Talk:War in Donbas

NPOV Violation?

Repeated references are made in the article to the "Fall" as opposed to "Liberation" or even "Capture" of Debeltsevo and other rebel held areas. The rebels and separatists are also referred to in places as "occupiers." To me this betrays a blatant pro-Kiev bias in the editing of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.29.128 (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It's even worse than violation of NPOV. This article does not even meet the standards to be included in a respectable newspaper, even less an encyclopedia. Just one example of the language used: what Russia called a "humanitarian convoy". The author of this phrase should apply for a job at 'The Daily Mirror'. Alas, there is a group of like-minded people who watch this article like a tigress watches her cubs. Blinded by their bias, they don't see that all they are achieving is damaging Wikipedia and, instead of furthering their cause, make it look every day more dubious. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:43, 31 August 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)

Have to agree with Ritsaiph. Unfortunately some editors have become strongly engaged here and are pushing a very one sided POV. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we all know what you POV is. Why do you feel compelled to leave POINTy comments days after a content matter has been resolved? Is it that you want to be seen to be involved - via means of your signature - despite the time lapse between a discussion's resolution and your self-righteous non-comment? It might just go a long way to explaining why you pull up comments and differences months apart in order to keep reminding everyone of just how much you don't anything that doesn't suit a POV you feel strongly about. Please stop being plain ol' redundant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 17 August 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)

References

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)

Herzen, I'm addressing only one of your tendentious edits here (without bothering to address other POV refactoring you've engaged in after this edit). As you see, per discussions in this sections, consensus stands at the inclusion of both the RNU and Right Sector in the infobox as being reliably sourced. Stop trying to edit war your POV into the content of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I hadn't read this article for months, much less edited it, so how could I be edit warring? All I did was see some wildly unencyclopedic editing choices (to call them expressions of POV would be to attribute some kind of merit to them) and respond accordingly. Evidently, the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" means nothing to you. (I did glance at some of these Talk pages occasionally, too see whether the circus was still in town.) Your bandying about the term "consensus" fools nobody, by the way. Editors managing to hound out editors who are here to build an encyclopedia does not consensus make. You used to know at least how to give the impression of being civil. – Herzen (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Military forces of "Right sector" are a part of Territorial defense battalions (Ukraine). If anyone wants to include more materials about them, sure, please do. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Herzen: The bounds of civility and assuming good faith were stretched well beyond the norm by three edits by you in quick succession:
A) Discussion as to the content deemed DUE for the content relating to edit No.1 existed in this section already.
B) Edit No.2 was the removal of sourced content. The reason it stands in its current form used can be answered by checking through the archived talk pages of this article and the Russian military intervention article. The infobox became heavily cluttered some time ago, and discussions took place as to how best to address these issues rather than duplicating multiple RS already in place. It was decided that, for the sake of cite kill, this was a more effective way of avoiding duplication and, as such, is in no shape of form a breach of WP:WINARS.
C) With edit No.3 you claim that RT is equally reliable as the BBC despite the fact that I know you are well aware of the discussions of the use of RT (and Sputnik - ex-TASS and RIA Novosti now combined) at the RSN and NPOVN relating to their reliability (or lack thereof) in the context of events in the Ukraine, Georgia, etc. (if not elsewhere)... particularly as the escalation of the propaganda element has been thoroughly examined by multiple RS over the last few years.

Most importantly, not only did you fail to catch up with the talk page discussions, you did not even attempt to follow BRD. If you have a genuine issue with content, bring it to the talk page, and do not use this page to make bad faith personal attacks on myself, other editors, and cast aspersions about a cabal at work. After the first sentence, the remainder of your comment reads as a very POINTy list of grievances founded on your own sense of self-righteousness. Mimicry of trashy accusations is the last bastion of someone who doesn't actually have a constructive argument. It is not evidence of 'hounding' out editors who are 'here'. If you have any such suspicions and can back it with evidence, take it to ARB. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Content fork

Regarding to this edit [4]... Well, I simply do not think we should provide that many images of paramilitaries and dedicate so much content about the paramilitaries, given that they are well described on numerous pages liked from this page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately your recent edits are likely violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. Tendentious editing, WP:NPOV, WP: RS. I also feel that this is a WP:DONTLIKEIT issue. "Pro-Russian insurgents" section is obviously much longer. -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Tobby, MVBW made a very specific argument about content. You made personal accusations against them. Who's "violating several Wikipedia guidelines andp olicies"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies to My very best wishes or anyone who feels offended. Essentially, my argument is that "Counter-insurgency forces and Ukrainian militias" section is much shorter than "Pro-Russian insurgents" section. There is no need to further shorten it. My very best wishes and RGloucester have also accidentally deleted a section called, "Chechen and Muslim paramilitaries". — [5], [6]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not your 'argument', Tobby72. Your history of WP:GAMING has not left you standing in good stead with editors who are WP:HERE. Are we about to go WP:REHASH another bout of WP:GEVAL POV-pushing? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It continues. No, simply telling in edit summary "deletion of cited text" is not enough. Not every cited text belongs here, and this is precisely the point. If needed, I can provide links to other pages with duplicate texts. My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I can also provide links to other pages with duplicate texts or similar content. For example, 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine ("Russian involvement" section). Why did you choose this particular section ("Pro-government paramilitaries")? -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Why did I choose to change this particular segment? Simply because I happened to read this particular segment. Sure, a lot of pages must to be improved, but I either did not read them or did not see anything particularly troubling. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think revision of the section on Counter-insurgency forces and Ukrainian militias would be a good thing. It contains some apparently random sentences that appear out of context. To illustrate the uselessness of these sentences, I have added in italics the conclusion I would draw from the out of context sentences.

• "It lost twelve fighters when it was ambushed outside Donetsk in August 2014." Only 12? And none since August 2014?
• "The National Guard is trained by U.S. Army paratroopers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade." So there are thousands of US paratroops in Ukraine? Since when?

-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Speaking more generally, I think that copy-pasting texts about "Ukrainian fascists" to numerous pages (even where they do not really belong) is a bad idea. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The current state of the article is one-sided towards certain POV and a lots of balancing realiably sourced info has been removed under often flimsy pretext ("content fork", "no consensus", etc). I have never ever written something like "Ukrainian fascists" or "Ukrainian nazis". It would be pretty stupid. Similarly, to say that Russians are "terrorists" or "fascists" is equally stupid. On the other hand, the Azov Battalion fighters have undoubtedly links with neo-Nazi groups. - [7], [8], [9]. It cannot be denied. There is also no doubt that volunteer battalions such as Azov have taken the brunt of the fighting. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, there's been an inordinate amount of sabre-rattling about how unfair it is to characterise pro-Russian separatists, Russian involvement, ad nauseam for the past couple of years (that is, a superlative case of 'wearing down the opponent' until they give up on following innumerable, mainstream RS descriptions), yet when the shoe is on the other foot, 'neo-Nazi', 'Ukrainian fascists' and every other extremist descriptor used in some RS are POV-pushed into any and every article possible disregarding whether it meets DUE. Do we have two rules for content, or is it that tendentious and disruptive editors get the final word? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black — [10], [11], [12], [13]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Could you please try to make some sort of sense. Okay, I can see that you are admitting to being the kettle, but who, exactly, is the pot? It seems that you've pulled out valid edits going back over a year of editing without providing a context, and are trying to make a WP:POINT about editors who reverted or changed content added by editors who have been warned off by administrators for tendentious editing practices, or have had sanctions imposed on them preventing them from editing these articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Actually, the entire sentence, "Some of the volunteer battalions belongs to Right Sector. It lost twelve fighters when it was ambushed outside Donetsk in August 2014. Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh vowed his group would avenge the deaths." reads as WP:POINTy without any context other than 'we want to put in Right Sector, plus use WEASEL description like "vowed" to "avenge the deaths" here'. Even the article cited doesn't use "vow" and the single description of the response is pure WP:CHERRY. In the context of the article, it's only an aside to the primary information. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think revision of the section on Pro-Russian insurgents would be a good thing. Here is one example:

"Mozhaev also alleged that some of the more extreme views of the Cossacks include destroying "the Jew-Masons," who they claim have been "fomenting disorder all over the world" and "causing us, the common Orthodox Christian folk, to suffer."— Young, Cathy (21 May 2014). "Fascism Comes to Ukraine – From Russia". RealClearPolitics.com. "On 25 May, the SBU arrested 13 Russian Cossacks in Luhansk."—"Russian Cossacks Arrested in Luhansk: Ukrainian security forces detain Kremlin-backed insurgents". YouTube. Retrieved 12 June 2014."

