republic"
"The Obama administration [...] has asserted"
"Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said"
"distributed by the Ukrainian government"
"Western officials say"
"one Western official said"
"Some Western officials fear"
"Western military officials, who say"
"The separatists have asserted that they are using captured Ukrainian equipment. But American officials say"
"American officials also say"
"The United States has photographs that show the Russian artillery moved into Ukraine, American officials say. One photo dated last Thursday, shown to a New York Times reporter, shows Russian military units moving self-propelled artillery into Ukraine. Another photo, dated Saturday, shows the artillery in firing positions in Ukraine."
"American officials say"
"no doubt among the retreating Ukrainians that their assailants were coming from Russia"
"Sgt. Ihor Sharapov, a soldier with the Ukrainian border patrol unit, said"
"Sergeant [Aleksei] Panko estimated that about 60 armored vehicles crossed near Novoazovsk"
In short, there seem to be three types of sources: American officials, Ukrainian officials, and Ukrainian soldiers. Plus Russia and the separatists denying the accusations. No neutral witness accounts, no civilians or independent journalists on the scene. The New York Times never makes a claim about the truth of the events; they are always very careful to write the background of those who make the allegations, even when the sources are otherwise anonymous. I propose that if we include the information in the article, we do the same thing: for every allegation, make it clear who the allegation comes from, and if the other side has a statement about it, present the statement of the other side.
Incidentally, the pro-separatist news website cassad.net writes (naturally) that the fights near Mariupol are the result of a hole in the Ukrainian army front south of Saur Mohyla which was successfully exploited by the Novorossiya insurgents. An English translation of the article is available here. Esn (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic Prime-Minister Zakharchenko today on Russian TV admitted that Russian soldiers are fighting with them, but only Russian soldiers "on vacation". Personally I think that it is pretty obvious small parts of the Russian army are fighting to support the rebels. (And thus today a separatist leader confirmed this.) In theory they could really be doing this during there vacation.... But I find that very unlikely... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 09:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The original press conference that the Ukrainian article talks about is here. The relevant section is at 0:53. Translating his statement: "we've never hidden from anyone than many Russian citizens have fought alongside us; without them it would have been much harder for us to fight. There were 3-4 thousand of them among our ranks. Many of them have already left for home, but most have stayed here. Unfortunately, there are also casualties among them. There are many former military among the Russian volunteers. They fight with us, understanding that this duty is not only... understanding that it is their duty as well. Furthermore, I will say even more openly: among us there are also active military personnel who preferred to spend their vacation not on a beach but among us, among brothers who fight for their freedom." The 3-4 thousand number is important as well and should surely be added to the article. Esn (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

So there are Russian soldiers (of the Russian army of the Russian government) now fighting in Ukraine, the only question is: are they volunteers are were they ordered to fight by the Russian government... I guess as long as this Russian government claims they did not ordered them to fight in Ukraine we on Wikipedia can not say they were send by the Russian government... I propose to list these "Russian army soldiers that during their vacation fight in a war in Eastern Ukraine" in the Infobox under the "Foreign volunteers" of the "Units involved" of the pro-Russian side under "Russian army soldiers on leave (separatists claim)". By the way: my above comment "But I find that very unlikely" was more to say "I may have a POV" then anything else. Also thanks to Esn for proving he is here to make Wikipedia better (and not for other reasons) with his above edit. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 10:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate, your statements about what Russian says in regards to the so called "accidental" invasion by Russian troops seems bizarre. It is obvious that you geographic knowledge about the area. The place where the paratroopers were detained is about 15 miles away from the closest point to the Russia-Ukraine border. On foot it is about 3-4 hours walk if you walk directly there and not leisurely, but if you walk about it is of course much longer. What other issue which seems bizarre is your believe in what Russia says, after Putin acknowledged presence of his army during the 2014 Crimean crisis when the world chose to ignore calls of the Government of Ukraine about that fact. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The fact of the Russian Armed Forces presence in Ukraine is mentioned by the Russian Committee of Soldiers' Mothers which is a Russian NGO that provides support for families of the Russian soldiers. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I have read some of the sources discussing this and it seems the soldiers the NGO mentions were nearly all from the North Caucasus region, i.e. Chechnya and North Ossetia. We have known for some time that there have been people with military experience from that region fighting in Ukraine so this is not really evidence of invasion. As to the paratroopers a recent report indicated that nine out of ten of the paratroopers said they were lost and their description of events is that they were in a military vehicle that got separated from their convoy. No indication is given that they fought any of the troops and it does seem from reports that they were not caught with any larger grouping. Getting lost and going 15 miles in the wrong direction in a vehicle is not obscene.
Regarding Crimea, Western reports on Putin's statement have been misrepresented as have the earlier denials. His statement was consistent with the denials. There were Russian troops in Crimea as there have been for decades. Russia insisted from the outset they were not taking part in any of the aggressive actions that they say were carried out by Crimean militia, but that they were insuring security for humanitarian purposes. Whether you believe them or not, Putin only reiterated that statement. Note that it is not about believing one side or the other. I am not suggesting we say this was just an accident or that there are no active-duty Russian troops present. What I am saying is that what we have right now is just claim and counter-claim. Adding anything that favors one side's claim over the other at this juncture would be POV.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This topic would make the infobox more consistent with the content in the rest of the article, in my opinion. That's why I suggested it. Concerning to the sources, they're already in the article, plus others that may be added in this discussion (and other discussions). But it may also be a good idea not to rush a lot about this issue.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Members of the Russian Presidential Human Rights Council confirmed that the Russian military is involved in the war in Ukraine. According to their statement more than 100 Russian soldiers were killed and around 300 wounded at Snizhnye on 13 August.[9]. --KoberTalk 17:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Certainly warrants a mention in the article, but as it stands these are second-hand allegations from a group that is routinely critical of the government. They do not warrant the change being discussed in this section.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The "group" is the official Russian government agency. This makes the statement something more than "second-hand allegations". --KoberTalk 17:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Nothing in the source indicates the entire body backs this claim, just two members. Being officially under the aegis of the government is not inherently meaningful as it is an independent advisory body with a large number of fierce critics of Putin's administration as members of the council. According to the source, these two members are citing accounts from unnamed witnesses and relatives. The claim of a hundred soldiers being killed in a single incident is pretty extraordinary and demands more than these types of second-hand and third-hand accounts from critics of the Russian government. The claim should be included in the "Russian involvement" section of the article since it is getting a lot of play in Western media, but using that as the basis for anything in the infobox would be inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate, in reading your input throughout this entire section, it appears that you're turning yourself inside-out in order to push WP:OR content through. How many forms of 'No, your content is POV and does not qualify as meeting content criteria' will it take before you accept that you've now moved into the area of intentionally wasting other people's time. In effect, you've escalated to nitpicking in order to game the system. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read the policy before you cite it, and read my comments as well. Only content you could argue that I have suggested is noting in the article that certain things are allegations, rather than treating them as fact. In no way does that constitute "original research" as these are allegations. The distinction appears to be between people who want the allegations treated as fact because they agree with the allegations and those who believe they should be treated as allegations because the facts are not clear enough for such extraordinary allegations. Esn did a good job laying out the basic refrain of the sources.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

So, here's something I noticed recently. Did everyone see my translation of Zakharchenko's comments above? Well, at the UN Security Council meeting today, US Permanent Representative Samantha Power outright lied about what he said. Here's her quote: "One of the separatist leaders that Russia has armed and backed said openly that three or four thousand Russian soldiers have joined their cause. He was quick to clarify that these soldiers were on vacation." If you read my translation (or watch the press conference) you can see that what he actually said was that 3-4 thousand Russian citizens (not soldiers) have joined their cause over the entire course of the war, that many have left (but at least 1.5-2 thousand are still there), that many of them are military veterans, and that some of them are active military on vacation. She exaggerated what he said out of proportion to reality, knowing that few people would be able to check the original statement. I think that her credibility (and perhaps the credibility of other top US officials) should henceforth be considered suspect. For its part, RT News also tried to mischaracterize what he said, but in the opposite direction. Pick your poison. Esn (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and The Telegraph and doubtless countless other news outlets have repeated the lie. Pick your poison, indeed! Here's a nice litmus test for which journalistic outlets are willing to lie in order to move forward their propaganda orders (my guess is: nearly all of them, on both sides. "Free press" my foot.). Esn (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't accuse them of lying outright. Some of them may actually think what they are saying is true or they are just repeating what other outlets are reporting. This is like Putin's Crimea statement. He said Russian troops were already present in Crimea with some providing a supporting role to maintain stability but not getting directly involved. What Putin said was actually consistent with what the standard Russian line had been since the beginning, but his words got twisted by media into him admitting all those "little green men" were Russian soldiers. It is not that they knowingly lie necessarily, but they may just read or hear what they want into in any given statement.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 14:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Strength section in infobox edit request

