Jump to content

Talk:War in Donbas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 220.163.96.3 (talk) at 11:15, 22 February 2015 (→‎Insurgents, militants, separatists and rebels?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Russia as Belligerent, consensus needed.

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

More precisely we'd have to add "according to reliable sources" everywhere (which, given our policies, would be redundant). NATO and Ukraine aren't the only ones who say this. Pretty much everyone who's not living in complete denial or shilling for Putin says it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because this encyclopedia is only 10 yrs old, and nobody imagined back than, that all representatives of a big country would keep lying all day about beeing at war. So we have no rules for this case. Alexpl (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia Britannica was never intended to be unbiased but a display of what was British and thus what had viability and credibility. Some of the people without an opinion on the subject are those that either through avoidance do not get involved by chance or purpose.66.74.176.59 (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The preponderance of reliable sources is enough that it should be acceptable to use Wikipedia's voice in describing the involvement of Russian citizens and military hardware. Since there is non-fringe disagreement about the extent to which the Russian government is responsible, those claims should be precisely attributed. I suggest to anyone intending to clean up attributions that it would be least disruptive to do them one at a time. Rhoark (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So the basis on which something is considered reliable here is not based on an objective standard. For example, academic consensus. It is based on personal opinion and that's unacceptable. Conflicts in the 21st century are not just waged on the battlefield but information is targetted as well. Wikipedia can not take siddes in this or wikipedia fails its own standards. Someone even had the nerve to call the other side shills, what is this, 4chan? And why are people like Igor Girkin assigned a Russian flag? The flag symbolizes the side a person fight for. Is this article just accepting that Igor Girkin is an agent of the Russian government? Elite Peasant (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the objective standard is WP:RS. No, it's not based on personal opinion. And on a topic such as this, it's a bit silly to talk of "academic consensus".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe this article can truly claim to be following WP:RS. It clearly uses sources with either a bad reputation or a biased stance (for example RFERL or Kiev Post). Second, and this is just my personal opinion, I believe the circumstances have made WP:RS not up to the task. Media has become part of the conflict and only a few sources have managed to largely retain their reliability, for example the BBC. They remain reliable because they do not accept anything as fact based on arguments from authority. There is no reason wikipedia should be unable to achieve the same.Elite Peasant (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to believe what you want. Neither RFERL nor Kiev Post have a "bad reputation". You pulled that out of thin air. If you wish you can bring this up at WP:RSN. You can also make proposals to the policy itself at WP:RS. Let me do you a favor, save you time and effort, and tell you right now that there is no chance this will work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they don't lie (but then even RT doesn't really lie), they are heavily biased which reflects itself in this wikipedia article. We make the choice to propose the viewpoint of one faction as factual, which is given the existing disagreement unwarranted.Elite Peasant (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The parliament of Ukraine adopted a resolution on 27 January 2015 where it recognizes the Russian Federation as an aggressor state. Only annexation of Crimea is nothing less as a direct form of aggression, not to mention the rest of crimes conducted by the Kremlin administration. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But this discussion applies to Donbass onlyElite Peasant (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

American Advisors.

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

The problem very well may be the knee jerk reaction that can be present with the editing style of some contributors or are blinded just as through all this discussion there exists a Ukrainian "miltiary". Haste makes waste.66.74.176.59 (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Budapest Memorandum, signatories of the document are obligated to provide any form of assistance to Ukraine in case of aggression including the Russian aggression. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2015

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

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

The sources are right there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Nothing to do. Sources are there. Quotation marks are there because it is a quotation. -- Sam Sing! 10:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Belligerents in infobox

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

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

According to Amnesty International Ukrainian government arrested a journalist for expressing his views and urged to release him[1]. AI also mentions an epidemic of draft dodging-which I have seen covered in other mainstream new sources.This seems notable and should be covered in some way in the main article, and associated ones regarding freedom of Press in Ukraine.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the more relevant portion of that source is "the rebels, who appear to have an unlimited supply of weapons and training from Russia" and "The government has avoided officially declaring a state of war, instead referring to the operations in the east as an anti-terrorism operation, despite clear evidence of Russian military incursion."
Or how about these parts: "(A video) released last month, showed a rebel commander waving a sword in the faces of bloodied Ukrainian soldiers, slicing off their insignias and forcing the men to eat them. ", or "the rebels find two Ukrainian soldiers, bleeding and apparently severely wounded. Instead of offering assistance, they rifle through their pockets looking for telephones and valuables before kicking them. At one point, it appears that some of the rebels are about to kill the men but are persuaded not to by others."Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more relevant portion of that source. As you are well aware Wikipedia is not based on personal opinions, and Amnesty International made main point the abuse of journalistic freedom by Ukrainian government and mass draft dodging(it was covered by even pro-Ukrainian Gazeta Wyborcza recentely). Feel free to start debate on issues you consider important elsewhere(for the record, the video is publicly available and at the end you see these two soldiers bandaged by rebels and escorted to safety, which is probably why AI didn't focus on that too much).