Do we have two rules for content, or is it that tendentious and disruptive editors get the final word? -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It continues. Obviously we have two rules for content. — [14], [15]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

What "continues"? Your unyielding WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Yes, yes it does.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious editing, repeated deletions of reliable sources posted by other editors. — [16]. Please stop your disruptive editing. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing tendentious about my edits. There IS something very tendentious about your tenacious repeated attempts to reinsert text that several other editors told you repeatedly does not belong in this article. There IS something disruptive about a single editor, you, edit warring against multiple other editors to try and force their way through on the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I am talking about tendentious editing, repeated disruptive deletions of reliable sources posted by other editors. — [17], [18], [19]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

1st diff. Yes, I can partly agree: this text could be included if shortened and corrected to properly summarize sources. 2nd diff - No, that was correct removal or remotely relevant and uninformative text. 3rd diff - no, that was improvement of sourcing. My very best wishes (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, My very best wishes. 1st diff. Shortened. — [20]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't an inclusion in the spirit of "Yes, I can partly agree: this text could be included if shortened and corrected to properly summarize sources.": it was CHERRY and POINTy SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is worth noticing that some Chechen (like Isa Munayev) fought on the Ukrainian side and died. However, text inserted by Tobby72 (and especially the phrase about Nord Ost siege that did not involve anyone fighting on the Ukrainian side) was very far from WP:NPOV, to tell this politely. My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"Nord Ost siege" removed. — [21]. Btw, the pro-Kiev Chechen commander was a member of the terrorist group responsible for the Nord-Ost theatre siege. — [22]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? No, as far as RS tell, all members of the terrorist group were killed, together with 130 hostages by FSB forces, except only the famous double FSB agent Terkibayev who directed the terrorist group to the theater. But he was killed later. My very best wishes (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no substantive argument against the material other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT — [23] -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we know that you don't "see" it. That doesn't mean that such substantive arguments have not been made. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

And let's be clear here. This isn't just about adding some (undue) text. You are also trying to remove some info while you do that. Trying to be sneaky. For no apparent reason. Talk about WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Euromaidanpress, Youtube, Realclearpolitics. — [24]. Talk about WP:RS.

Marek, I'd recommend you to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've read it. Pointing out that you are not only trying to add text but are also trying to remove text in the same edit is not a "personal attack". False accusations of "personal attacks" however, can be, if yourself read WP:NPA, construed as personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Tobby72, I'd recommend that you read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. How many times are you going to WP:REHASH the same POV changes from article to article? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to comment that using youtube as source or Euromaidanpress doesn't fulfill RS criteria of Wikipedia. These sources need to be removed and better ones provided to support their claims.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Youtube isn't being used as a source, a video from a news organization which can be linked to on youtube is being used as a source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as Euromaidan press goes, the text it is sourcing is also sourced to Reuters so, uh, "better ones" ALREADY ARE provided. And it's trivial to find more since the story was reported by most media organizations (for example [25]).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I think your comment is off topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

This change is ultimately based on an unofficial website, http://bs-life.ru, which doesn't look like a reliable source at all. Please revert the edit.

See also some remarks from people in reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/3ig4tk/russia_inadvertently_posts_its_casualties_in/cugad1e — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardy.tardi (talk • contribs) 08:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

We are not here to qualify sources. Forbes, The Independent, NBC, IBT, and The Times all are carrying the story and treating it as a legitimate leak. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 21:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but how is this a legitimate leak? Just because all of those RS claim this is a legitimate leak doesn't mean we have to treat it like some undeniable truth. Lets think about it for a moment, the main "source" of the story is from a shady website called "Bs-life.ru" that nobody ever heard of until yesterday. Even Bloomberg’s Leonid Bershidsky dismissed this report as fake citing the url name and the grammatical mistake of "v Ukraini" instead of "na Ukraini" (in Ukraine). RS make mistakes too, and so does the US State Department. Does anybody need a reminder of how Strelkov's militiamen in Sloviansk were portrayed as Russian Spetsnaz in April 2014? [26] [27] Seems like RS nowadays pickup stories that make big headlines, without even verifying whether the source is reliable. Bottom line, Wikipedia is no place for rumors that turn into "leaks" overnight. SkoraPobeda (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea whether the leak is legitimate or not. But until there's a RS which says it's bunk we stick to the reliable sources which are reporting on it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And, uh, the sources you link to, do NOT state or show that "Strelkov's militiamen in Sloviansk were portrayed as Russian Spetsnaz". What the guardian article in fact says is that the proof in the photographs is not unequivocal (i.e. they could be Spetsnaz) but that Russian special forces probably are there. Try again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"the grammatical mistake of "v Ukraini" instead of "na Ukraini"" - what? Russian media used v Ukraini as normal grammar until 2005. source. "In Ukraine" is correct, "on Ukraine" (na) is imperialist jargon.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 14:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Marek, could they be Spetsnaz? Lets take Alexander Mozhaev for instance, that main bearded man accused of being a Chechen Spetsnaz GRU from the 2008 Georgian war [28], VICE News even confirmed his identity, and he's definitely no Chechen [29]. The other men were also found on social media and were not known to be in the Spetsnaz GRU. Did RS ever go back and correct their mistakes? Obviously not, because they aren't interested in that. As for Levivsky, your chart proves nothing. All of my relatives from Ukraine always said "na Ukraini", even during the Soviet Union. So that "imperialist jargon" is nothing but a lie. It is the correct terminology since Ukrayina literally means "borderland", don't let any website tell you otherwise. SkoraPobeda (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

SkoraPobeda, you claimed that the sources you provided, like the guardian, stated that other reliable sources mistakenly portrayed "Strelkov's militiamen in Sloviansk ... as Russian Spetsnaz". The sources you provided in fact say no such thing. What they say is what I already wrote above.

