Talk:War in Donbas

Russia: the most evil nation in the world?

Just cannot believe how POV pushing and one-sided this article is - almost as if the text come from the US State Department. Can someone address this unbalanced (neo-con type) attack on Russian? --89.243.216.201 (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Just one piece of advice, if you want someone to care about this opinion, I suggest that you provide a couple of examples from the article and argues for why they contain POV-pushing and one-sidedness. Do not forget that you need reliable sources for your statements. Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Now why does under-tone of that "piece of advice" seem less-than-friendly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.107.130 (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You are free to speculate, please tell me if you come to any conclusion. /EriFr (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

And,on the "matter of polite and effective discourse",folks are free speculate why Wikipedia house rules do not seem to apply to the comments of certain editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.246.159 (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize to Anonymous user. I tried to be clear and honest, but I could have chosen a better way to express myself. Not much can be done with that sort of general and personal opinions, and the way in which they were expressed (with a complete rejection of the work of others as an "unbalanced (neo-con type) attack" and something "from the US State Department") is not exactly constructive, but I will try again: "Dear Anonymous user. Thank you for sharing your opinion. Could you please provide a couple of examples from the article and explain why you think they contain POV-pushing and one-sidedness?". Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Russian tank incursion

“Russia had indeed sent tanks, along with other heavy weapons, to the separatists in Ukraine”.

US State department — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.53.40 (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The information is transparent. It is very clear to the reader who made the statement. The reader may thus evaluate the information for herself or himself. If you want to add contradictory information about where these tanks came from, present the information and your source for the information. Please, do not say again that I am unfrendly. You are just as welcome to contribute to this article as anyone, but you must understand that sources are necessary. Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

We could of course add a (another) statement that denies that these tanks came from Russia or a statement that questions whether tanks were used at all, but for that, we need sources. /EriFr (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an article talk page, not a forum or blog. Read the talk page archives and understand that there are not going to be any disclaimers or any form of op-ed input as regards the content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Allright. Thank you. /EriFr (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this article wouldn't come across like an "attack on Russia" (a characterization which I think is totally off-base and unsupported) if Russia hadn't attacked Ukraine. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

NAF strength update 80,000

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY6q9uKqo8s

207.35.219.34 (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The actual article at their news site features text as well. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Right Sector involvement

The involvement of the Right Sector group in the current conflict is well documented and indisputable. Upon noticing the groups unexplained absence from the info-box, I re-added them only to have the edit reverted by Iryna Harpy, diff here [1]. This user obviously has infected the article with his personal biasness, as when I sought to remove the involvement of the RNU, explaining that it is ridiculous if an extremist group on one side is allowed to remain while the other isn't, it was reverted, diff here [2]. The vibe I'm getting is that we are allowed to be more subjective when it comes to the involvement of 'less than savory' combatants on the 'pro-western' Ukrainian side while not affording the same standard when it comes to documenting combatants on the separatist side. This is ridiculous and unbefitting of an Encyclopedia. I do not want any POV pushing in this article, and only wish to know why the inclusion of the Right Sector is being censored. --Ritsaiph (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the Right Sector; I'll let others hash that out. But there's no reason to remove the RNU. You can't use the argument that "you won't let me do what I want so I won't let you do what you want" on Wikipedia. Or in real world.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I was the one who added Russian National Unity to the infobox in the first place, diff here [3] I merely removed them to see if user Iryna Harpy had an agenda by reverting me adding the Right Sector, and not to my surprise, I was correct. --Ritsaiph (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Right Sector There are two questions: (1) is there at least one reliable source? and (2) is the inclusion of the group significant enough to mention? In the case of Right Sector, there have been many reliable Western sources that wrote about their involvement. The sources have indicated that their presence is significant.

"I merely removed them to see if user... had an agenda by reverting me". You have proved nothing. Long-standing editors often revert the deletion of properly-cited content, when there appears to be no good reason for the deletion. Have you read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point?-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

"Long-standing editors often revert the deletion of properly-cited content, when there appears to be no good reason for the deletion" - Toddy1. Is this the Wikipedia equivalent of going senile? Your tirade was pointless, and you have actually proved my point that the user removed sourced content without any explanation or reason. --Ritsaiph (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of points that need to be addressed here, not the least of which is WP:GAMING by Ritsaiph in order to elicit 'responses'. I don't appreciate WP:ASPERSIONS (as are demonstrated by the user's missive on my own talk page here) as to my having a "Ukrainian-centric group" [sic] agenda (I'm sorry but when, exactly, did I become a member of a Wikipedia cabal bent on flexing my mythological influence muscles to merit accusations of, "I am now aware you have a biasness for your lack of justification in removing material which is well known." [sic])

To be honest, outside of imaginary agendas, I see fundamental problems with the inclusion of either group and would suggest that both are probably WP:UNDUE. The major problem is that of WP:SYNTH: depicting either political party as being a party endorsed, pro-active military group would need WP:RS demonstrating that extremist party members are supported financially, morally, et al by the parties and are, ergo, the norm. Yes, both parties hold extremist ideas and are bound to attract the most extreme elements who can't be prevented from using the party logo. Does that mean that these militants are truly the embodiment of the parties, or is working on such a premise a conflation of two related, yet disparate, concepts (party as ideology and party as military entity)?