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

What personal opinions are you talking about? Those are quotes from the source - a source which you brought up. Are you saying that "unlimited supply of weapons and training from Russia" for the rebels is not relevant to the War in Donbass and should be discussed "elsewhere"? That's a pretty strange argument. Oh wait, the personal opinion you are referring to must be that little bit of original research in your last sentence where you see it fit to evaluate a primary source - a video - yourself, rather than rely on reliable secondary sources (which, again, you're the one who brought it up).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Those are quotes from the source", yes the source in question(Amnesty International) raising the subject of draft dodging by Ukrainian civilians and abuses against journalistic freedom by Ukrainian authorities.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And you keep forgetting these quotes, from the same source: "the rebels, who appear to have an unlimited supply of weapons and training from Russia" and "The government has avoided officially declaring a state of war, instead referring to the operations in the east as an anti-terrorism operation, despite clear evidence of Russian military incursion."
Or how about these parts: "(A video) released last month, showed a rebel commander waving a sword in the faces of bloodied Ukrainian soldiers, slicing off their insignias and forcing the men to eat them. ", or "the rebels find two Ukrainian soldiers, bleeding and apparently severely wounded. Instead of offering assistance, they rifle through their pockets looking for telephones and valuables before kicking them. At one point, it appears that some of the rebels are about to kill the men but are persuaded not to by others." Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not relevant to the subject raised by Amnesty International, which is draft dodging and abuse of freedom of journalistic press by Ukrainian government.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what? It's relevant to this article, isn't it? You can't cherry pick sources for just the parts that agree with your POV and ignore the parts that contradict it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article speaks clearly about abuse of journalistic freedom by Ukrainian authorities and draft dodging.Imprisoning journalist for his declarations is a serious issue, which has been raised by renown international organization like Amnesty International and is relevant to the conflict humanitarian aspect.As with other issues it needs to be covered.

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

That info is not really relevant to this article which is about the War in Donbass. However, the following quotations from the same source, are relevant:
"the rebels, who appear to have an unlimited supply of weapons and training from Russia" and "The government has avoided officially declaring a state of war, instead referring to the operations in the east as an anti-terrorism operation, despite clear evidence of Russian military incursion."
And these parts: "(A video) released last month, showed a rebel commander waving a sword in the faces of bloodied Ukrainian soldiers, slicing off their insignias and forcing the men to eat them. ", or "the rebels find two Ukrainian soldiers, bleeding and apparently severely wounded. Instead of offering assistance, they rifle through their pockets looking for telephones and valuables before kicking them. At one point, it appears that some of the rebels are about to kill the men but are persuaded not to by others."
Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff about journalistic freedom does not belong here. It belongs at Freedom of the press in Ukraine. It is tangential, at best, to the subject matter here. RGloucester — ☎ 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"That info is not really relevant to this article" I disagree.This is directly relevant to the war, and the violation of journalistic freedom resulting in imprisonment of a journalist unwilling to get conscripted as has been noted by one of the largest organizations devoted to the issue of civil freedoms. As such I believe it should be covered.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MyMoloboaccount, Ruslan Kotsaba is a FSB operative. I suggest you to check his so-called "journalist work". The Security Service of Ukraine should have locked him up during the Euromaidan events as one of major crowd instigators. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MyMoloboaccount, please, consider that mobilization in Ukraine is mandatory (meaning, not optional) and whoever does not have real reasons to avoid it, according to law of Ukraine is subjected to criminal proceedings without exclusions. I suggest you to familiarize yourself with Ukrainian legislation before following with news. Just because some director of whatever international organization express his or her opinion has no weight in regards to dictate on how the Law of Ukraine is to be carried out. On February 5, 2015 former deputy chairman of Verkhovna Rada Ruslan Koshulynskyi was called to serve in the Armed Forces of Ukraine where he currently trains to go to frontlines. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The law on mobilization was grandfathered from the Soviet legislation and could be considered to be updated, but it is certainly not discriminatory towards that particular journalist. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recently in the news there was a lot of "fuss" about issues of mobilization in Ukraine, while pro-Russian separatists are successfully conducting "volunteered mobilization" in the East Ukraine. "Volunteered mobilization" is an oxymoron and could not really be dictated by government, which only shows what the government of so-called Donetsk People's Republic is all about. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Map needed

