Talk:Battle of Ilovaisk

Siege

There is no need to bring in value-laden language here that will confuse the reader. The sources I used say "encirclement", and "siege" makes little sense in this instance. I do not understand your insistence on "siege", but it is certainly not appropriate. As far as that blurb you added about "break the siege", I believe that is unverifiable and outdated information. The Kyiv Post article from the day after says that such pronouncement were just "bluster", and had no bearing on reality. I can't find any sources confirming such a thing, other than that one government announcement. RGloucester — ☎ 12:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

CNN (highly reliable) and Kyivpost sources have been provided calling it a siege. Also, it was established long before that the Ukrainian military captured the town and than got trapped in it (came under siege). So I would again ask that you do not remove sourced information. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I'm referring to. You are using value-laden language when it is not necessary. RGloucester — ☎ 16:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You may see it as value-laden language but I don't, just like CNN and Kyivpost don't seen it as such. I'm not seeing what is so non-neutral about the term siege. I would refer you to the meaning of the term Siege. EkoGraf (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Cities can be "sieged", but people cannot. Such a usage is extremely confusing to the reader. It isn't a matter of neutrality, but of bombasticity. Regardless, I've implemented a compromise to provide clarity. Do keep in mind that we do not follow journalistic sensationalist word usage here. We have a Manual of Style. RGloucester — ☎ 18:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please revert your changes now. I implemented a compromise, and you tread all over it? That section header makes absolutely no sense now. No sense whatsoever. It has no clarity. I cannot even understand what it purports to mean. Why do you do such things? What is your problem with clarity and good language? Can you please stop degenerating the prose and clarity of this encyclopaedia? RGloucester — ☎ 18:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I tread all over your compromise? I put two possible compromise versions and you revert both of them back to the wording you like. How is that a compromise? Rebels besieged Ilovaisk. That's my final compromise wording and its pretty simple. What other reason would they have to besiege a town unless it was government-held? Its not my problem you don't understand or like simple wording. And its not journalistic sensationalist word usage if you simply don't like the word they use. I refer you once again to the meaning of the word siege. I made the edit now back to my last compromise proposition. You are using the word encirclement which was not widely used in comparison to siege. If you do not accept again my second compromise proposal wording that's your problem. I tried to compromise, you didn't. EkoGraf (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You are being dense, uncompromising, and rather tendentious. Your "sources" have been provided? I've provided them too, but apparently they are not any good. I implemented a compromise that allowed the word "siege" to coexist with "encirclement". You've repeatedly reverted this compromise in bad faith. I will not allow this to stand, let that be known. I will not allow a nonsense section heading that makes no sense ruin this article. I will used the word used in the sources I added to this article when I rewrote most of it. Clarity must rule the day, and your opposition is clearly political, rather than in the interest of the reader. RGloucester — ☎ 16:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Scope of article?

I have seen many Western sources (Foreign Policy) refer to the rout of the Ukrainian army on and after August 24 as the "Battle of Ilovaisk", but the scope of event was much larger, reaching all the way to Novoazovsk and Mariupol. Using Soviet terminology this might be describes as something like the Mariupol Strategic Offensive Operation (стратегическая наступательная операция). The offensive covered the whole southern front from Saur Mogila to Donetsk and formed two larger and a number of smaller "cauldrons" or pockets containing some 10,000 Ukrainian troops total – in addition to the previously formed "Southern Cauldron 2.0" to the east. The first one was formed around Amvrosievka trapping large parts of the 28th, 30th and 95th Brigades. The second one was formed west of Starobechevo, with a separate smaller pocket forming around Yelenovka. The Ilovaisk pocket was a separate pocket north of the larger Amvrosievka cauldron.

The proposal by Putin and the offer by the Novorossiyan Army was for Ukrainian forces in the larger pockets to leave with their personal weapons and flags leaving all armor and equipment behind, intact. I do not know if this offer was ever extended to the hated Praviy Sector battalions in the small Ilovaisk pocket. It is a misreading of the sources and event to assume that Putin ever made any proposals related specifically to the Ilovaisk pocket.

If anyone has problems seeing and understanding the real events from behind the dismissive Western media coverage and the Novorossiyan secrecy it is worth having a look at the Lost armour database, especially the list of destroyed armor, now standing at 293 units. For realist estimates of the size of the rout one might multiply the number of destroyed tanks and armor by four and the number of trophies by two. Tim Judah for the New York Review of Books spots 68 tanks and military vehicles on a sixteen-mile stretch of road from the village of Novokaterinivka to Ilovaysk. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this nonsense about "cauldrons"? What does "cauldron" even mean, in this context? As far as I'm aware, a cauldron is a pot. RGloucester — ☎ 21:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, the source cited in that phrase says that Putin was referring to the Ilovaisk troops. You've provide no sources for this "cauldron" business, meaning that it is inappropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good description of these events... My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

this is official site of russian president, not a simple word about Ilovaisk http://www.kremlin.ru/news/46506 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.140.231.245 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This agreement was not honored-correct, but it was no honored by Kiev's forces not by resistance fighters