NATO says over 1,000 RU troops are on the ground in Ukraine now. [10], while Zakharchenko says 3,000-4,000 active service Russian troops are on the ground [11] --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 20:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Technically, Zakharchenko says the 3,000-4,000 active troops have fought in the conflict, but many of them have gone home. I did not read anything in his statements saying there are 3,000-4,000 active troops currently fighting in the conflict. Plus, he described them as volunteers.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
See my direct translation of his comments above (ctrl+f, "0:53" and you'll find it), and judge for yourself. What he actually says is that 3-4 thousand Russian citizens have fought over the entire course of the conflict, that "most" of them are still there (though many have gone back), that many are military veterans, while some are active military on vacation. The Telegraph article lies about what he said. See the press conference and judge for yourself! (incidentally, RT News lies about what he said as well, but in the opposite direction) Esn (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I did see some reports describing it that way. Many outlets that we consider "reliable sources" are misrepresenting his comments, unfortunately.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 14:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

For reasons concerning to the length of the article

For reasons concerning to the length of the article, could a part of it be moved to another "sub-article"? One part that I think could make sense to move would be the international reactions.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

We'll deal with that when the event is finished. Too much is going on right now to split a ton of stuff right now. I have a schematic worked out for when we come to that, and started by transferring most of the "Russian involvement" section to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. The international reactions sections is small at the moment, so that's not one I'd worry about. RGloucester — ☎ 20:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Reuters - 100 Russian soldiers killed in single Ukraine battle

Reuters reports that on August 13, one hundered soldiers perished near the city of Snizhne after their military convoy came under heavy "Grad" artillery fire (Exclusive - Over 100 Russian soldiers killed in single Ukraine battle - Russian rights activists - THOMAS GROVE from MOSCOW). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I urge to check the article that provides extra proof of the Russian regular army solders involvement rather than the so-called "rebels" or "insurgents". Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Consider taking that to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and helping to improve that article. RGloucester — ☎ 14:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if it included in the Russian Military intervention article, should it not be included here also , as it is seemingly part of the War in the Donbass. Daithicarr (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It is, but we can't fit everything into this article, which is why we have sub-articles. Timeline of the war in Donbass is also an appropriate place for that. RGloucester — ☎ 20:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Something to add ?

Doesn't quite fit with the pro-Ukraine propaganda of Russian-supplied weaponry of course, but perhaps an interesting bit of info to be added at a later date once the article's agenda becomes neutral. WW2-era weapons used by the Donetsk Republic; "Last month, it was reported that separatists stole Second World War weapons from museums and monuments in the region, in an attempt to repair and use them against Ukrainian government forces". http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Eastern-Ukraines-museums-told-to-hide-their-collections/33387 Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, but I fail to see the connection between that and state-sponsored propaganda.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
If they really had ample supplies of even Soviet era weapons from russia, why rob museums of relics? It is an indirect proof by a Gov source that other people in the same Gov are making stuff up.46.39.169.168 (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Insurgents"

Would anyone like to explain to me, so that I understand, why we are calling soldiers who clearly crossed the border from Russia to reinforce separatist positions in Lugansk Oblast and attack Ukrainian troops in southern Donetsk Oblast "insurgents"? To me, that implies a home-grown force in rebellion against the government. Undoubtedly that describes some of the militancy in southeastern Ukraine, but I don't believe it encompasses Russian forces supporting the separatist corps. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Your use of "separatists" was no better, if not worse. If these are Russian soldiers, they can hardly be described as "separatists" in any way, shape, or form. Describing the "separatists" (DPR and LPR) themselves as "separatists" is in itself not particularly neutral or precise, given that isn't clear if they are actually "separatists" or just comrades of Mr Girkin. Regardless, even though Russian troops have crossed into Ukraine, it is clear in reliable that they have been accompanied by plenty of DPR guys. None of the instances where "insurgents" is used in that paragraph references the "Russians" directly, who are still referenced as "unmarked soldiers" in line with reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 03:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Why did Andriy Lysenko, Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council Spokesman, deny the reports of a Russian invasion? Esn (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I renamed the section "August insurgent counter-offensive" as "August pro-Russian counter-offensive". I hope it's better, now!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a nonsense title, as an offensive that includes Russian troops is necessarily "pro-Russian". The best thing to do is "August insurgent counter-offensive and Russian invasion", which encompasses both parties. RGloucester — ☎ 03:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of starting a talk page discussion over this issue as well. To me it is not neutral to describe it as an insurgent counter-offensive when there are significant allegations of direct Russian involvement. At the same time "August counter-offensive" seems like it may not be sufficiently descriptive. Given that it follows "government push" it may be implied that the counter-offensive is by the opposing side, but a person just looking at the heading might still be confused. That heading is more appropriate than including "insurgent", but there may be a need for adjustments. I do not think "pro-Russian" is an ideal change either since it could be taken as implying the forces are not themselves Russian. Putting "Russian invasion" in the heading is a non-starter at this point. On a side note, looking over the headlines for the various sources, it occurs to me "rebel" may be the most common term used for the DPR and LPR forces now rather than insurgents, though that is a separate issue.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
"Rebel" is unacceptable for a variety of reasons, per the Manual of Style's guidelines of value-laden language. That's neither here nor there, and has been discussed tens of times. I've tried a new compromise with "August counter-offensive by pro-Russian forces". RGloucester — ☎ 03:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The involvement of Russian troops - and in particular the fact of the invasion - needs to be made clear in the heading as that's pretty much ALL that sources are writing about. The big story is NOT the counter-offensive, it's the fact that Russian troops crossed the border and engaged Ukrainian military.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
What about "anti-government"? -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"pro-Russian forces" > "separatists" > "insurgent" > "rebel". Now, reliable sources may have the last two flipped, not sure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Still feels queer, as "anti-government" implies a domestic incident. Regardless, I think that the prose adequately explains what's happening, to make it clear what the heading means. Nit-picking in situations like these isn't likely to get us very far. Mr Marek, I'm not sure why you favour "separatists", as Russian soldiers can't "separate" themselves from Russia if they are "Russian". Early in the war, many of the insurgents claimed that they were not even separatist (which is why I changed some of the early ones you changed). Once again, "separatist" is a political statement, not a description of a combatant. Whether they are separatist or not is up for debate, and calling Russian soldiers "separatist" is just wrong. In the case of a Russian soldier, it would be irredentist. RGloucester — ☎ 03:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you favour "separatists", as Russian soldiers can't "separate" themselves from Russia if they are "Russian" - they still are fighting for the separation of East Ukraine from Ukraine. But yes, this is getting into semantics. "Irredentist" probably could be used occasionally, and rarely, just so the same term does not have to do so much leg work.
I think the original "August insurgent counter-offensive and Russian invasion", although we could even skip the "August". Even if Ukrainian forces beat these guys back, and then there is a second counter-offensive and invasion, we will have to decide what to call that. For the first one, the month can be omitted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
As August is not over yet, I think that, by now it can remain in the title of the section. Later, it can be changed, at any time.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Spin-off

In an effort to remedy length problems with this article (it is way beyond WP:LENGTH guidelines), and to help give purpose to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, I've spun-off most of the "Russian involvement" section. I'm working on a summary for the rump section here. This should solve many of our problems. RGloucester — ☎ 05:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian battalions

Several Ukrainian battalions are listed as paramilitaries. Technically, those are volunteer battalions of local citizens. Donbas Battalion and Azov Battalion are both composed primarily out of residents of Donbas region (Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast) to fight criminals in the East Ukraine are being aided by the Russian Army and portray themselves as insurgence for mass-media interpretation. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

They are "paramilitaries" because they are not part of the Armed Forces. Some are part of the National Guard or Ministry of Internal Affairs, but they are not part of the Armed Forces. That's the definition of what a paramilitary is, which you'll see at Paramilitary. RGloucester — ☎ 14:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, it is like sounds better more noble. Like those terrorists-separatist are being called as insurgents or rebels :) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems that foreign media reporters do not pay attention to the background of those so-called "insurgents", many of which are regular criminals and Russian neo-nazis, like Pavel Gubarev for example. The fact of participation of the Russian Neo-nazis is confirmed by the Ukrainian VAAD (Association of Jewish Communities, On the side of terrorists fight the Neo-Nazis of Russia). Exactly how Churchill said that "The fascists of the future will be called the anti-fascists". Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
There are far-right groups on both sides. Maybe you should found your own blog and expose there those opinions. This may not be the right place to do it. Wikipedia is not an incendiary pamphletMondolkiri1 (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Mass burials of civilians tortured by the so called "insuregents"