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

It is not a "six month old map". No changes took place between 31 August and late January 2015, when Ukrainian forces lost the airport battle. That was because of the Minsk Protocol. I agree that a new map would be nice, but we haven't got one. No one is working on one, and there really aren't many sources available at this moment. RGloucester — ☎ 01:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true though, look at the timeline and what is going on around Debaltseve. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you read? I said between 31 August and late January. We're in February now. Now, there are territorial changes (see Battle of Debaltseve, an article I created). There were none for many months. RGloucester — ☎ 01:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The map used on this article spans between June and August, 2014 since then reliable sources have reported small gains and losses so no things are not the same (As much as we wish them to be). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, CAN YOU READ???????? Yes, things are NO LONGER the same. They were the same for many months, between August and late January. RGloucester — ☎ 01:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down please, you are not understanding I am saying that no they were not he same for many months and we need a new map to reflect these changes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The boundaries did not change during the period from early September 2014, when the Protocol was signed, until January, when Ukrainian forces lost Donetsk airport and insurgents pushed the offensive. This is common knowledge. Again, CAN YOU READ??? I'd love to have an updated map, that would show the changes that have happened since late January. We do not have one. RGloucester — ☎ 01:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BBC has maps that we can use as models to make our own we would have to modify it so it does not violate copyright but it can be done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it couldn't be done. I said no one is doing it. RGloucester — ☎ 01:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

map of rebel territory
That's not useful at all, as it will quickly become outdated. We need an updated version of the East Ukraine Conflict map, to be updated on a regular basis. RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't say much about the current article, which was the kind of evaluation I was hoping for Narayanese (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The percentage of Russian paramilitaries ?

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

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

Chetniks in Ukraine

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

Here are the sources:[1][2][3] The only way that this is false is if these people are not people, but magic space lizards that are not real, like RGloucester , NeilN and Knowledgekid87 seem to believe. And if that's the case then, you better cite your sources. --Ritsaiph (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one said anything was false. I said that it was WP:UNDUE weight to put a small group of a couple dozen people in the infobox, which is what we determined ages ago. We created a section in the prose to mention the Chetniks and other such groups: War in Donbass#Others. It does not belong in the infobox (outside of the collapsible list, where it is present). RGloucester — ☎ 03:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no input on the matter but if you go about accusing other editors of having a pro Russian agenda your argument is not going to go far, please keep an open mind and assume good faith here (WP:AGF). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritsaiph: And you are clearly not reverting vandalism [2] so that won't fly. --NeilN talk to me 03:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you are then telling the removal of sourced information is absolutely fine on Wikipedia and not vandalism. Does this mean I can highlight all the information in this article, press the backspace button on my keyboard and then get awarded a BarnStar? Makes sense, I'm going to try this magic formula on some articles, thanks for the advice!
P.S You are a fucking idiot NeilN. --Ritsaiph (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced information is removed from articles all the time for a variety of reasons - WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:BLPGOSSIP to name a few. --NeilN talk to me 04:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References used

  1. ^ "VICE News Capsule - Monday, March 10". March 2014. Retrieved February 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ "Ukraine Crisis: Serb Chetniks Claim Killings of 23 Ukrainian Soldiers". August 2014. Retrieved February 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. ^ "Serbian mercenaries fighting in eastern Ukraine". 2014. Retrieved February 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2015

Before the following sentence:

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

I suggest the following:

On February 21st, 2014, an agreement was signed between democratically elected Victor Yanukovich and opposition leaders which was to make some concessions to the Euromaidan movement [1]. However, the next day Right Sector militants began more violent attacks on government buildings and Union halls[2]. The violence and terrorism propagated after February 21st intimidated the Ukrainian Parliament into voting out Victor Yanukovich. Under these violent threats the removal of Yanukovich can be defined as a coup in violation of international law[3]. Qb220 (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Agreement on the Settlement of Crisis in Ukraine - full text". theguardian.com. Retrieved 14 February 2015.
  2. ^ Polityuk, Pavel. "Far-right leader to run for president in Ukraine". reuters.com. Retrieved 14 February 2015.
  3. ^ Polityuk, Pavel. "Yanukovich denounces "coup", says staying in Ukraine". yahoo.com. Reutors. Retrieved 14 February 2015.
  • No way. RGloucester — ☎ 01:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No way" does not qualify as a "proper explaination" of discretionary sanction. Such a response that simply adresses me as if I am ignorant of the content of "discretionary sanctions" speaks volumes of the contrived attempt to censor opposition to the obvious bias expressed in this Wiki article. The aim of Wikipedia is to promote neutral spread of information, however, this article is written from the point of view that Russia is the aggressor and suggestions with citations as I have provided are clearly being censored. --Qb220 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: sources #2 and #3 do not support the sentences in your proposed text that they follow. Also, edit requests are meant for simple, uncontroversial edits, which this is clearly not. While I am not discouraging further discussion of this issue, I would advise against reactivating this particular template, as the proposed change is outside the scope of an edit request. If not enough participants enter this discussion, take a peek at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The archives of this talk page may also show a prior consensus about this particular topic. Cannolis (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, when a country invades another country and starts taking over pieces of its territory, it's accurate to describe it as the aggressor. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

negotiation with terrorists'

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

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

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

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

Interesting article from NYT about Ukrainian side presenting fake photographs on at least two occassions to claim evidence Russian involvement in Ukraine [3] Definitely notable and needs to be included.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Just read the article. Yes, it's interesting, but hardly surprising or earthshattering. Your presentation of the article (frankly, I'm almost shocked that you didn't type the section heading in caps) doesn't actually tally with the account, but does tally with CHERRY picking the bits you're interested in promoting. It's hardly an expose on mass falsification... so, how notable is it in reality. Sounds as if you're trying to push through a little bit of UNDUE POV bias. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The person who was responsible for the whole mess with "fake photos" published a detailed response on what has happened and it looks like they were authentic photos but their location was misattributed as result of miscommunication. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The location misattributed??? what was an image from another country, in 2008, doing there in the first place? hardly an accident coming from someone trying to sow Russian military presence in order to obtain military help through the Senator he gave the images to. THAT is the issue in that article and if you make excuses for it it casts doubts on your neutrality.49.2.28.155 (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further RS evidence of the fact of the 'fiction' headline being the result of a mess available here. Yet another example of your jumping the gun, MyMoloboaccount. Could you please try to refrain from creating sections pointing out an article you've just found and using it for soapboxing on virtually every one of the articles revolving around the crisis/crises in Ukraine? It is distracting to the point of being WP:POINTy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Russian troops

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

"Sifting Ukrainian Fact From Ukrainian Fiction"

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

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

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

Russian government claims US is already providing deadly weapons to Ukraine

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

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

Insurgents, militants, separatists and rebels?

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

No way. We follow RS, in tandem with our Manual of Style's guidance on value-laden labels. There is nothing non-neutral about either "insurgent" or "militant". "Rebel", on the other hand, is non-neutral. "Separatist" is fine. RGloucester — ☎ 03:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the RS themselves call them rebels a lot more now. How are you going to tell me that the word rebel is non-neutral when all of the Syrian Civil War articles call the FSA the Syrian rebels? I didn't see any "Syrian insurgents" or "Syrian militants" when I went to their pages. So why can't we remove the words "insurgents" and "militants" when we mention the separatists? SkoraPobeda (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have a Manual of Style, and a burden to be neutral where newspapers do not. The situation in Syria is entirely different from the one in Ukraine, so the comparison is moot. I could easily find sources that refer to the "separatists" as "Russian troops", but we wouldn't want that, would we? Please stick to neutral labels per WP:LABEL. RGloucester — ☎ 04:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about NAF and UAF? That sounds unbiased to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.163.96.3 (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2015

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

You are using the wrong procedure. The one you should use it at WP:RM.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_in_Donbas&oldid=648311339"