As to the little original research that you guys are conducting here, both your analysis of Mozhaev or "v" vs "na" is completely irrelevant until you bring reliable sources to the table.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I won't be able to find you a RS that calls them "Strelkov's militiamen" if that's what you're expecting. That's not even the point, the point is that there are some RS that don't come to a conclusive term of what to call those men. At first they were called "gunmen" [30] later they called those men Cossacks [31], and of course the most often term was the simple "Spetsnaz". Even with the original research that I showed, it proves that RS make mistakes and don't go back to correct themselves. The very same thing is happening right now with this whole hogwash story of 2000+ Russian soldiers killed, and 3000 wounded. The RS themselves are using a Non-RS for their media frenzy, isn't that silly? That is why I am in stark opposition to the addition of these numbers. And no, you won't find a RS that disproves this data because none of the RS are going to be disproving it. SkoraPobeda (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but that's not enough reason to remove the info. You either follow WPR:RS or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright then, today we bear witness that under-investigative RS uses non-RS, but it's ok to put it on Wikipedia because it's RS. If only you guys understood how frustrating it is to see a lie being labelled as RS. SkoraPobeda (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Ugh, I had to make a new account - I agree, the source is not credible and is the result of a propagandist feeding frenzy. Anyone with an IQ above 75 would be able to tell that those numbers are EXTREMELY unrealistic and ridiculous. Not too long ago a 'human rights activist' in Russia claimed 3500 Russian soldiers were killed. This is getting ridiculous. Please revert the figure back to its previous estimate, of 400-500 from the US Department of Defense. A much more credible source. ChuckChuckRuck (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Until there's a reliable source which says it's bunk we stick to the reliable sources which are reporting on it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"numbers are EXTREMELY unrealistic and ridiculous." - Is it? I mean the alternate estimate is 2,500 RU mercenaries, right? I don't think 3,200 wounded out of 40,000 is unrealistic either. However, personally, if it's 10k RU troops deployed on rotation of 40k, then 2k dead does seem high, especially since they are mostly in the rear and cleanup with the mercs as cannon fodder. At the same time, you have a lot of officers and soldiers embedded as part of these 'volunteer' units that are getting wiped too. I don't know, just personal opinion rambling here.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 14:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Marek, please read the reddit links I provided. They *prove* beyond doubt that this bs-life.ru site is not reliable at all. Please load their website in Google translate. It has *no street address*, its whois record is obscured, yet it's depicted in the Western media as a Moscow based newspaper. It's as good as any site that can be built in 10 minutes. Mardy (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, here's a reliable source which debunks (with investigation) the Forbes article: https://www.rt.com/news/313653-russia-ukraine-soldiers-fake-forbes/ Mardy (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments on reddit are nowhere near being a reliable source. RT is nowhere near being a reliable source. See WP:RS. No go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Then how come that an unknown Russian site, with no valid contact information, full of ads, is a reliable source? Please elaborate. In the RT article and Reddit comments there is some information which *everyone* can verify. You don't need to trust them, just do the checks yourself (knowing Russian, or having Russian friends helps!). Mardy (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The "unknown Russian site" is not being used as a source. Forbes, The Independent, IB Times, NBC News and The Times are being (or could be) used as sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Marek, dont be a fool. Forbes is nothing but a blog, and the sources those writers use are bogus. Therefore, the echo articles cannot be taken as a legitimate source. Ukrainepolicy also used it, does that mean we can use Ukrainian propaganda as a source? I agree with Mardy. You are being a hypocrite.Two Russian journalists warn that the source is not legitimate: https://twitter.com/NataliaAntonova/status/636475839316631552 | https://twitter.com/NatVasilyevaAP/status/636467968331882496 Someone revert it to the solid numbers from the US government. ChuckChuckRuck (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/ChuckChuckRuck, when you said that you had to make a new account, what was your previous account?-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Even if Forbes "was just a blog" (blogs can be reliable depending on who writes them) you still got four other reliable sources up there. Are we using Ukrainepolicy? No? Then it's irrelevant.

You might want to lay off the personal attacks like "fool" and "hypocrite".

Also, I also thought that the "other account" you referred to was Mardy.tardi. But in the comment above you say "I agree with Mardy" which indicates that this is not the case. So let me echo Toddy1 in asking what is your other account? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Marek, The Independent quotes Forbes as the source. Can I remove it from the article page, then? Also, Both Ukrainepolicy and The Times quote directly that bs-life.ru website as their sole source. Shouldn't we just restore this whole section to how it was before this piece of "news" broke out? Mardy (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No, The Times is just being a secondary source. Which is what we use. Again, until there's reliable sources out there which say it's bunk, we report what reliable sources are reporting.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And are you going to answer Toddy1's question? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what question? The only question I see from him was not for me. Mardy (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"Ukrainepolicy also used it, does that mean we can use Ukrainian propaganda as a source?" - wait, so you're calling western academics "Ukrainian propaganda" now? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 14:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the western academics believe that if the headlines are on other sites, then they too must have that story. So technically yes, they are swallowing propaganda and becoming a mouthpiece for it themselves. SkoraPobeda (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please observe WP:NOTAFORUM and drop the editorializing which does nothing to improve the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

We should not be including this figure in the article at all, certainly not presenting it as some sort of undisputed fact. All of these outlets are basing their reports on something published on this one very shaky site that was created using a readily available template. It appears that there is only one point of contact for the outlet as NBC, Radio Free Europe, and Russia Today, all mention the same "representative" speaking to them about the site by e-mail and no details appear to exist about any other staff. Even though it is supposedly a major Moscow-based business magazine, an Associated Press reporter in Moscow does not seem to have ever heard of it.

The idea that because this site's claim has been repeated by more reliable outlets this means the information somehow is no longer questionable is absurd. None of these outlets have any way to verify that the original article's claims were legitimate or based off any real sources and the "representative" did not provide any outlets with their supposed sources. I don't believe we would ever accept this site as a reliable source given that we know nothing about it so suggesting its claims should be treated as fact just because some "reliable sources" repeated the information despite not being able to verify it for themselves is ludicrous.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate, you've been around long enough to know that a Wikipedia's user original research doesn't trump reliable sources. Thank you for your opinion, but it's irrelevant until someone finds a source which explicitly says these numbers aren't true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Another debunk, from a Russian blogger close to opposition figures. In English, just please take the time to read it: http://ruslanleviev.livejournal.com/37565.html Also, why isn't this *HUGE* news in the CNN, BBC, The Guardian? You would think they'd report it too, if it was true? Please put prejudices aside, follow the source chain and get to the bottom of the facts. It's just a Russian click bait site. Mardy (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The original source is fake, that is plenty of reason to remove the info. You can't just use secondary articles as a source when the information in those articles have proven to be fake.ChuckChuckRuck (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You still have not answered my question Chuck.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, secondary sources is exactly what we use.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

stopfake.org debunked it as fake

http://www.stopfake.org/en/debunking-the-fake-article-on-2000-russian-soldiers-killed-in-donbas-everyone-fell-for/

172.98.153.169 (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That's more like it. Need a bit more though, this is user generated content, no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Marek, in my opinion you are reversing the logic: in order to add something to an article, we need reliable sources. Those numbers come from a blog of an anti-Russian journalist hosted in Forbes, some tabloids and many Ukrainian sites, and they all refer as a primary source to an unreliable site (bs-life.ru). None of the big news agencies carries this news. The US department did not update his estimates. Now, do you really expect the BBC to write a piece of news about this news (which they didn't report) being fake? Or do you expect Ukrainian sites or the journalist who posted the news into his Forbes blog to retract it? It may happen, but most likely it won't. So what, do we have to stay with these fake numbers in Wikipedia, just because the formal process requires so? I have a proposal: we revert those numbers to those given by the US department and, if you wish, we can add a small section in the body of the article, where we report of this "news" and its criticism.Mardy (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