Mass burials of civilians tortured by the so called "insuregents" right now are being discovered by local authorities in the East Ukraine. (In Sloviansk was discovered a mass burial tortured by militants. Radio Liberty) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That's already in the war crimes section. Was discovered a while ago. RGloucester — ☎ 20:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
We should be careful about how we characterize such things as reports such as this one suggest the majority of the people found in these graves are rebel casualties rather than civilians.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
You conveniently skip the part where the sources talks about the bodies of people who were tortured and murdered by the rebels. Along those lines, here's another source: U.N. says pro-Russia rebels in Ukraine murder, kidnap and torture.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I was not "skipping" it, but noting that "mass burials of civilians" may be misleading. Few reports indicate exactly who is in these graves, but a lot of the bodies are believed to be rebels according to several sources such as the one cited above.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

CNN reporter:No sign of any Russian invasion, people more afraid of Ukrainian Army.

Diana Magnay just reported on CNN that there is no sign of any Russian invasion in Novoazovsk and showed residents of Novoazovsk saying they are more afraid of Ukrainian Army.She was reporting from Novoazovsk itself.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

"Volunteers" have returned. Cower in fear!

A mass of non-notable "volunteers" has returned to the infobox. I wish someone would eject them, for they were previously removed through consensus. One or two people does not warrant a spot in the infobox. RGloucester — ☎ 01:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester:If I understood well, the source about the Armenians, mentions 10 of them. The Ingush in the source are 20-25 and they have been in the infobox. What should be the minimum acceptable?...Mondolkiri1 — talk 02:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't make any hard-and-fast rules. Remember the purpose of an infobox: to summarise the most important points in an article. An infobox is not a mass of information, and is especially not a place for information not found in the prose. A few Armenians fighting wherever is not an "important point" in this war. RGloucester — ☎ 02:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Why not generalize? "Foreign volunteers" on both sides. I don't see how their nationality is particularly material, unless they're bringing along military equipment and armor from their countries, as many of the Russian "volunteers" have done. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

About the Greeks, I don't know either, it was a second-hand report from Athens Courier newspaper, without specifying the number of Greeks. All of those were already removed (including the Armenians).Mondolkiri1 — talk 02:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There is still no reliable source of any Albanian volunteers, apart from citaton of serbian newspaper of albanian newspaper which are all unconfirmed and unverified - no identification, no photos. There are no Albanian volunteers as of 30th August on any side in Ukraine. Btw, there are confirmed French volunteers which also made an interview with BBC and took a photo of them, its these guys http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77274000/jpg/_77274743_77274202.jpg . There are only a couple of dude from Spain. There was a single girl verified from Germany. IMO, Albanian flag should be removed, French should be introduced. Serbian chetniks could be moved to pro-Russian paramilitias, since they are affiliated with them and were incorporated into it's command structure. 95.155.15.2 (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Anonymous

There is a reference concerning to 250 Serbians volunteers, which I don't know if it's from a reliable source or not and for some reason I can't access in the moment. Are they all Chetniks?... If so, they could be described as "Serbian Chetniks".Mondolkiri1 (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as i know only the first batch of soldiers that came from Serbia were Chetniks. The rest came through much more informal routes (Facebook pages etc). They are not the biggest or the most "legitimate" group that represents itself as descending from original Chetnik movement, but it appears they have gained by far the most attention, first from their quite publicized interview with Vice, and now as forming an entire (although underpowered) battalion. If there are indeed 250 Serbs there, which is unverified, then they cannot all be Chetniks since movement is simply not that big - neither does it consist of so much fighters and people that had military training. I would put that number at dozens of Serbs more realistically. But it doesn't matter since number seems not to be relevant at this point of making of the article. However, presence of French volunteers should be at least verified, since they gained publicity as well. Albanian volunteer claim is yet unverified and unidentified. Also, what happened with Americans volunteering for ATO force ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.15.2 (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There was only 1 American!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

 Comment:-As far as I know, in the rebel side there are at least 4 French (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHNb81Ib7Ls Ukraine War: 4 to 20 French volunteers to join the rebels, against Kiev) & 6 Spanish (http://www.publico.es/540481/un-espanol-combatiendo-en-lugansk-merece-la-pena-regar-esta-tierra-con-nuestra-sangre Un español combatiendo en Lugansk: "Merece la pena regar esta tierra con nuestra sangre", http://rt.com/news/179240-spanish-volunteers-eastern-ukraine/ 'Spreading the truth': Spanish volunteers join fight against Kiev in E. Ukraine (VIDEO)), with other reports about Greek (http://en.ria.ru/world/20140827/192384386/Greeks-Fighting-Alongside-Donetsk-Peoples-Republic-Militia--.html Greeks Fighting Alongside Donetsk People’s Republic Militia - Reports), Armenian (http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-i-was-a-separatist-fighter/25455466.html Interview: I Was A Separatist Fighter In Ukraine), Latvian (http://en.ria.ru/world/20140729/191438853/Latvian-Volunteers-Head-to-Donetsk-Republic-Plan-to-Join-Militia.html Latvian Volunteers Head to Donetsk Republic, Plan to Join Militia) & Czech (http://www.b92.net/eng/news/world.php?yyyy=2014&mm=08&dd=12&nav_id=91268 "Serb volunteers fend off Ukrainian army attack") volunteers. On the government side, there are reports about Polish (http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/179801,Polish-volunteer-dies-fighting-rebels-in-Ukraine Polish volunteer dies fighting rebels in Ukraine) & Swedish (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28329329 Ukraine conflict: 'White power' warrior from Sweden, http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/foreigners-join-far-right-militias-in-ukraine-s-fight-against-rebels-1.1868779 Foreigners join far-right militias in ukraine's fight against rebels) volunteers.--HCPUNXKID 15:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, between 2 and 10 volunteers I added in "Others". As far as it's not only 1 from a specific country, add there the reliable source, please! (I didn't add the Greeks, since the sources didn't seem to me to be reliable). This issue must be discussed here, I've already said that long ago!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, i don't think there is more than 10 Azeri volunteers too, or any Albanian as far as it appears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.15.2 (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'll also add the countries with unspecified numbers of volunteers in "Others". So, I'll put the Azeris and the Albanians in "Others" on the Ukrainian side. The Serbian source is reliable (RTS, Radio Television of Serbia), but the number of Albanese is also uncertain.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I also moved the Abkhaz, North Ossetians and Uzbeks to "Others", since either they were 10 or less, or their numbers were not specified.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The creation of a new section for "French" volunteers is extremely WP:UNDUE, as is the "Serbian" section. Merge those two and create an "others" section, or just delete them altogether as WP:UNDUE. RGloucester — ☎ 18:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
According to reliable sources there are more than 100 Serbians fighting there... and 4 French. At least the Serbs are not negligible, wouldn't you agree? The Serbians, in my opinion, shall be kept (outside the "Others", which I created for quite small numbers of volunteers, since they're more than one)... This must be (again) discussed here, in my opinion!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

'Once again...does it really matter what nationality these volunteers are? Unless we're talking units coming across the border with military equipment and/or vehicles, it doesn't seem to me a valuable or wise use of our time parsing which are Azeri and which are Armenian and which are Greek and which are Albanian and which are Seychellois and which are Batswana and which are Mongolian and... -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

the term separatists in the infobox does not seem appropriate

It is called the Federate State of Novorossiya which consists of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic. It is a country, sort of like the Confederate States of America was a country. In my opinion, the term separatists in the infobox does not seem appropriate.