While we can claim abundant RS (outside of WP:BIASED and op-ed pieces), where is it? Does any of this serve as being informative for the reader in the infobox or is it just designed to be plain WP:POINTy?

As to why I left Russian National Unity there pending discussion, that's simple: yes, of course there's been a lot written about Right Sector and its involvement because they're a Ukrainian party who have Ukrainian citizens as members and the extremism of their ideology has been bandied around right from the word 'go'. RNU are not Ukrainian, yet have a presence in Ukraine fighting in a Ukrainian(?) war. Why are they present in a country they are not citizens of? And, no, you're not going to find significant analysis of their presence simply because it has been Ukrainian affairs, as well as larger Russian interests, that have been under scrutiny in the press. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, I personally don't give a sh*t about what you do or do not appreciate. The fact of the matter is you having unjustifiably and consistently removed well-documented and sourced information from reliable, as well as from partisan sources. For you to then write about justifying your decision by writing utter bullsh*t is just pathetic but also the icing on the cake.

depicting either political party as being a party endorsed, pro-active military group would need WP:RS demonstrating that extremist party members are supported financially, morally, et al by the parties and are, ergo, the norm. I mean, what are you trying to say here? That just becuase members of a group fight, the organisation they are apart of doesn't endorse them? The leader of Right Sector, Dmytro Yarosh is an aide to Ukrainian military chief Viktor Muzhenko and Right Sector would therefore have to condone (which it has) the conflict if its leader is involved. But of course Right Sector doesn't condone fighting in Ukraine, this assertion is just ridiculous.

"there's been a lot written about Right Sector and its involvement because they're a Ukrainian party who have Ukrainian citizens as members and the extremism of their ideology has been bandied around right from the word 'go'" Oh, so it's 'unfair' to comment/scrutinize on this particular group and its ideology becuase it's a Ukrainian group comprised of Ukrainians.

For some reason, you seem confused about what goes into an info-box. Let me make it easy for you: If it is mentioned in reliable sources, it goes into the fuck*ng box. Do you understand, or would you like me to re-type this statement for you to analyse?

I have come across too many people on Wikipedia who are like you Iryna Harpy. Pathetic, stupid and selfish people. --Ritsaiph (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to retype your complaint at the WP:ANI, Ritsaiph. Oh, and incidentally, that's a terrific piece of WP:SYNTH you've managed to squeeze in into your (shall we say) rather protracted tirade against me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: That "there's been a lot written about Right Sector" is not a convincing reason for excluding Right Sector from the infobox.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I'm fine with that, too. I merely presented explanations as to why I would consider both to be WP:UNDUE for the infobox. If they're both considered DUE, then I'm also fine with that. The only thing I object to is editors who jump straight into attack mode on my talk own talk page and made full-on personal attacks on other editors on the talk page of an article. Ritsaiph has some severe behavioural problems I believe need to be addressed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Thank you. I have restored the information to the infobox.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Cheers. I'm just surprised no one else did so earlier. It's not down to me to question consensus: I have no illusions (or grand delusions) as to WP:OWNing the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Article needs updating

The situation in Donbass is not static, but substantial parts of this article (such as the map) haven't been updated since February. I do not speak either Ukrainian or Russian, so I cannot consult the primary sources to update this article myself. (Also, I do not know which primary sources are reliable and which are propaganda channels for either side.) --Rob Kelk 17:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The situation in Donbass, as far as reliable sources are concerned, is largely static. We don't use primary sources. We use reliable secondary sources. The line of contact has not changed in any significant manner, meaning that no map changes are needed. Minor skirmishes continue, but they are WP:UNDUE for this article, and are mentioned in the timeline. Nothing about this is outdated. If reliable sources report a significant change, it will be included. No such change has occurred. I suggest you browse the relevant sub-articles, as this is merely a summary article. RGloucester — ☎ 17:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Quite opposite, a lot has changed, for example the nationalistic Right Sector forces have been ordered to withdrawn from the front, after they started fighting police in Western Ukraine and organized marches in Kiev against the government. Also Ukrainian officials stated that rebels are preparing a nuclear device against Ukraine[4]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The Right Sector business is covered in the Right Sector article, and the Shyrokyne stuff is covered at Shyrokyne standoff (February–July 2015). None of that stuff is relevant in this summary article, as it is minor, and does not represent a major shift in the war itself. RGloucester — ☎ 16:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

2,410 Ukrainian soldiers killed as of July 3

http://memorybook.org.ua/

207.35.219.34 (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)