We do have reliable sources. Not just forbes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• We do have reliable sources. Not just forbes.* | You are trolling. You don't. You just have sources that regurgitate the same information presented in the forbes and ukrainepolicy articles. (Information that has proven to be 100% incorrect and false.) You have no reliable sources. If the information is incorrect, it doesnt belong on this page. No matter what article it comes from. Someone, for sanity's sake, revert the edit. Stopfake.org is a website dedicated to debunking Russian (mostly) and Ukrainian propaganda. It has been used as a source throughout Ukraine-related articles, it is a legitimate website. Its not Reddit or 4chan. If people can use Bellingcat as a source, then they can use this as one too. Its more than reliable, its basic analysis. Please accept the fact that this is NOT correct information, and revert the infobox to its previous state. The sources you are using contain false information. Its all fake, why can't you just accept that? How much more evidence do you need? RT, stopfake.org, and even moronic redditors have been able to debunk these false statistics. ChuckChuckRuck (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Guys, I've studied Russia's wars and conflicts for years, and there is no way they've lost 2,000 men in Ukraine. Apart from the dubious sources, it just isn't an accurate number. Russian soldiers, even conscripts are vastly superior in ability to their Ukrainian counterparts, (this is even excluding Russia's armor and artillery superiority in the Donbass region), the odds of them losing 2,000 men and only killing 2,000 Ukrainians is absurd at best, ludicrous in all probability. We should probably just add a lower limit, with a question mark highlighting the massive uncertainty surrounding this number. Abattoir666 (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, you need more than personal opinion for that. You need a source. The StopFake source above is getting there - it doesn't quite fulfill the necessary conditions for WP:RS however (I wish it would). Just keep looking and find a published, reliable, secondary source which states what you state.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, a lot more than 2,000 Ukrainians were killed, such data by official Kiev can not be trusted. One should also realize that a lot of Russians who fight in Donbass are not official Army, but "volunteers" who fight as a part of Donbass "militias". Hence the higher losses. No one knows the numbers for sure, but they are many thousand. Russian government was forced to declare them a state secret, allegedly to cover up the significant jump of mortality rate in the entire country during this year [32]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Marek, above you accuse me of original research, but that is not what is going on here. I am saying the original source is not even remotely reliable and thus we should not rely on anything repeating the claims of that source even if it appears in a "reliable" source. None of these "reliable" sources independently verified the claims made in the original source or checked the veracity of the original source so we cannot really say the information is reliable. Absent independent verification of the information by these "reliable" sources, we have no reason to trust the information enough to include it in the article at all given the shaky nature of the only actual source.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say. Forbes, The Independent, NBC, IBT, and The Times. We don't second guess reliable sources or try to "correct" them because we think they got it wrong (except in extreme cases). Second guessing and trying to correct reliable sources is textbook original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The hypocrisy in this is unbelievable you just said "We report what reliable sources say" yet you have repeatedly deleted reliably sourced material — [33], [34], [35]. – -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing hypocritical here (again, please lay off the personal attacks) - different issues are involved as has been explained to you fifty fucking million times! Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not just opinion, people are actually reading this page, the longer we leave up the crap estimates the dumber the readers will become. It's impossible to have 2,000 kia, 3,000 wia and only 12 prisoners, this isn't just from a historical perspective, every law of warfare and statistics says that's crap, so do the US and Russian government. The source where people got this shitty estimate from is most obviously crap. And Forbes, the Independent, and NBC aren't reliable sources, they all report what other news outlets say, IBT is especially guilty of this. We're making the Pedia seem more susceptible to fantastical stories than it already is. Abattoir666 (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, then find a source which says "this number is crap".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Even a quick scroll through Institute for the Study of War, records shows that this number is crap, and ISW is where the government actually get's data from. Abattoir666 (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Marek, 340 people have seen these numbers, and are probably already spreading this false info. Can we please just revert it already, if you don't believe me just call the institute for the study of war, and they will tell you that number is bullshit. Abattoir666 (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This is how war propaganda works. Do you remember Iraq's WMD and media's complicity as cheerleaders to war? – [36]

This article isn't about Iraq and WMD. See red herring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Debunking the fake article on 2000 Russian soldiers killed in Donbas everyone fell for, Ruslan Leviev, LiveJournal, 28 August 2015. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice try but LiveJournal's not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh my God, I get headache just by looking at the arguments the naysayers post here. The article from Forbes is reliable as for now, and the casualties should be listed as such in the infobox. DO NOT DELETE THEM. There have been many wars in the past were the casualties have not been confirmed, yet we have listed modern day "estimates" as facts. Why should we treat this information any differently? The article has been debunked by a person with ties to Russian propaganda. That makes sense. Russia inadvertently released these casualties numbers and now they are trying to clean up the mess by debunking the article, and you fall for it?

In war the KIA/WIA ratio is always higher! 2000 KIA and 3,200 WIA is actually a very reliable number and most likely true. The POW have nothing to do with the casualties number and do not reflect if a country is at war or not. ~ Richard

Nice try, but the article has been debunked by Russian opposition blogger Ruslan Leviev with ties to Kyiv Post. – [37] -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, but that Kiev Post article doesn't say anything about this issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• The 2,000 casualty number has been published in a large number of RS [38], and it only concerns Russian soldiers from the regular army. It does not include "volunteers" that are a lot more numerous. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The author of the Forbes blog added a follow-up post, in which he acknowledges that the news is most likely a fake.Mardy (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Looking at the above discussion, it is now very clear that this information is incorrect and based on fake data.It should be re-phrased to reflect this or removed altogether. We had situations were mass media did report false information before.Logic would dictate that we are to reflect reliably information, and Wikipedia readers shouldn't be presented faked information as objective statements.However looking at the discussion above, I would suggest seeking a neutral third opinion or mediation as compromise or agreement doesn't seem to be possible at this stage.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. Now... where is the reliable source which says this information is incorrect? You know how this works, NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually just something is published by reliable source doesn't mean it has to be included:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I also note that you aren't actually claiming that the information is correct just that it was repeated by mainstream media without the due diligence of fact checking, and therefore needs to be included-this is at least the way I understand your reasoning. In any case looking at the pattern on this and other articles I believe this is best to decide for third parties. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

That applies to situations where some info can be sourced but is not really relevant to the article's topic or constitutes trivia. Here we just have a couple editors engaging in relentless original research in order to exclude relevant and on-topic information which has been published in reliable sources. Please don't try to WP:GAME wikipedia policies for POV purposes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Marek, are we still on this? The source that says 2,000 dead is crap, but for the sake of just getting this pointless thread over with, we should just leave it as the upper limit, with a note saying the sources for the low and high numbers. We should also do the same for the wounded as well. (Side not: since this is a low intensity conflict, the more correct numbers are probably the lower numbers, just a basic maxim for editing. Unless of course this low intensity conflict is in China or India, in which case anything goes.)Abattoir666 (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, and in fact have not made any changes after you changed it to that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tobby72, Abattoir666, The Devil's Advocate, SkoraPobeda and MyMoloboaccount. The alleged leak is highly dubious and has been contested by many, thus making it highly unreliable. Considering we already agreed to include only figures of dead made known by highly reliable sources or self-admitted figures, and not potential propaganda, than the figure has no place in the infobox. A fair compromise would be to mention the 2,000 figure in the casualties section. PS In regard to the figure of 2,248 dead separatists, it has three sources. 1st ref confirms the graves are that of separatists, 2nd ref confirms (up to that date) at least 2,213 graves (read the number on the grave), 3rd ref confirms (at a later date) an additional 35 separatist deaths. Thats 2,248 dead. EkoGraf (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

has been contested by many - like who? Some reddit editors and a couple Russian bloggers? Where are the reliable sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Listen, first, the RS are NOT the ones who are reporting 2,000 soldiers have been killed. They are relaying the claim of a dubious news site. That it is being relayed by RS does not make the claim automatically reliable/verifiable. MyMoloboaccount has already pointed out Wiki policy on this issue. Second, an obvious majority of editors is in agreement that the claim is too dubious to be taken as reliable. But, even if you call upon Wiki policy that we are not a democracy, Wiki policy also dictates that when consensus can not be reached on an issue no changes are to be made (leaving the older version of the article). At this point you have no consensus. Third, I am again proposing a compromise where we will mention the claim/leak of 2,000 dead in the casualties section of the article (which I have already inserted). EkoGraf (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you listen. Above you stated that this figure "has been contested by many". Yet you have not provided a single reliable source which contests this figure. So you're making shit up, unless by "many" you mean random people on reddit, a couple no-name bloggers, and few tendentious Wikipedia editors known for their POV PUSHING and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality (that's putting the anon IPs aside). Nice to know that you're ready throw out the WP:RS requirement out the window when it fancies you. Really good editing practice there and a pretty stark admissions as to the nature of your edits here on Wikipedia.