The Confederate states didn't owe its existence to Mexico. A country generally has the recognition and support of the majority of its residents. I haven't seen any independent sources that claim this is even close to the truth in the Donbas. Daithicarr (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that ETA didn't enjoy either the support of the majority of the Basques, and yet, it was a separatist movement. So, I don't think that's really a good argument.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Daithicarr, Novorossiya is not a country, it is a criminal gang with own flags, nothing less. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars does not go around and shoot people using "Grad" systems. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, I agree that the term separatists should be changed to the international criminals. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
International criminals? Not even in the al-Qaeda article that designation exists!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

American freedom fighters who fought from 1775 to 1783 against Britain were never called separatists or terrorists. I suppose victors write history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The original comment "It is called the Federate State of Novorossiya which consists of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic. It is a country, sort of like the Confederate States of America was a country. In my opinion, the term separatists in the infobox does not seem appropriate." was not made by me, what ever way the page was edited it looks like I made it. I stated the following and only the following "The Confederate states didn't owe its existence to Mexico. A country generally has the recognition and support of the majority of its residents. I haven't seen any independent sources that claim this is even close to the truth in the Donbas. "The person who made the original comment never signed it .Daithicarr (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Its a matter of WP policy on common names. EkoGraf (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I've told you this before, Eko, and I'll tell you again. WP:UCN only applies to article titles. It has nothing to do with prose in articles, nor word-choice in that prose. We follow the guidelines of the Manual of Style. We follow the section on value-laden language. RGloucester — ☎ 01:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Some would consider "insurgent" to be a "value-laden" label. The Syrian Civil War article, Libyan Civil War article, the Ivorian Civil War article, and even the Spanish Civil War article, use the term "rebels" frequently. Given the latter article uses the term to refer to the forces of future dictator Francisco Franco, I doubt the intention of using that word was to reflect positively on them (then again, this is Wikipedia). Nearly all media consider "rebels" an acceptable term for the people fighting against Kiev in this war. Seems sources cited in this article use that term more than any other. Of course, given the apparent breakdown of personal opinion on this talk page, I can only assume the objection to the term is not entirely informed by the MOS or the sources.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
No one considers "insurgent" a value-laden term in this context. It is used by Human Rights Watch, among many other sources. It is simply a statement of fact, whereas "separatist" is not necessarily a statement of fact, as shown in reliable sources over the course of this war. I never said that "rebel" necessarily reflected "positively" on the insurgents. It can also reflect "negatively", depending on context. That is why it is value-laden. It carries strong pathos, whereas "insurgent" does not. We are WP:NOTNEWS. We have our own standards and Manual of Style, which require neutrality. Journalists have no such burden. Of course, given your continued use of "Kiev" in a value-laden manner here, it is quite clear that you have no ground to stand on in this case. RGloucester — ☎ 03:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The MOS says nothing of the term "rebels" and it is widely used in other articles on internal conflicts. Fact is, all the terms you mention could be taken as value-laden by somebody. What the MOS does say is that usage in reliable sources is important in determining whether using a term is appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Value-laden language must be avoided, that's that. If you'd like to compromise WP:NPOV, please go elsewhere. Perhaps you could go to Kiev Kiev Kiev Kiev Kiev? RGloucester — ☎ 04:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to try to jump in here before this discussion gets too far out of hand: Advocate, I have no idea what your personal politics are or if you even have any, but RGloucester has more than a fair point in observing that you use loaded language on this Talk page all the time; RGloucester, I don't think you're going to gain much by actively antagonizing other editors, even if their behavior frustrates you.
As for what terminology we should use, I have previously suggested "government" and "anti-government", which seems to neatly head off the discussion about who gets to call themselves "Ukrainian" and what is the composition of the armed units battling government troops and holding territory contra government control. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Words like "rebels" and "insurgents" are not value-laden. Some articles do use value-laden language, but only when the values are generally accepted; no sane person would object to the value-laden language in the article on the Moors murders for example. It is a sad commentary on modern life that people object to value-laden language in this article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
When the "rebels" really aren't "rebels" but foreign proxies, when the "insurgents" aren't really "insurgents" but groups of thugs, then hell yes, those terms are value laden. (btw, I'm guessing that referring to them as "chernaya sotnias" might be a bit too much in the other direction. Just a bit.)Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
... although it seems the connection has been made before [12].Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Which is why I don't like "insurgent" or "rebel" in this context. It seems to whitewash the involvement of Russian troops -- whether they're ex-military mercenaries, paramilitary, special forces, or regular military, they are clearly in Ukraine and have shed blood in this conflict on the side of the DPR/LPR. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not see where I am using loaded language. Many Western media outlets use Kiev in the manner I have used it. BBC and Reuters are two examples. You can look through the reference section and see for yourself.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference between benign use of pars pro toto or metonymy in general (such as "No. 10 Downing Street" for "Office of the Prime Minister") and using it in a value-laden manner to discredit the Ukrainian government. Your usage matches the common Russian media trope of using "Kiev" or "Kievan authorities" to imply that the Ukrainian government is illegitimate, and only represents "Kiev", and not Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 16:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Genuine questions of legal legitimacy do exist and it is also a common way of dividing the forces in these kinds of internal conflicts, but that forumy stuff aside, my usage does indeed match usage in major Western sources: [13] [14] [15]. Those are all cited in this article and I am sure I can find more examples for you.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Did I say anything about "major western sources"? I don't think I did. RGloucester — ☎ 06:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Kudzu1: As far as "antagonising other editors", at this point there is no choice in the matter. Given the recent events and the way our coverage of these events are degenerating, I must take a firm hand. I will do what I can to protect our guidelines and policies. RGloucester — ☎ 15:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

"Disputed" neutrality in Humanitarian concerns section

Tobby72 (talk · contribs), I'm not convinced that you are reading what is written in the section you have just tagged with this boilerplate. The separate mentions of "beatings" are from different organisations at different times. There is a UN report, a Human Rights Watch report, and multiple Amnesty International reports. It isn't WP:UNDUE to mention these reports, which come from reliable international organisations. What you did, however, was to remove a report as "duplicate" that was only cited once. It was not "duplicate" in that it was a different report from the various others that mention beatings. I removed your addition of the Oleh Lyashko bit because that very report is already cited in the "abductions" sub-section. Therefore, your addition of the same exact report above was "duplicate". Regardless, calling UN, Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch reports "undue" is a very odd assertion. RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Please show me where in the article is the HRW report you have deleted here.
"Merkel Shouldn't Let Ukrainian Abuses Slide". Human Rights Watch. 22 August 2014. Retrieved 23 August 2014.
Two very similar Human Rights Watch reports:
Lead section:
A report by Human Rights Watch said "Anti-Kiev forces in eastern Ukraine are abducting, attacking, and harassing people they suspect of supporting the Ukrainian government or consider undesirable...anti-Kiev insurgents are using beatings and kidnappings to send the message that anyone who doesn't support them had better shut up or leave". — "Ukraine: Anti-Kiev Forces Running Amok". Human Rights Watch. 23 May 2014. Retrieved 24 July 2014.
"War crimes" section:
Another report by Human Rights Watch said that the insurgents had been "running amok...taking, beating and torturing hostages, as well as wantonly threatening and beating people who are pro-Kiev". — "Ukraine: Russia Must Recognize Ukraine Rebels' Human Rights Abuses" (Press release). Human Rights Watch. 6 August 2014. Retrieved 7 August 2014.
Your revert here: "This stuff isn't duplicate." - Tobby72 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
It isn't duplicate because they are from different reports at different times. One is from May, when the situation was very different, and one is from August. I do apologise for removing the report regarding "Merkel", and this was not intentional. You should re-add that report, but do so in chronology, I.e. as it is the newer report, it should appear below the older one. RGloucester — ☎ 22:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I've re-added the specified report, and removed the boilerplate in turn. RGloucester — ☎ 02:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The August HRW report about beating and abducting refers to the May HRW report about beating and abducting. Text: "Human Rights Watch documented in detail that these same insurgent forces have been running amok — taking, beating and torturing hostages, as well as wantonly threatening and beating people who are pro-Kiev." — "Ukraine: Russia Must Recognize Ukraine Rebels' Human Rights Abuses" (Press release). Human Rights Watch. 6 August 2014.
I wonder why nobody noticed it yet. My edit was perfectly legitimate. - Tobby72 (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Removing information about the mass grave in Sloviansk as "duplicate" when it appears no where else in the article is absolutely absurd, and not "legitimate" at all. RGloucester — ☎ 06:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
You're right in this particular case ("mass grave in Sloviansk"); I'm sorry (it was already restored), but let's focus on the "Human Rights Watch documented in detail that these same insurgent forces have been running amok — taking, beating and torturing hostages, as well as wantonly threatening and beating people who are pro-Kiev." -- Tobby72 (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

NATO military support? (Hungary tank supply allegation round 2)