This agreement was not honored-correct, but it was no honored by Kiev's forces not by resistance fighters. They agreed to leave their military equipment and retreat without weapons but violated the terms of agreement when nationalist battalions moved armed into corridors provided. In return resistance opened fire. Regular soldiers that moved without weapons were let go unharmed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not what this reliable source says. RGloucester — ☎ 13:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Since US has (through sanctions, propaganda, and other actions) joined the Ukrainian side of the conflict, you can't simply use sources (usually reliable in their usual reporting) when referring to the conflict. WSJ is an economic paper, they aren't known for their military expertise. What they do here is writing what their (overwhelmingly pro-Ukrainian) editorial staff believes. It would not be safe to write pro-DNR articles in NATO countries at the moment (hence their lack), but that doesn't mean that this point of view doesn't exist... IDiO (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources are reliable, and the idea that the "US has joined the Ukrainian side" is bollocks. RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

IDiO, please read WP:RS. Reliable sources have nothing to do with your WP:POV opinion of which sources are reliable and which aren't. Note, also, that talk pages are not to be used as a soapbox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that the article should contain an alternative version of events. Otherwise, it looks lopsided. Reliable russian sources (RIA Novosti is one of the largest news agencies in Russia) claim that according to resistance fighters, Kiev's forces agreed to leave their military equipment and retreat without weapons but violated the terms of agreement.

I think that explanation for the attack on a convoy of retreating government troops should be given - as it is helpful in creating the overall picture of events.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.57.196.166 (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

References

If you can find a reliable source that verifies what the RIA report says, then we can include it. At present, reliable sources cited in this article, such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, all contradict the RIA report. Unless we can verify it, it cannot be included. Please provide a cross-reference in a reliable source. RGloucester — ☎ 23:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Conditions for granting a humanitarian corridor for Ukrainian troops were announced by Zaharchenko: "Ukrainian forces must abandon their armoured vehicles and ammunition to be allowed to leave the battlefield”. I think it is necessary to include this statement in the text of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.164.195 (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Thank you for searching for a source. However, your sources do not say that Ukrainian forces violated the agreement. They merely establish what the agreement was. If you'd like to include information about the agreement being violated, please find a source for that information. RGloucester — ☎ 15:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

“Defense Minister” of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic Vladimir Kononov said that insurgents were ready to provide a humanitarian corridor for surrounded units, but only on condition of their disarmament. However, Kononov said that Kiev authorities had not officially confirmed that they would accept the proposal for a humanitarian corridor:"several Ukrainian army departments started moving to exit the siege. Some on armored vehicles, some on foot, having destroyed their equipment. These actions have nothing to do with the humanitarian corridor. This is a military operation to break out of the encirclement."

General Homchak,the commander of government troops in Ilovaysk, claimed that initially insurgents allowed them to leave with weapons and armored vehicles, but then he received an ultimatum warning him that free passage is guaranteed only if Ukrainian troops leave their armoured vehicles and ammunition. Homchak admits that he rejected the ultimatum and decided to break the siege and escape.He stated that ukrainian forces were ready to fight but did not take into account the possibility of a well-planned ambush

From this we can conclude that there was no agreement at all. There were only negotiations between sides of the conflict but for some reason they couldn't agree on the conditions for granting a humanitarian corridor. The militants insisted on complete surrender of weapons. Government forces refused to leave Ilovaysk unarmed. While negotiations continued, the encircled troops assembled a strike group trying to break out of encirclement.The column of armored vehicles was ambushed and almost completely destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.57.199.102 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Neither of those is a reliable source. RGloucester — ☎ 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the source of the Kononov's statement. The statement should be noted in the article as it expressed the position of insurgents regarding the situation in Ilovaisk.

I have changed the link to Homchak' s description of the events. His testimony is important, because he was directly involved in negotiations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.164.195 (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

80.94.164.195, please familiarise yourself with what a WP:RS (that is, reliable source) actually is before posting here again. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Iryna, please familiarize yourself with rules. Especially with BIAS section. News agencies has lowest priority on reliability scale, especially when they are BIASed, like New York TImes or Washington Post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.164.122.156 (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Guys, there's a video of Ukranian troops trying to break out of the encirclement using armored vehicles. If you want I can link it here. It's clearly as such that western media refuses to present this for what ever reason. Here's the videO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IY5FbVHVE0&t=727 I don't see why RiaNovosti would be an unreliable source. I have taken myself up to opening thiw whole thing for discussion here, please join: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.68.210.173 (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys moved discussion to here, please join me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#No_News_Sources_are_verifiable 78.68.210.173 (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. you guys don't seem very interested in discussing but I invite everyones opinion so I've made a new thread on the same page regarding this specific case. Please present YOUR case, especiall you Gloucester as the thread concerns you. ¨¨¨¨ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.68.210.173 (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