Then you repeat that empty assertion in your edit summary: "a source that has been contradicted and put into doubt by several other sources " Really? What are these "several other sources". List them please. Right here. Since neither you nor anyone else has done this, that means you're just bullshitting. Trying to sneak in your own original research rather than actually following one of Wikipedia's WP:FIVEPILLARS which is that reliable sources trump individual editor's opinions and fancies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, first, beside ignoring the two policies MyMoloboaccount and me pointed out to you, you violated two more policies just now. Accusing me of conducting bullshitting and ignoring WP:RS is not in accordance with WP policy on assuming good faith and not in accordance with WP: Civil. Second if you are going to compare reliability, which is more reliable? The State Department giving a figure of 400-500 dead up to around the same time period, or that news site claiming 2,000 died? You are acting on the basis that all those RS are the ones who reported the number but in fact they didn't. They relayed the claim of a dubious news site. If those very RS news sites were relaying for example a claim by a separatist commander that he killed 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers, per your logic that would mean that claim is as well reliable. Third, the sources I referred to have already been linked to you by all the other editors up above (I can link a few more here [39][40]). I know you will contend they are all not reliable, but there's enough of them to cast doubt. Fourth, since when is 8 editors a few...editors? Fifth, in the future I would ask that you discuss contentious issues in a more calm manner. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Look, it's a simple question/request. You said that this figure "has been contested by many". You then said "a source that has been contradicted and put into doubt by several other sources ".

Now.

Please show me this "by many". Show me these "several other sources"

You can make all the excuses you want and throw all kinds of baseless accusations my way and complain about the use of a grown-up word to accurately describe your actions. Doesn't change the fact that you're making stuff up.

And no, RT does not count. Hell, random reddit editors probably ARE more reliable than that. No it's not enough to cast doubt. You didn't say "a Russian propaganda outlet cast doubt on this source". You said "by many". And you said "several other sources". Still waiting on these.

And you keep piling it on even thicker. Now you say "the sources I referred to have already been linked to you by all the other editors up above". What sources? Comments by random schmucks on reddit? A LiveJournal blog? Twitter posts by non-notable individuals? A site with user generated content? Gimme a fucking break.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, read my previous reply. Or are you simply blanking out of your view all the links our fellow editors have posted? EkoGraf (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Please list them again. What are they? Reddit? LiveJournal? Twitter? RT? How many times does it have to be repeated that these are bunk, non-reliable, sources.

Look, it's a simple question/request. You said that this figure "has been contested by many". You then said "a source that has been contradicted and put into doubt by several other sources ". Now. Please show me this "by many". Show me these "several other sources".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Already replied to your simple question/request in my previous reply. Read it again if you need to. Don't know how you missed it. EkoGraf (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm blind. Can you list them right here? Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It may be simple use of a grown-up word for you, but its not for WP: Civil and WP: Good faith. PS You did it again, violating WP: Good faith by accusing me of making stuff up. EkoGraf (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. You are making stuff up in your talk page comments and in your edit summaries. Specifically, you claimed that the info was contested "by many" reliable sources. You claimed that it was put "into doubt by several other sources". It hasn't. You made that up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of term schmucks and gimme a fucking break in a discussion that should be civil is again not per WP policy. And its your personal POV. At this point I would ask you to take a break and cool off before continuing the discussion in a constructive manner so we can find a consensus (which is required by Wikipedia policy). EkoGraf (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of "schmucks" and "gimme a fucking break" are perfectly fine when used appropriately as they are here. And I would really appreciate it if you dropped the passive-aggressive condescending tone. I'm perfectly cool. I just don't like being lied to. And you are still trying to make excuses rather than actually providing these "many" reliable sources which "contested" the info or "put it into doubt". Until you do that, yeah, the discussion is stuck. But it's not because of my use of the word "schmuck" but because of you playing WP:GAMEs. Sources please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(and the State Department figure is pretty old so non-comparable).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It may be old, but it refers to the same time period. EkoGraf (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but it may have been based on old info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@EkoGraf. Sorry, but I believe this is not quite correct understanding of the policy on your part. Here is one of numerous sources telling that at least 2,000 Russian regular Army soldiers (not "volunteers"!) were killed. We have no responsibility to conduct investigations if this number was true. We have absolutely no obligation to trace anything to a primary source. To the contrary, we must use reliable secondary sources whenever possible. If there are other secondary RS which claim something different, we should also mention such sources, if they qualify as RS. But unfortunately, these alternative sources, such as discussions in Russian LiveJournal (see above) do not qualify at all as RS. The best we can do is to simply ignore such sources, especially if they contradict actual RS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not the Independent who are saying 2,000 soldiers died, they are reporting on the claim by the dubious news site. That does not make the claim verifiable/reliable. Like I already stated in an example up above, if the Independent was reporting a separatist commander claiming he killed 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers, would that make his claim automatically verifiable/reliable as well? In any case, putting the reliability of the claim aside, the fact of the matter is at the moment there is no consensus to insert the information into the infobox (with 2/3 of editors opposed to it). I am proposing as a fair compromise, for a third time, that the information be still mentioned in the casualties section, since it was notable enough in the RS media. PS Those volunteers ARE Russian soldiers, but they are going there under the cover of simply being volunteers under the orders of their officers. RS media has already reported on this dozens of times. EkoGraf (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"It is not the Independent who are saying 2,000 soldiers died, they are reporting on the claim by the dubious news site" First, whether the site is "dubious" is your own original research. I've been begging for a reliable source on it and all you can come up with is some comments on reddit or a LiveJournal blog. Please. Second, so what? The news site is the primary source. The Independent is the secondary source. On Wikipedia we use secondary sources. We most certainly don't conduct our own original research and evaluate the dubiousness of primary sources. At best this is just a matter of phrasing. Instead of saying "according to the Independent 2000 soldiers died" we say "The Independent report on a leaked report which suggested that 2000 soldiers died". It's not that hard and doing it that way is in accordance with Wikipedia policies on verifiability.

Or are you trying to claim that we cannot verify that the Independent reported on the leaked report? Really? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that news site that reported 2,000 dead is reliable? PS I have no objection to including a sentence like "The Independent report on a leaked report which suggested that 2000 soldiers died" (as you suggested) in the Casualties section, but again due to the contentious nature (and lack of consensus) I am against inserting the figure in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

We can not tell "The Independent report..." because that was also claimed by Forbes and a lot of other sources quoted above. Yes, we have smaller tentative numbers in reports published several months ago, but it's always better to use the most recent numbers. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That's the problem here, they did not claim, they reported on a claim. Like I said big difference. In any case, word the sentence any way you like. But like all the other editors, I'm against inserting the figure into the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

" they did not claim, they reported on a claim" - that's. what. secondary. sources. do. On the other hand you want to engage in evaluation of the primary source. Which is original research and against Wikipedia policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

And what you are proposing is not a "fair compromise". I'm starting to get a feeling you don't quite understand what that word means.What Abbatoir666 proposed and implemented was a compromise. Your version is more like "my way or the highway".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