So I will bring this up again. Hungary officially admitted "selling" 58 T-72 tanks to a private arms company in the Czech Republic. (http://www.kormany.hu/hu/honvedelmi-miniszterium/hirek/csehorszagba-szallitanak-58-t-72-es-harckocsit, same in English) According to Russian sources the Czech defense ministry says it didn't gave any authorization for any company or organization to receive tanks. Hungarian government says that the tanks are not in working order and they are sad the Czech defense ministry can't get their facts right. (http://index.hu/kulfold/2014/08/29/valami_nem_stimmel_eltuntek_a_magyar_tankok/) This is kind of weird because the official Hungarian stance a while before was that said T-72 tanks are only transported between two bases inside Hungary. VICE actually mentions that NATO might be supporting Ukraine in covert ways by the means of the "sudden selling" of Hungarian tanks and Croatian helicopters: http://news.vice.com/article/nato-isnt-arming-ukraine-just-like-russia-isnt-fighting-there

Further articles about the selling and speculations of the destination of the tanks:

Probably also worthy of notice that some sources say NATO's plan to create a unified army is a message to Russia:

Thanks for reading! --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No. More weird wacky conspiracy crap. Original research, all that. Really people, you're looking for some other forum (and ffs Hungary and Slovakia and sort of Czh rb are probably the most pro-Russian countries in the Euro camp so you are making less sense than wacky conspiracy people usually do). Volunteer Marek  08:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
So you seriously had the audacity to covertly call a regular, registered Wikipedia editor, me, a conspiracy nut? Thank you for your linking to a WP policy page, I know WP talk pages aren't forums, I use the talk pages to discuss what reliable sources say and/or contemplate. At least you should assume good faith and don't treat me as a conspiracy nut. I'd like to point out that personally I am anti-Russian and my only intention is to better the article with the inclusion of the speculation or allegation about the covert NATO support using reliable third party sources. How is original research something that the top news portal in Hungary wrote? How are the other sources not reliable to cite? Why is this "weird wacky conspiracy crap"? Yes, I am Hungarian by the way, and no, I don't support Russia. Yes, I do support the Orbán-government, but even I find it notable that the government's stance at first was "we aren't selling tanks in any way" then "we sold tanks to the Czech Republic". Besides my first paragraph wasn't OR, it was a quick summary about what I gathered, not intended to be inserted in the article. Calling that alone OR without reading/translating the sources is just plain uncivil. I don't have any agenda or POV to push, I just brought up the mere idea of mentioning what reliable sources talk about. So yeah, I'm probably some wacky fringe theorist here, thank you, good to know. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Russian- and English-language Wikimedia combat maps look very different

Compare:

I'm not sure of the reason, it's just something I noticed recently. On the whole, the situation looks a little better for the insurgents on the Russian-language map (Lugansk not surrounded, full control of southern border), although it also shows areas under Ukrainian control that are shown as being insurgent-controlled on the English map (in the centre and north). My suspicion is that the Russian map might be based on more recent sources, but again, I don't know.

For comparison, here are maps from pro-insurgent (also: [16]) and pro-Kiev sides. Esn (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe there are some places that are outdated in one of the maps, like Dmytrivka and Dyakove near the border with Russia, as I noticed. I also noticed that the Donetsk Airport in the Russian map is marked as being disputed, and I haven't really read anything happening there since the Battle of Donetsk Airport in May, so in this case it's probably the Russian map that needs to be updated. Other differences could be due to a different interpretation of what's going on, like between being disputed or being under the control of one of the sides. Everything else is not significantly different, I think.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Both maps are outdated.[17]

Fakirbakir (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

In addition English-language map based largely on ukrainian government claims, while the Russian-language map - on separatists` reports 94.45.129.180 (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
According to this source:[18], Dmytrivka should be orange (cities where there is fighting) on 9th of August, and it was never orange on this map, as far as I remember. But the Donetsk Airport, in the Russian map, should be blue (controlled by the Ukrainian government), if I'm not mistaken.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
If the informations I've got are correct, someone, please, update Dmytrivka in the English version of the map and update the Donetsk Airport in the Russian version on the map, because I don't know how to edit svg files!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Now they look correct.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The new pro-insurgent map shows a large territory close to Mariupol now under rebel control: [19]. Accompanying article: [20]. It seems that the site of the author of those maps is now officially registered as "mass media" in Russia, so presumably the maps can now be used as sources in the article in some way. Esn (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Interactive pro-insurgent map:[21] --188.232.164.105 (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Ekspert's map with "the Russian government's idea"

Index.hu got a hold of a map published only in the offline version of Ekspert, a reliable Russian political-financial newspaper "detailing the plans of the Russian government". The map shows current conflicts, the former influence area of the USSR and a "proposed influence area" which includes Ukraine, Moldova and the three Baltic states. There is not much more information given though. I wonder if this map holds any relevance whatsoever to be mentioned somewhere in a related article? Maybe in the "media portrayal" article? Link: http://index.hu/kulfold/2014/08/29/itt_vannak_oroszorszag_uj_hatarai/ Thanks! --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's as reliable as RT is, maybe it's not very reliable.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know much about Russian media, but as far as Index says, Ekspert is an established weekly newspaper (not a tabloid or something like that). Thus, it is at least an "established" source, if not neutral. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Reports that Donetsk Airport has been taken by resistance

Reports that Donetsk Airport has been taken by resistance. We should have confirmation soon.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Video of two jets/missiles destroying a boat near Mariupol coast

[22] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation, it was an artillery strike: [23] [24].--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of Russian media

I would suggest that Russia-based media are highly suspect in general, and even more so in this article. Is there a consensus on such matters? I ask because of the reference to http://rumedia.biz/item/3037. MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

There used to be several other sources - there were two articles with quotes from other insurgent leaders, claiming that the number of Russians was around 10% rather than 15%. They were removed some time ago, leaving only this one source; I'm not sure who did it or why. Note also that one of the sources for the "up to 80%" number claims that the "low estimate" is 20% - not far from that 15% number. Esn (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
We have Ukrainian press calling the rebels "terrorists" and Russia an "invader" being cited all the time.
If Ukrainian anti-Russian media is considered reliable, then so is Russian media such as RT. 89.215.172.157 (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)BLGR
I would like to suggest to put both Russian and Ukrainian media sources under intense scrutiny. One source should not be sufficient. There should be multiple sources and, above all, both sides must confirm the alleged event, preferably included with references to sources of foreign reporting of the same event. This is to ensure that this article does not become subject to propaganda of any sort by any side. Wikipedia has set itself the goal to be unbiased and factual. Citations of sources about alleged events that only use one source of which there is no confirmation by 'opponent' media and/or foreign (e.g. not Russian nor Ukrainian) independent media should be discarded but only if no other sources -- which meet the criteria as just laid down -- can be found and added to the citation, in my opinion. Jrdplas (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
There was a source with the figure of 10% but, as it was already from 29 April, another user removed that source and I also found it outdated. Then there was another source (more updated, from 16 July) with the figure of 10% ([25]) but I think those 10% are only concerning to all the combatants fighting in Horlivka, according to what I've read (and the translation I've got from it).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, 90% is the Horlivka (only) commander's estimate of the number of locals involved (although it doesn't really define what he considers to be local people, so I'd be concerned that his statement is too generalised for Horlivka unless there's another source to backing it up. Have you managed to find any more recent estimates that might indicate other figures? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
And 50% Russian fighters in Horlivka is the estimate of one of the foreign mercenaries. [26] --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 17:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Russian and Ukrainian media are obviously biased in this conflict. But so is lso the media from UE and USA, as those are as involved in this conflict as it is Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivsanval (talk • contribs) 22:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian-Russian war?