War of reliable sources

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - Wikipedia:Verifiability

What exactly is a reliable source? Many of my fellow editors are giving assertions of the importance of reliable sources. But for some odd reason, reliable Russian sources are being tossed out as unreliable. Many good faithed edits that try to balance an article's neutrality are simply removed due to being considered unreliable. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to allow the other side of the story to have its voice as long as the article remains neutral? Since people claim that this has nothing to do with being "pro-Ukrainian", then please explain to me why most of the provided "reliable" sources come from Western based websites. How are these War in Donbass articles considered neutral if barely any pro-Russian sources are given to explain their position and counter Ukrainian government accusations? Is it because Wikipedia deems most Russian news outlets as inaccurate, biased, or having yellow journalism? Also, can anybody provide us with a list of reliable sources (including Russian) so that we can refer to it in the future? Thank you. SkoraPobeda (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources are sources that are known to be reliable, and meet certain criteria. Everything we say must be based on reliable sources, and not made-up by our own person. Stuff that is made-up by editors is called "original research". We don't portray "both sides", as that would be a false balance, and would compromise neutrality. Neutrality does not mean that we "balance" out the bias by representing bias on both sides, but means that we report what is found in reliable sources. We represent the consensus found in reliable sources. We use neither "pro-Russian" nor "pro-Ukrainian" sources, merely sources that have a reputation for reliability, and that provide verification. As far as "Russian sources", we take no issue with Russian sources at face value, though certain state-controlled outlets like Russia Today have been deemed unreliable in many circumstances at various WP:RS/N discussions. Your query is best suited for that noticeboard, WP:RS/N. RGloucester — ☎ 20:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, SkoraPobeda, you're flogging a dead horse by posting this to the RSN. The issue of various Russian sources (see here for Russia today where ITAR-TASS and other sources have also been discussed) has been done to death. If anyone even bothers to pick up on it after months of deliberation, I'll be surprised. The rule of thumb has been determined that, per WP:BIASED, both Russian and Ukrainian sources are fine for direct statements from officials, but only usable where deemed appropriate (by consensus) with WP:INTEXT attribution, and/or where supported by other reliable sources. No sources are taken for granted as being absolutely reliable, and these articles are WP:NOTNEWS. Utmost care has been taken to remain neutral at the height of POV traffic pushing one side or the other. As for your offer to translate Russian sources at the RSN, there are plenty of editors working on these articles who've been doing so for months... along with German articles, Polish articles, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Iryna is quite right here. Essentially, RS/N is meant to deal with specific instances. In other words, one would have a particular newspaper article or whatever that one wants to include in some Wikipedia article, but the reliability of that newspaper is in question. Hence, one takes it to RS/N to find out if that particular instance of the source is reliable. Reliability is determined in context, not in isolation. There are few blanket statements of reliability. If you have a particular article that you'd like to include that is disputed, take it to RS/N and they'll evaluate it. Otherwise, it is a waste of time. RGloucester — ☎ 03:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hiho Gloucester. I'm actually curious about that, could you link to the discussion that has shown RT to not be a reliable source?78.68.210.173 (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPA. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Iryna if you keep insinuating things I'm going to report you to an admin. You just keep throwing random crap in my face that makes no sense. I've asked you 3 times, what personal attack?78.68.210.173 (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Government Casualties