So far the only one here who has been pushing "my way or the highway" has been you. You have half a dozen editors who wanted a total removal of the mention of 2,000 dead from the article, while I made a proposition of inserting it into the casualties section, for which you replied with insults towards me. EkoGraf (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Of these "half a dozen" editors three are brand new single purpose accounts, three are most likely the same person and two or three of the others have a long history of tendentious POV pushing in this topic area. Sorry if I don't have much respect for such a "consensus". I think you're thinking of tag-teaming and meat/sock puppetry, not "consensus".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Listen, I really don't care if they are sock puppets, meat puppets or any other kinds of puppets. I'm not here for those kinds of things. I'm here to discuss an issue/problem plaguing the article at the moment. And I would like to focus on that. And even if you did remove 3 sock-puppet accounts from the count of 8 opposing the insertion, that still leaves 5 vs 3 (again, no consensus). And them being know for tendentious POV pushing does not make their opinions any less relevant than yours or main. Especially considering I've seen people accuse you of POV pushing many times but here I am still listening to what you are saying (and insulting) and trying to figure this out. EkoGraf (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a simple question/request. You said that this figure "has been contested by many". You then said "a source that has been contradicted and put into doubt by several other sources ". Now. Please show me this "by many". Show me these "several other sources".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I already told you (this will be the third time now) our fellow editors provided some of the links up above and I provided a few more. That you consider them all unreliable and are blanking them out is your prerogative. EkoGraf (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you said that three times and not one of those times was it true. It's still not true now. Please list these sources right here. Or is it too embarrassing to have to admit that either 1) you're full of it and are making stuff up or 2) you think that comments on reddit are reliable sources which pretty much means you got no business editing an encyclopedia.

So please. List these sources right here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't know whats so embarrassing about a thing that doesn't affect my life in a bit and especially towards a man thats again stooping to insults (contrary to WP: Civil and WP: Goodfaith) instead of a constructive discussion. For the fourth time, read what our fellow editors linked: comment by Mardy 05:51, 28 August 2015; comment by ChuckChuckRuck 07:24, 28 August 2015; comment again by Mardy 05:44, 29 August 2015; comment by 172.98.153.169 11:50, 29 August 2015. I would again ask that in the future you refrain from chucking deragatory comments/insults towards fellow editors. Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Russia should be removed from the belligerents section and listed as a supporter

Because there is no Russian unit listed in the units section

207.35.219.34 (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a legit reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It is even less legitimate, because some kind of sneaky user removed the relevant unit. It has now been restored. RGloucester — ☎ 17:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Russian armed forces is not a unit. There is no proof of a Russian unit having ever fought in Donbas. There were some paratroopers captured at one time, but no evidence of them having carried out any combat mission.172.98.153.169 (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Give it a rest! You will be telling us next that there is no evidence that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour before declaring war in 1941.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Why should I care? It's people like you who have ruined wikipedia. Made it a joke. No one respects wikipedia anymore. It's people like you who say Russia is fighting in Donbas. Where's the proof? Has anyone seen Russian air power in action? Here in the west, there is only 1 golden rule, and that is innocence unless proven guilty. That's precisely why there is no perpetrator who shot down MH17. Because there is no proof. 172.98.153.169 (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. NOTAFREAKIN'FORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

One of the most widely quoted divisions of regular Russian army that took part in this war was 76th Guards Air Assault Division from Pskov, as discussed here, for example (I am mostly reading Russian language sources). There are many others, such as 18th Motorized Infantry Brigade and 5th Tank Brigade of Ulan-Ude [41] My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no proof of involvement of direct Russian forces in Ukraine,there have been allegations but they are unproven.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh please, there has been plenty of proof. Like Russian soldiers captured by Ukrainians. Like documentation showing Russian soldiers and equipment in Ukraine. Etc. etc. etc. Just because some people keep repeating a lie over and over again, does not make it true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Marek on this one, it's blatantly obvious Russian regulars are in Ukraine. There is no way that the DPR could train and equipment armored units in it's less than one year of existence, let alone regular infantry. Top that off with frequent footage of captured soldiers, and one must reach a conclusion that Russia is a combatant in this conflict.Abattoir666 (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It may be true, but I see more similarities with the "secret" support of the U.S. government for Contra rebel groups in Nicaragua. Top that off with frequent footage of captured soldiers, As far as I know, they have actually captured about 13 Russian soldiers - [42] - and several hundred separatist fighters - [43]. Donbass region of Ukraine is home to some 3–4 million ethnic Russians and there have been tens of thousands of military & police desertion cases. For example, one of the separatist groups claimed to be composed of more than 1000 former Ukrainian special police officers (Berkut). Separatist commander and DPR's security minister Khodakovsky is a former commander of the Alpha special unit of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). – Tobby72 (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Nicaragua was arms shipments, not actual soldiers.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

no data on Ukrainian wounded

memorybook.org.ua only lists fatalities, numbering some 2,600. There is no data on wounded. Some 6,800 wounded listed in the infobox seems too few for some 2,600 fatalities. 172.98.153.169 (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

On what basis do you say that the number of wounded is too low?-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Because it's much harder to kill someone than it is to wound someone. 172.98.153.169 (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes with what reliable sources say. It does not use editors' original research. Your argument is based on the flawed premise that you can scale up from the micro to the macro scale. When you are dealing with battles that may last days or months and involve thousands of people your simple logic does not apply. Historic wounded to kill ratios have been very variable - from more than 10:1 to 0:1.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Toddy is probably right, the it is about the ratio you'd expect for DPR to suffer under normal modern conflict circumstances. Abattoir666 (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

POV deletion of cited text

Please explain how my additions specifically violate Wikipedia policies on neutrality. Otherwise, this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Civilians killed: 3,684 (DPR & LPR estimate) "Ukraine: Self-proclaimed Donbass republics call for UN war crimes probe". RT. 8 July 2015. Retrieved 8 July 2015. – 7,000 (Ukraine estimate)Volodymyr Verbyany (8 May 2015). "Ukraine's Poroshenko Says Fighting Killed 7,000 as Truce Strains". Bloomberg.com.

Al-Jazeera interviewed a Canadian volunteer with the Azov Battalion, and reported that the battalion's "ideological alignment with other far-right, social-nationalist groups has attracted volunteers from organisations in Sweden, Italy, France, Canada, and Russia".Sabra Ayres (24 July 2014). "Driven by far-right ideology, Azov Battalion mans Ukraine's front line". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 25 July 2014.

Chechen opponents of the Russian government, including Chechen military commander Isa Munayev, were fighting pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine for the Ukrainian government."Chechens join Ukraine fight against Russian-backed separatists". The Irish Times. 16 December 2014."'We like partisan warfare.' Chechens fighting in Ukraine – on both sides ". The Guardian. 24. July 2015.

Removed, Removed, Removed.

WP:NPOV says clearly include fairly all significant views published by reliable sources. Unfortunately User:Volunteer Marek has become strongly engaged here and is pushing a very one sided POV. Some editors appear to view the mere inclusion of other perspectives, including from major news sources, as intolerable.