Are there enough sources referring to this for what it is, as a Ukrainian-Russian war? OSW ran a piece recently being blunt about it. [27]. Many other sources refer to it as "war between Ukraine and Russian-backed militants" or a "hybrid" or "proxy" war between the two countries. [28] [29] [30] [31] --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 15:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's mentioned in the "labelling of the conflict" section. However, it is not suitable for the lead section, as it is PoV and in heavy dispute. RGloucester — ☎ 15:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Disagree. This war is between the pro Russia camp and the pro EU AKA Euro Maidan camp. It is not between Russia and Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Biased pro-ukrainian sources close for war propaganda. 94.45.129.180 (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. I see only western or pro-ukraine sources claiming it is a Ukrainian-Russian war. With no undisputable evidence of Russian boots on the ground, I don't see how this could be classified as such. 89.215.172.157 (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)BLGR
There is plenty of evidence that Russian boots are on the ground and Grads firing over the border. It's indisputable at this point. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 20:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The CNN source shows pictures of Russian troops that allegedly are in the Donbass region, but it also states that it can't idependently verify the photographs. So, before there is any confirmation of movements with that sort of dimension, I'm opposed to either renaming the article or changing the description of the Russian role in the conflict.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Such a title (or WP:UNDUE speculation) is not only WP:FRINGE, but quite simply complete bollocks. Did the Russian Federation enter into a war with Ukraine while I was sleeping? What on earth does anyone imagine a "Ukrainian-Russian war" means? As pointed out by RGloucester, that's fine for the labelling, but blatantly silly for an encyclopaedic article. For further elucidation, see WP:TITLE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. On a side note, since we're talking about the title (glad to see that editors have come around to calling this a war), "War in Donbass" is not entirely satisfactory, since according to WP, Donbass includes the Rostov region of the Russian Federation. I don't know if this point has been raised before; I'm just mentioning it for the record. I think an implication of your comment is that this is a civil war, so I personally think that something like "Post-Soviet Ukrainian civil war" would be a better title, but I guess that that's just me. – Herzen (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Tim Montgomerie lead writer from The Times of London: "In other news: Ukraine and Russia appear to be at war" [32] Still undue and fringe? --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 16:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The proper name "Ukrainian-Russian War" is still not supported by sources, and would be the wrong formation anyway. The correct one would be Russo-Ukrainian War. Regardless, whether Ukraine and Russia are at war is a separate matter from whether "Russo-Ukrainian War" is used by sources to describe the conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 16:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
so if it's used by sources it's not "undie fringe complete bollocks", correct? And if used, why is it not shown as an alt in the intro section along with the other variants? --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 16:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
If that name was used by reliable sources, then yes, it would be. But it isn't. Even if people discuss Russia and Ukraine being at war, it has not yet been commonly called the "Russo-Ukrainian War" or variants of that. RGloucester — ☎ 16:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
War in Eastern Ukraine is sufficient. To those arguing with Black Future, there is no question that Russia is, at the least, facilitating and, at the most, directing the rebel factions. As has been reported ad nauseam in major papers, the rebel leadership was for a very long time comprised of Russian citizens and the rebel factions continue to use Russian supplied weapons. Black Future is not wrong to bring up this question. However, the name change is not appropriate at this point. Russia is not engaging in an OPEN war and their actions are only SEMI-direct at this point. Their actions are under the cover of official statements of innocence -- although the news media and the majority of the world have called them out on these claims. A name change would imply direct and open engagement, which has, at this point, not materialized. But given Russia's involvement, at some point down the line, a name change might make sense. Now, in response to Iryna Harpy, BlackFuture's proposed change may violate WP:UNDUE but only slightly. His proposal is IN NO WAY violates WP:FRINGE. It's also about a million miles away from "complete bollocks". Your comments, Iryna, are disingenuous and seem to reflect your own personal views. ask123 (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Since my last comment, it seems that the situation in Ukraine has started to change with respect to the extent and nature of Russian involvement. I still don't favor a name change at this point (after all, no one else is calling this the Russo-Ukrainian War), but this goes to the legitimacy of the prior proposal of a name change. It was a reasonable thing to bring up and was rightfully rejected. But calling it WP:FRINGE or complete bollocks was and continues to be ludicrous... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/world/europe/russia-moves-artillery-units-into-ukraine-nato-says.html "The Russian military has moved artillery units manned by Russian personnel inside Ukrainian territory in recent days and is using them to fire at Ukrainian forces, NATO officials said on Friday." "...this is the first time it has said it had evidence of the direct involvement of the Russian military." 50.74.174.58 (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Many, if not most of the combatants are still Ukrainians, as well as their leaders. The war has still been restricted to Ukrainian territory. And noone is calling it yet a Russian-Ukrainian War or vice-versa. So, War in Donbass continues to be the most adequate title for the article, for now.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Strongly agree that a new lemma Russian-Ukrainian war, Russo-Ukrainian War or Russian-Ukrainian conflict should be created. The conflict may started as conflicted between Ukraine and Russian-backed and goaded militants. But with the Ukrainian bordercities/villages of Novoazovsk, Markyne, Sjedova, Ulyanivske, Uspenka, Krasna Talivka, ... attacked by the Russian Federation, with no link with the militant held territory and mounting evidence of Russian involvement within the rebel held territory this is undeniable not an internal Ukrainian War anymore. A new article should list the escalating incursions and the attacks from inside the Russian Federation into Ukraine. How else could we call the fact of one country sending tanks, and grads missiles into an other country to occupy villages and towns?? These are a clear acts of war. Acknowledging this isn't an opinion but simple fact. Calling them any different is just Russian propaganda and a clear cover-up attempt. --Niele (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Support - IMHO the best course of action would be to move this article in Russo-Ukrainian War and merge with Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014). Current title is misleading. Conflict isn't just in a Dobnass region any more. SkywalkerPL (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. I think you should start with plain logic - if this was Russia-Ukrainian war, you would see Russian flag atop Verkhovna Rada in Kyiv after 3 hours of fighting. And then the Poland would follow (as they would definitely fart their opinion to the bathtub often enough to irritate somebody). What is happening is ukrainian people, backed up with US/NATO are losing against ukrainian people, backed up with Russia. Would you like to call the article NATO-Russian war instead? Now that would be a much needed sensation.

95.220.128.249 (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The assistance NATO is providing to the Ukrainian goverment is public and officially acknowledged. Yet no one is proposing to call this conflict "NATO-Ukrainian war" or "NATO-Russian war". Proposing to rename this confict as "Russo-Ukrainian War" is just war propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivsanval (talk • contribs) 22:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Support FACT: Russia is occupying an annexing the Ukrainian Crimea-province and now occupying a narrow borderstrip from Luhansk to Novoazovs'k. In this borderstrip the Ukraining military is fighting both Russian regular troops and by Russia heavily-armed militants mostly from inside the Russian Federation. The goal of this war is the same as in Georgia and Moldova: Destabilizing democratizing neighboring country's by creating non-viable mini-states as South-Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistrië and now 'novo-Russia' and a Russian Crimea. In the Russo-Georgian War Russia did not attack the Georgian capital Tbilisi, but in the war Russia occupied a part of Georgia. In the Russo-Ukraining war, Russia is not attacking Kiev but it is occupying a part of Ukraine. The NATO-countries are not occupying parts of Russia or sending armed militants into Russia. Russia is occupying a borderstrip within Ukriane and sending armed militants into Ukriane. It is not that because Russia is presenting a cover-up story for their war to propagandize the broad-public, that Wikipedia should not document the facts on the ground. Please respect that wikipedia is an encyclopedia!--2A02:1810:9187:F00:D053:CCD7:E9AE:C4DD (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Now that's just brainwashed propaganda opinion all the way. Democratizing countries? Ukraine? Georgia? Seriously? Russia strongly opposes any of the neighboring states' turning to the US/NATO, and why wouldn't they. They are obviously acting no better than US and no more reasonably, and without overwhelming support from pro-western media. They definitely support pro-russian mititants and very much likely close their eyes to the presence of volunteers in the Ukraine and their further coming there. They do their best to undermine Ukraine's attempts to pressure DPR and LPR, they run heavy propaganda domesticly and in the New-Russia, but they are not warring Ukraine. It is not even the same as with Transtistria and not even close to Ossetia (when all diplomatic relations were closed). Moreover, all the data confirming russian participation in the conflict is presented by directly interested side (NATO) and should be treated about as carefully as russian.89.233.128.158 (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Russia: Leading or supporting role in the War in Donbass?