I also don't think that YouTube and Realclearpolitics.com meet WP:RS criteria. – [44] -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't start this again. How many times have we been through this? I really don't appreciate having my time wasted by you repeatedly and I'm sure others feel the same way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry but why haven't dubious claims sourced by youtube been removed yet?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Because youtube is not being used as a source. A video on youtube is being used as a source. This has already been explained to both you and Tobby72 so how about the two of you quit playing dumb.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Because youtube is not being used as a source. A video on youtube is being used as a source We don't use youtube videos as source.Also please refrain from personal attacks. You have been asked to do so numerous times already.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course we can use videos on youtube as sources. What in the world are you talking about? And I'm sorry but these passive-aggressive bad faith WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games become extremely irritating after awhile. Tobby72 pretending that this is some kind of new issue... as if there weren't several huge discussions about the issue right above and in the archives. You pretending that we can't use a video from a news agency because it's on youtube... as if there weren't literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of instances of youtube being used as sources on WikipediaThis is ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics has been refereed to RSN already and the opinion was that this is not a highly reliable source, and should be used only to present authors views [45]. Since you disagree if youtube videos are reliable source of information I will ask about this on RSN. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

That discussion most certainly does NOT state "the opinion that this is not a highly reliable source". Why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why do you insist on wasting my time with falsehoods which can be easily checked? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The video/statement that Young is reporting on can supposedly be found here [46].Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The relevant text: Бабай уточнил, что под "западным злом" подразумевает не весь Запад, а лишь "жидомасонов", поскольку "только они везде в мире наводят беспорядок - такой, который им нужен" и "из-за этого страдаем мы - простой православный народ".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please rephrase your statement in a readable format, thank you. For the record, the youtube channel seems to be created by amateur community site called jewishnews.com, at least this is their official website in about section.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC) You pretending that we can't use a video from a news agency because it's on youtubeLooking at the youtube channel, it is hardly a official news agency, anyone can name his/her channel so. The official website goes to a rather amateur webpage. In any case I have asked about this on RSN.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

My statement is readable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of the edit in question, I think that first (non YouTube) reference is fine for the statement, but the second one (YouTube video) should be better replaced by something else... My very best wishes (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

request to rename War in Donbas to Anti Terror Operation

This has never been a war. It is an anti terror operation ATO.

207.35.219.34 (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No, per WP:COMMON. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary of the dispute

Could someone with an ounce of intelligence and concision explain the dispute that has currently embroiled this page? I can't read through all the rubbish. RGloucester — ☎ 00:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester This is the issue. We have a claim by a somewhat unknown Russian media outlet (anti-Kremlin possibly) that 2,000 Russian soldiers died in Ukraine that was reported on/relayed by a few reliable sources (primarily the Forbes and Independent). The claim was promptly removed (allegedly by Kremlin minders). Since than several reports on twitter, reddit, Russia Today and even one tweet by a notable Bloomberg editor have declared the claim to be fake and explained its falseness. These have all been linked up above by our fellow editors. 2/3 of our fellow editors are now of the opinion that the claim of 2,000 dead Russian soldiers should not be included in the infobox while a few others (primarily VolunteerMarek) have argued for its inclusion. I first reminded that we already agreed to include in the infobox only figures of dead made known by highly reliable sources or self-admitted figures, and not potential propaganda. I tried to make a compromise by mentioning the 2,000 figure claim in the Casualties section of the article, where we put all other extravagant claims on casualties in this conflict. I also stood by MyMoloboaccount when he pointed out Wiki policy that even though the claim is being relayed by RS does not make the claim automatically reliable/verifiable. And I pointed out Wiki policy also dictates that when consensus can not be reached on an issue (such as here) no changes are to be made (leaving the older version of the article). Following this Marek started making insults and other comments in violation of WP: Civil and WP: Goodfaith. He has also constantly been asking for the links of our fellow editors even though they are right here on the talk page beside their comments. EkoGraf (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That's only addressing one of the issues that seem to be affecting the article, but I'll run with this issue before addressing anything else: the issue of leaked reports on the number of Russian soldiers killed in the war...

I'm seeing a parallel between the claim last year by the "The Moscow Times" about having found documentation proving that Russia was directly involved in the war. Multiple RS reported on the claim, but good editing decisions were made about including the content based on the fact that RS were reporting on the report, not the veracity of the report. Using WP:COMMONSENSE, all that is established is that the initial claim can be verified, not the calibre or verifiability of the report. On that premise, it's a big 'no' for the infobox unless integrated with clear demarcation between RS sourced numbers and the 'according to' numbers at the least (although I see it as being for the body of the article, not the infobox).

While I don't give a damn about the integrity of articles like the Azov Battalion being held to ransom by POV editors who've built an article based on the repetition of information from about three sources, I do care about the integrity of articles covering the bigger picture. Clear misuse of policy as advocacy/COATRACK is just not on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

EkoGraf, judging by your explanation, it seems like this is something that definitely doesn't belong in the infobox. Whilst I could see this report being mentioned in Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis, along with the refutations of that report, the infobox of this article should only provide definitive numbers, not every speculation imaginable. As it is, the claim is unverifiable. If it is unverifiable, it shouldn't be in the infobox, where it lacks context. RGloucester — ☎ 00:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Iryna HarpyRGloucester That's my same thought exactly. We have added the mention of the claim and its source in both the Casualties section of this article and in the article Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis. And I think that's fair compromise. But I'm against putting it into the infobox as you say due to lack of verifiability of the initial report. EkoGraf (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the 2,000 dead Russian troops report is likely true. Just like Russian troops invading Ukraine was true back in February of 2014. That being said, verification is the standard - not truth. Verification takes longer. I'm ok with the compromise. I would also be ok if you wanted to take it out completely. I think too much weight is being put on the casualties in the article as well. The casualties are not yet high enough to make a difference in the conflict one way or the other. And there is clear evidence of Russian involvement without having to chase body bags.Hilltrot (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that sources telling abut the 2000 number are less reliable than older sources that provide smaller numbers. The only thing we should do is to include a range of numbers, as usual. This is done in the current version after latest edit by EkoGraf. My very best wishes (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, Ekograf's explanation is lacking, to put it politely. The leak was reported on in not just the Independent and Forbes but also The Times, IBTimes, NBC News, and Rferl. But hey, according to EkoGraf it was only "relayed by a few reliable sources (primarily the Forbes and Independent)" (which is an attempt at downplaying the coverage in order to simply dismiss reliable sources).

What do we have on the other side? Well, let's see. According to Ekograf: "several reports on twitter" (since when does twitter publish "reports". What is that suppose to mean, a 140 character report? Must've been really in depth). Comments on "reddit". So apparently now we're letting anonymous commentators on reddit influence the editorial decisions we make on Wikipedia. Oooh boy, I can see this ending well. "Russia Today". No comment necessary. This time around they skipped mentioning blogposts on LiveJournal, another quality source.

But hey, EkoGraf assures us that, quote

the "source (Forbes, NBC News, The Times, IBT, etc. - VM) that has been contradicted and put into doubt by several other sources (reddit, twitter, RT, LiveJournal - VM)"

and that these sources (Forbes, NBC News, The Times, IBT, etc) have been, quote,

"has (sic) been contested by many" (reddit, twitter, RT, LiveJournal - VM).

That's right. Forbes, NBC News, The Times, IBT are trumped by anonymous comments on reddit and offhand opinions (excuse me, "reports") posted on twitter.

Even IF this should not be included in the infobox, the reasoning behind the arguments offered by EkoGraf and their buddies has been beyond atrocious and even dishonest (as in: keep talking about "several sources" without owning up to the fact that one is referring to junk like reddit and twitter).

Personally I agree with MVBW that we should present the full range of numbers. If something needs to be elaborated upon we can add a footnote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You again don't seem to understand what Iryna Harpy, RGloucester, me and half a dozen other editors are saying here. We are not putting into doubt the reliability of Forbes, NBC News, The Times, IBT, etc. And reddit, twitter and RT are also not putting into doubt the reliability of those news sites. What both we (Wikipedia editors) and them are putting into doubt is the reliability of the original claim by that Russian news site which was only relayed by all those other media outlets (doesn't matter how many of them are reporting it). Those media outlets did not confirm the figure themselves, they only reported what that news site claimed. And like virtually everyone has told you (and WP policy), even though a claim is reported on by an RS does not make that claim automatically verifiable. If all those same RS tomorrow reported (in the same manner) on the claim of a separatist commander that he killed 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers I am sure you would say its not reliable. PS I did not say just the Independent and Forbes I said primarily because (at least for me) those were the first 2 results I got when I googled it. I did not say others haven't reported on the claim as well. EkoGraf (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is WP:RS. It's NOT YOUR JOB to "put into doubt the reliability of the original claim". That is the job of secondary sources. Forbes, NBC News, The Times, IBT. Not you. Them.