Since there is a user that constantly insists that Russia has a leading role in the conflict (in the infobox, at the level of DPR and LPR), rather than a supporting role, I'd like to ask what are the positions of the editors concerning to that issue, at this stage.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Supporting only (and the extent of the support is low level). If this weren't the case, the world's media would have been on it like a rash. Have you seen anything in reliable sources that even suggests anything other than support? The RF isn't about to commit political suicide. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Iryna, how can you say the "extent of the support is low" when Russia has supplied the Novorossia side with all of its heavy equipment, majority of its soldiers, and any and all material support it has? To say that its support is low is just sheer ignorance. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 00:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Sheer ignorance seems to be believing Ukrainian yellow press in their statement that they're at war with Russia, as you seem to do.
So far there's been little to no evidence for what you say, BLACK FUTURE. The Ukrainian army seems to be very good at losing armoured vehicles in working condition. 89.215.172.157 (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)BLGR
Calling yellow press some media seems, at least, an attempt to introduce bias. If you think a source is not reliable/neutral, open a section and expose your reasons and proofs. Oscar-HaP (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
So far, I agree with that. But Black Future insists that Russia has a leading role in the conflict. I always have to be correcting his/her edits concerning to some issues. You must already be aware of that.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The Russian trolls are out and about it seems. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 01:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Since you wrote that under my paragraph, was that supposed to be directed to me? Well, you could call me any name you'd wish, but I only have one nationality and it's Portuguese.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
As Lvivske's comment is threaded to line up with 89.215.172.157's comment, I've assumed he's referring to that IP, Mondolkiri1. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I've also imagined that, but then he wrote it in the wrong place.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


  • The RF is shelling from their side of the border, that is not "support" that is active military involvement, and today the Guardian & Telegraph both confirmed that 2 dozen Russian APCs and other vehicles, with Russian plates part of an official Russian convoy...crossed into Ukraine. Between artillery strikes and confirmed invasion, how is that "support"? Is this some bizarre white washing of the obvious? --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 00:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Concerning to blanking the sources, this time I was the one to blame, so I'm sorry Black Future. I mistakenly deleted the source when I thought I was correcting a deletion of a source.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I can see that Mondolkiri1 made a good faith error, for which he has apologised.
Black Future, the issue of sources has been discussed at length at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. In this context, Russian news sources are only acceptable for official statements pertaining to the RF's administration. Ukrainian news sources are also to be treated with the same caution. Unless or until information is supported by other WP:RS, it is not added, at which point it can be used as supplementary information (so long as the language remains neutral).
Per WP:NPOV, we don't use these talk pages as a forum or for speculation. Remember that this is an encyclopaedic article, not journalism. Whatever anyone's personal opinion may be, it is not reflected in the content of the article. The RF is denying involvement and there are no reliable sources stating that the RF is directly involved. There is no doubt that there are individuals and groups within Russia who are assisting with arms, moral and financial backing, but no direct link to anything other than the Kremlin pointing fingers at Ukraine as being a rogue state. 2 dozen Russian APCs and other vehicles does not constitute a battalion, nor does prove that they are under direct orders from the Kremlin. There will be further RS reports on the implications (read as no original research), if other conclusions are drawn, soon enough. Please don't try to jump the gun on any conclusions until they can be confirmed. If you are finding it difficult to remain objective about the subject of this article without violating Wikipedia policy, it is probably best that you avoid contributing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Iryna, please familiarize yourself with the sources and the media. I'm not talking about Russian or Ukrainian news sources, I'm talking about official government intel and journalists in western media confirming reports. What part of my comment was "speculation"? You seem to be taking the "plausible deniability" Russian line too close to heart. At this point, based on your comment, you are engaging in WP:OR by what "constitutes a battalion" and who was ordering whom - that is your own original, made up story to justify ignoring the sources. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 04:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Russia is a complicated country. There is the Russian Mafia, which, by what I've read, has (or already had) 3 million members, and one of their activities is arms trafficking. Russia itself is often called a mafia state, but the same is also said about Italy, for instance. And the Russian Armed Forces has an active personnel of 766.000 people and 2.035.000 reservists. Until solid proofs, it's quite speculative to point the finger directly to the Kremlin, no matter how tempting it is to do so.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Black Future, I have read the sources you are referring to. This is not evidence calling for the "Supported by" subsection in the infobox to be removed. I was not towing the 'plausible deniability' line, but trying to make you aware of WP:NOTNEWS (which is a Wikipedia policy) and WP:CRYSTALBALL. We are guided by the facts being reported. The current fact is that the RF have pushed the UN charters envelope by crossing into the Ukrainian border, but has not turned it into a direct war with Russia at this point. Thank you to RGloucester for modifying this additional information in compliance with Wikipedia policy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Just want to chime in here, Iryna, as NATO is confirming it now. Poroshenko has confirmed to Cameron that Ukraine's army engaged the Russians in question. How are you denying this? You guys are really going to sit here and come up with conspiracies about "maybe it was the mafia"? Hundreds of military vehicles in an officially controlled convoy with Russian air force support, and with official Russian military plates, insignia, et al. - cross the border into Ukraine - and you sit here and pretend this isn't happening? Unbelievable. What happened to you? When did you throw objectivity out the window? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 15:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
It was not Iryna that talked about the possibility of the involvement of the Russian Mafia, it was me.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Lvivske: In case you haven't noticed, there's 10 hours between my comment about WP:NOTNEWS and your accusation of my 'pretending this isn't happening' and WP:RS secondary reportage you're now using. Regardless of what appears to be obvious, we still abide by WP:CRYSTALBALL. As I told Black Future, "... don't try to jump the gun on any conclusions until they can be confirmed." Now there are more RS confirming and supporting that this is just short of being an invasion, it can be included. There is no issue of pretending anything here: it's a cut and dry case of Wikipedia policy being clear and taking precedence over personal certainty (commonly referred to as POV). If you can't wait for sources and keep a level head, perhaps you need to take a breather before casting aspersions as to my integrity. I could have a nuclear missile detonate 50 kilometres away from me, observe it and know it to be the truth: I couldn't write an article about it, or add it to an existing article until it was reported, full stop.

P.S. While you and the media are speculating over whether this is going to be another Crimea scenario, there's also a likelihood of its being a genuine delivery of aid. That'd play nicely into looking like the good guys as far as NGO interests go, while making the Ukrainian government look like paranoid, inhumane bastards. The arms running isn't directly connected to the aid convoy. Are we clear on why speculation isn't appropriate? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You responded 5 hours after this was brought up on talk and those RS's existed, dismissing major newspapers outright. Now you are speculating on arms running and the aid convoy purpose, which as far as I can see has nothing to do with this discussion. Maybe you need to take a moment to realize what's the situation is.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 01:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I see. You're citing articles timestamped 15.08.2014 14:22 and the CNBC article currently showing as having being posted 12 hours ago were available at 05:40, 15 August 2014?!!! Do you know what the main issue was? Are you actually aware of the fact that Black Future had removed the "supported by" Russia to include Russia with Novorossia as the belligerents on the strength of the info available? Yes, I certainly know what the situation is... it's short of an invasion, but recognised as being an 'incursion'. Now that's per the sources, neutral and with absolutely no added speculation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Iryna, do you even know what the word "incursion" means? Here, let me Google that for you: "a hostile entrance into or invasion of a place or territory", " An aggressive entrance into foreign territory; a raid or invasion." To say that "it's short of an invasion, it's an incursion" is just mind numbing. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 15:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


  • It is safe to say that there are plenty of reliable sources that support the idea of Russian involvement in this war. However, at present, there isn't consensus in reliable sources that this is a direct war between Russia and Ukraine. That's why I presume "supported by" is better. Sure, an armoured column entered Donbass, and this isn't the first time that's happened. This is evidence of what is variously called "involvement, interference, incursion". At yet, though, sources outside of Ukraine are simply not saying that this is a war between Russia and Ukraine. There are in a stage of being dazed, still sorting out developments (WP:RECENTISM might like to chime in). That hesitancy is summed up by this recent article. It is clear that more waiting is in order. RGloucester — ☎ 05:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a very interesting article and I think your approach is correct. Let's keep an eye open on it and see how the situation develops (it's my position, at this stage).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Black Future, please desist from removing the "supported by" qualifier. Reportage has not changed as to Russian involvement since you tried this via a bold edit, and consensus was against it. This article is subject to sanctions and, by repeating exactly the same deletion, you are blatantly edit warring. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This is from today's newsfeed alone:

We all know that these are armies formed and armed by Russian military and intelligence officers [...] Russia is not sponsoring other people’s terrorism; it is waging an illegal war against a neighboring country.

  • Strobe Talbott, one of America's top Russia experts and Deputy Secretary of State from 1994-2001, presently President of the Brookings Institution:

They have already invaded Ukraine. I find it maddening and incomprehensible how governments and the media keep talking about the possibility, the danger, the threat of Russia invading.

Russia invaded Ukraine early in the spring. They started with the so-called "little green men" -- Russian soldiers without insignia on their green uniforms -- then proceeded with uniforms with epaulets and the annexation of Crimea. Russia has been the force behind, and on the ground, with the separatists in eastern Ukraine.

It is an invasion that is already well in place. It is detrimental to managing the situation to play along with the transparent falsehood that the Russians are putting out that they have not invaded Ukraine.