What you are doing is pure original research: "I don't believe in these numbers myself so I'm gonna use some asinine comments I found on Reddit to put into doubt the original source".

You might want to hold off on ascribing your opinion, and more importantly, your fallacious editing practice to others here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• @EkoGraph. You guys are trying to make your own analysis how correct or how reliable certain numbers might be. This is something very natural for someone who does research in real life. However, you should not do it here per WP:NOR. Even if you were experts in this subject area, you still should not do it. You should simply look at the numbers given by RS and completely ignore everything that non-RS tell. How exactly authors of the RS publication came to such numbers is something of interest, but should not be challenged by you. Then you should simply provide a range of numbers given by RS. Yes, you can tell how these numbers have been obtained and emphasize most recent numbers (~2000) because the numbers of losses change with time during the ungoing warfare. This is all you should do. My very best wishes (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Our own analysis isn't necessary, because the relevant sources did it for us. In the IBTIMES, for example, says "It’s impossible to confirm the leaked figures", and that the figures "appear to be the accidental publication of secret figures on the numbers of deaths". You see? Sure, like I said, these claims can be discussed in the prose, which provides context. In the infobox, however, where they stand alone, it is simply misleading. RGloucester — ☎ 12:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much none of the numbers we use can be "independently confirmed". Why should we treat these numbers differently? Because someone on Reddit said so? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

All numbers of military losses during active warfare are more or less controversial and can not be completely trusted. All or most of them can not independently confirmed. There are various claims and counter-claims by sides. And the numbers should not be "trusted" or "true" per policy. They must be only verifiable, i.e. reported in multiple RS and included with proper attribution. These data are no less (or possibly even more) verifiable than any other numbers that appear on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the other numbers. They may well be questionable figures, too. That doesn't change the fact that the only thing verifiable about these figures is that they are unverifiable, which is what The Times, International Business Times, &c. say. RGloucester — ☎ 16:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think those are very different things. You and the source you quoted tell about verifiability in "real life". i.e. as it comes in science, criminal investigations, etc. I am talking about WP:Verifiability which is something very different - essentially, a good sourcing. My very best wishes (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and what does the "good sourcing" say? It says that the numbers are "claims", "impossible to verify", &c. The sourcing does not support the contention that these numbers are "facts" that belong in the infobox. RGloucester — ☎ 17:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, these numbers and majority of other numbers on WP pages are not "fact", but claims. That's why we provide a range of estimates (which by itself tells that exact number is unknown and possibly will never be known) and appropriate attribution/references. If appropriate, we can include something like "denied" or "disputed" in the infobox (if the number was officially denied, which I am not sure). But there is no any difference between published data provided in the infobox and in the body of page. None of these data are usually "fact". The bottom line: providing an appropriate (per multiple RS) range of numbers in the infobox will not misled reader.My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester put it pretty nice. The reliable sources themselves who are reporting on the claim are saying they couldn't verify the numbers. EkoGraf (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Inclusion In my opinion both sides are making false claims as they have done this whole war, I think there are Russians in Ukraine but not as many as Ukraine is claiming. That being said, that is only my opinion, in order to be neutral we should not be placing things that are hotly disputed in the info-box. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on the original source, this is a Russian estimate of Russian losses. Therefore, it can be included as a lower estimate of their losses. By the same token, one can include Ukrainian estimate of Ukrainian losses if this is something reported by RS. Would that be a "true" number? Probably not because all "sides" tend to under-represent their own losses. Can it be included with appropriate attribution? Yes, sure. We do it all the time on war-related pages. This is nothing special.My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Its a potential anti-Kremlin Russian estimate of Russian losses. The Ukrainian estimate of Ukrainian losses that we have in the infobox comes from pro-Kiev Ukrainian sources. EkoGraf (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Question. How does this source [47] support the contention that 2,248 individuals have been killed on the Russian/Separatist side? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

To this question I already answered in detail up above. But since you obviously didn't read what I said I will say it again. The figure of 2,248 dead separatists has three sources. 1st ref confirms the graveyard is that of separatists, 2nd ref confirms (up to that date) at least 2,213 graves (read the number on the grave), 3rd ref confirms (at a later date) an additional 35 separatist deaths. Thats 2,248 dead. You were reading only one source, and didn't read all three. EkoGraf (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Question. How does this source [48] support the contention that 1557 members of the Ukrainian forces have been captured? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The source clearly says 2,852 people (both civilians and security forces) were released by the separatists and another 171 people (both civilians and security forces) were still being held by the separatists. In its breakdown, the source says of those released 1,018 were military, 37 volunteers, 257 national guards, 25 border guards and 100 police officers. That's 1,437 released combatants. As for those still being held (171) the source says more than 50 are civilians, which leaves at least 120 combatants still being held by the separatists. 1,437 and 120 gives 1,557. WP: CALC. EkoGraf (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

So you've synthesized three+ sources in your own original research (never mind that you appear to be confused between the words "at least" and "exactly") to arrive at conclusions which are not actually established by the sources.

Yet, when we have a source which explicitly states a number you want to throw it away because someone on Reddit said so. Right.

Hey, can we get a source which "confirms" Ekograf's numbers? Because I think "Ekograf's numbers cannot be independently verified".Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Not because someone on Reddit said so, but because the original claim was made by a possibly anti-Kremlin news site. And unlike that figure, this figure (captured Ukrainians) came from the Ukrainians themselves. There's nothing to independently verify, the numbers are in the source and its a self-admitted figure by the Ukrainians themselves. And we agreed months ago that we would include in the infobox self-admitted figures (example - Ukrainian dead reported by Ukrainian dead) or those provided by independent parties. EkoGraf (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Given the clear WP:OR going into all these tabulations, and given the suspect nature of the data, I suggest removing all numbers from the infobox, except those directly recorded by the likes of the UNHRC or the OSCE. RGloucester — ☎ 02:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the current sourcing of certain numbers in the infobox is terrible. This should be fixed by providing and using better sources, such as Forbs and others mentioned in discussion above. My very best wishes (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing OR or SYNTH about it. Its all in accordance with WP: CALC. However I am willing to make a compromise/compromise proposal. I removed the source on the later single-day death toll for the separatists and left the two sources on the graveyard (with the figure from the grave plate). No SYNTH or OR, both sources are about the same subject. As for the number of captured, I have put the overall number of soldiers and civilians captured (released and still in captivity) as per the Ukrainians in the cited source. I put the number of civilians in brackets beside it as per the same cited source again. In addition I added a new source, per the UN of the overall number of dead, and how many of them are civilians. EkoGraf (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 September 2015

This edit was removed depsite consensus that Right Sector remain in the info-box. The foreign volunteers list was also removed for unspecified reasons, despite heavy sourcing.

• Right Sector

Foreign volunteers:

• Belarusian
• Georgian
• Swedish
• Croatian
• Chechen
• Others

References

Ritsaiph (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but this is mostly a duplicate material (already in the page) and therefore should not be included without proper discussion and consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  @MSGJ: Consensus for the inclusion was reached (see the relevant section above). If there's any confusion as to later exchange with Herzen, it was over his removal of RNU despite the discussion and consensus for both Right Sector to be included as an active party to the Ukrainian forces, and RNU as an active party to the pro-Russian forces. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, I do not think that consensus has been reached. In brief, the military forces of "Right sector" are a part of Territorial defense battalions (Ukraine). These territorial battalions are already included in the infobox. No need to repeat the same twice. No one responded to this argument. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)