Talbott is spot on here and really epitomizes the issue that has happened to Wikipedia, with deniers hijacking the page and using logical fallacies to override media consensus, government / supranational opinion, and public opinion to push this square peg into the round hole, pushing this fantasy that Russia is merely "supporting" the war and not directly involved in it. Yes, let's pretend the cross-border shelling isn't happening, that the tanks and troops on the ground don't exist, and Russia isn't involved "because Russia says so." This is so absurd it's sickening. Then again, this very issue how badly Wikipedia has been hindered has already been reported on. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 15:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Russia invaded Ukraine, in Crimea, of course. There have also been incursions of carriers now in the Donbass. Of course it supports the separatists, though it denies it. And many Russian paramilitaries are there, as well as from other nationalities. Well, that's all already in the article. But it also took quite a long time to move this article from "insurgency" to "war", though many were already stating it as a war. It was the Red Cross designation as a war that let the editors to move the article from "insurgency" to "war", not a couple of editorials. One may have this or that opinion about the issue, but the edits of such an importance shall be supported by sources that clearly enough designate it as a war between Ukraine and Russia. There are from time to time incursions between India and Pakistan too, and that doesn't determine that a war has started between India and Pakistan. There has also been a border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, including with shootings, and that hasn't determined that a war was started between Thailand and Cambodia.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Excellent analogies, Modolkiri1. And, yes, Black Future, of course I know what an incursion is. Readers will also understand what it means. We are bound by Wikipedia policy to follow a conservative line (per WP:NOTNEWS (AKA not journalism), avoiding WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOR). There are also a multitude of reliable sources attesting to official positions stating that the situation is threatening to escalate to a war between Russia and Ukraine. Op ed pieces do not override our responsibility to not run ahead with the ball. Selecting sources that support anyone's personal opinion is cherry picking. Most certainly, such bias does belong in the infobox. Changing the players to include the RF as being directly at war with Ukraine is WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry Iryna, but if Ukraine says openly they are engaged with Russian troops in a war with Russia, and NATO admits an invasion ("incursion") has already taken place in eastern Ukraine - then that is a war between Ukraine and Russia. Russia can deny it, and that can certainly be included in an article as well. Equally dismissing sources which describe it as such, both official, journalistic with hard evidence, and analytical, because they don't support your POV or bias is just plain bad Wikipeding. To add to the piling evidence, this was in KP today here. Citing frivolous policies like "NOTNEWS" and "COATRACK" (or asking for sources and then calling it "cherry picking" when presented, lol!) when they don't apply to the overarching argument here seems to just be some flippant attempt to wikilawyer rather than follow basic editing guidelines. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 17:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


More being added via reliable sources: [34] [35]

state security chief Valentyn Nalivaychenko told journalists in Kiev, “We consider this a direct invasion by Russia of Ukraine,”

NATO via Washington Post:

The Russian military has moved artillery units manned by Russian personnel inside Ukrainian territory in recent days and is using them to fire at Ukrainian forces, NATO officials said on Friday.

Since mid-August NATO has received multiple reports of the direct involvement of Russian forces, “including Russian airborne, air defense and special operations forces in Eastern Ukraine,” said Oana Lungescu, a spokeswoman for NATO.

“Russian artillery support — both cross-border and from within Ukraine — is being employed against the Ukrainian armed forces,” she added.

At what point do we stop pretending this isn't happening? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 16:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, this situation was already on the verge of becoming a direct war between Ukraine and Russia. I'll use these sources and remove "Supported by".Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Lvivske: Thank you for the sources. This was the correct approach in order to consider a direct war as started.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


Since when NATO is a neutral and reliable source of information on this conflict? We talking about the "Mass Destruction Weapons in Irak" guys. They are as much reliable as Russia Today, and they are not in any way a "neutral" side in this conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivsanval (talk • contribs) 22:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Sending armed militia as an occupying force (supported by regular army units) into an other country are as much an act of war as only sending regular army units into an other country.

It is really disturbing that cheap cover-up stories are influencing wikipedia (and a lot of media) to hide a war/invasion from history. An encyclopedia is not about opinions, but about reporting facts and correct definitions.--2A02:1810:9187:F00:D053:CCD7:E9AE:C4DD (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Russia did sent just humanitarian aid and it's in the infobox. While US confirmed that they have militarry advisers working closely with Ukraine goverment and it's not in infobox. Authors hate Russians MUCH?62.152.228.6 (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2014

By now, 13 russian military servicemen have been confirmed to be dead or missing. Sourse: http://tvrain.ru/soldat/ . Other estimates are speculative. 188.123.248.54 (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

They are all confirmed by those HR activists. EkoGraf (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Maps legend is misleading

The legend of the maps is:

Laser-symbol.svg Administrative buildings captured by pro-Russian forces

Blue Fire.svg Administrative buildings recaptured by government forces during the counter-offensive

The maps show a fluid situation so there should be no difference between "captured" and "recaptured" as would be on a historical map and it seems to show a situation where Ukrainian forces are taking one city after the other with the pro-Russian forces on the retreat, which currently doesn't seem to be the situation.

Also many places changed owners several times, for example Savur-Mohyla was captured and recaptured by both sides on several occasions.

A better legend would be "Administrative buildings held by x", which shows the current situation. 82.169.103.207 (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

2 weeks comment in conversation between Barroso and Putin

This comment ("That is not the question. But if I wanted to, I could take Kiev in two weeks") has been added and removed (maybe not in that exact form) already. Russia has made a response to it, but has not denied the statement was made, although they have an audio recording of the conversation ([36]). I suggest we add:

José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, had a conversation with Russian president Vladimir Putin, in which Barroso asked whether Russian troops had entered eastern Ukraine. Barroso reported that Putin answered, "That is not the question. But if I wanted to, I could take Kiev in two weeks." After the statement by Putin was published, a Russian spokesman commented, "Whether these words were said or not, in my viewpoint, the quote given is taken out of context, and it had an absolutely different meaning."[1]
  1. ^ Roth, Andrew (September 2, 2014). "Putin Reportedly Says Russia Could 'Take Kiev in 2 Weeks'". The New York Times. Retrieved 2014-09-02.

In addition the the "two weeks" comment, "That is not the question" is also relevant given the question it responds to. --Superm401 - Talk 17:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer to wait for the whole conversation to be released since we are not a news outlet we don't need to add such uncertain material when it is of no material relevance. Granted, what you are suggesting is better than what was being added so I would not object to it being included.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I would not give much credit to what Mr. Barroso says. He is a compulsive liar. He was PM of my country and put the EU in this completely disgraceful mess. I know that wonderful piece! Besides that, I don't think that's really important for this article, since, in my opinion, it just would reveal, at best, a wishful thinking. It could be though be added in the article about Vladimir Putin himself, concerning to rumours about his character (or his character if it's proven to be true). Mondolkiri1 - Talk 19:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Resistance captured quite a lot equipment from cauldron operations

Almost of 3 minutes of constant column of tanks, APC and trucks captured from Ukrainian Army [37] At 00:40 there is a road sign: М-04 Е40 M-04 is a state international highway in Ukraine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_M04_(Ukraine) --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

While that is interesting, are there any independent reports verifying the claim about these being captured Ukrainian weapons? It could be retreating soldiers and I am sure some would argue this is a Russian column if it is not Kiev's forces.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

some updates

http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-197-ukraine-reportedly-loses-control-of-telmanovo-north-of-mariupol/

Starobeshevo and Telmanove north of Mariupol has been taken by pro Russia forces. All areas around the capital city of Donetsk are now controlled by pro Russia forces. Looks like the map needs another update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

As with everything else that is added to the content, such changes require reliable sources. Interpretermag.com: "The Interpreter is a daily-updated online journal dedicated primarily to translating media from the Russian press and blogosphere into English." By no means, and by no stretch of the imagination, does it qualify as a reliable source. Please provide reliable sources for this claim. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if I would consider the Interpreter reliable, but it is actually a project of Mikhail Khodorkovsky's son. Their reports seem to generally be critical of the Russian government and their basis for statements about Telmanove at least is a reporter on the ground who appears to be pro-Kiev.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Being the project of the son of a 'philanthropic' ex-oligarch doesn't qualify it as an RS. I don't understand being critical of Putin or the information being from a pro-Ukrainian reporter merits it as RS, most particularly in light of their disclaimer. There are also extremist zines and news outlets that are extreme right and critical of Putin, or consider Obama to be a socialist. Again, the disclaimer reads as 'no fact checking or liability for content on Interpretermag's behalf'. I'm not saying that the information is incorrect, I'm simply stating that, for the purposes of Wikipedia, we should endeavour to find more sources for verification. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_in_Donbas/Archive_4&oldid=1181675229"