The figure of 1000 government forces killed does not appear to correlate with the total number of deaths among Ukrainian soldiers throughout the war. The actual figure of Ukrainian troop dead during the battle is somewhere between 100-150. The total number captured may be exaggerated here as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.195.213 (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you. Another editor has just changed the figures back to the correctly cited ones. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The Ukranian leader of the brigades (Semenchenko)claims 1,000 lost men not nesesary killed, again the Goverment casualties again chopped by half by a finth column Pro Ukranian military agent. There are sourced claims of over 200 killed, miracously it dissapeared again. Whats happening Wikipedia?? 200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"Sourced" from where? Incidentally, this is a WP:TALK page, not a WP:SOAPBOX. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=12395&ArticleId=2351524
http://cached.newslookup.com/cached.php?ref_id=481&siteid=2399&id=8190649&t=1410339266
Happy Now?200.48.214.19 (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If you care to check these, the article from Interfax is here and was used as the source for Kyiv Post's article here. Considering that an Indian newspaper (Zee) is also used as a source (and they're claiming the 300 mark) for the 100+, I'm not understanding what your quibble is about. I'm happy to add the Latin American Herald Tribune as it apparently quotes Yarema directly and in more detail, but all that is evidenced is that there were various figures floating around in September, suggesting that they were guesstimates. The October article gives a precise figure directly from the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence. As we have to go by reliable sources, we apply WP:CALC. Semchenko's claim is 1,000 lost but not necessarily killed. Considering the disarray going on at the time, it's small wonder that reports at the time were unclear. The calculation is, therefore, the most recent figure taking into account other earlier reports. This translates as 100+, not "108 to possibly (but probably not) hundreds". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Iryna take a look at this article. two important notes, Acording to a female activist Russian suffered 4000 killed in this war and Ukraine double of that. Including over 1,000 -1,200 killed posibly at Iloviansk. Check. http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/14/battle-ilovaisk-details-massacre-inside-rebel-held-eastern-ukraine-282003.html200.48.214.19 (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You are presenting me with speculative figures based on one peace activist's estimates. You and I are welcome to have doubts as to the reality and suppression of real figures from both sides but, for the purposes of Wikipedia, we are bound by reliable sources and verifiability. It's early days and, at some point down the track, there will (hopefully) be reliable, objective sources, research and investigation into what really did take place and the death tolls, etc. Until then, such sources remain as being speculation (known as original research) which simply doesn't have a place in an encyclopaedic source. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The 1,000 losses figure should be included in the battle box. There is a Pro Ukranian Current Goverment Bias in the article, it stenching odor it a clear evidence of propaganda politics. The losses were massive, even Semenchenko acknowledge that, and the Defense oficial was sacked by this disaster. How sad pseudo-academics with bias have taken control of the article.200.48.214.19 (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

According to Ukraine Today the number of soldiers killed in action was 1000

According to material by UT the number of killed in action(not including wounded and missing) was 1000[1]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Ukraine Today deemed an RS? I've checked around and haven't seen anything that would suggest it is or isn't. I've no idea of whether they even bother with any form of fact checking. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Semenchenko climed over 1,000 losses. Not nessesary killed but its still a considerable figure, remember that he commanded a portion of those forces and he was wounded in battle. The Ukranian Goverment its downplaying their losses. The 1,000 figure should be included in the battle box. One of the participant commanders is not a reliable source??? Biased?? The 300 Russian killed looks like a whitewash to clean the horrible losses suffered by Ukis in Ilovaisk.200.48.214.19 (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine army suffered 241 KIA

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/241-ukrainian-troops-volunteers-killed-in-battle-of-ilovaisk-374853.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes: inconsistent nomenclature issues

There is an inconsistent use of "acc. to government" and "according to Ukraine" in this article's infobox. This is equally reflected in number of articles which, as pedantic as it may seem, I deem to be highly unencyclopaedic.

The use of "acc. to government" is uninformative as it is unclear as to which government is making the statement. Such use is not even consistent within a single infobox which uses "according to Russia", etc. We've already had enough disputes on various article pages surrounding events in Ukraine to the point of being pernickety about whether it's according to a 'Western source', an American source, a British source to have sorted out a reasonable form of attribution where it is required.

Unless I'm mistaken, sovereign nation-states haven't officially become corporate entities (although an economist may easily argue that they have, although not necessarily emanating from the country of origin), and neither Russia nor Ukraine have ever uttered a word.

While I realise that it's visually unappealing to have lengthy attributions, could we please agree on nomenclature that doesn't fall foul of WP:WEASEL. Some of these attributions are misleading in that they are sourced from soldiers via Anglophone journalists and not via government sources.

Could we please try to form some sort of rational consensus as to system of attribution that doesn't read as finger-pointing? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The only valid attribution is the one used in sources cited. If a source says "acc to Ua Govt", then we cannot do a guesswork what was meant, right? As for lengthy attributions, they are OK in text IMO, and the infoboxen can be easily decluttered by footnoting the attributions. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of sources

The number of 300 killed soldiers links to

http://en.censor.net.ua/news/302570/107_ukrainian_and_300_russian_soldiers_killed_near_ilovaisk_defense_minister

Is en.censor.net.ua a reliable source ?

"It's a tragedy that we lost a lot of patriots - more than 107 deceased are recognized and there are more to go, but (so far) the number of (killed) is 107 people... Let us also estimate the losses near Ilovaisk of our enemy, Russia; they suffered much bigger losses... There are more than 300 people dead," he said.

Also the quote 'estimates'. How can an estimate be a source ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.195.247.200 (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is self-contradictory

If we know that the agreement specified that weapons and ammunition must be left behind, and we see that there are casualties on the separatist side, isn't it an obvious conclusion that Ukrainian army did not in fact leave their weapons behind, breaking the agreement? Mrcatzilla (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not read the cited sources, and find out? RGloucester — ☎ 04:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been following the conflict quite closely, care to point out how this contradiction is resolved? Mrcatzilla (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What exactly contradiction in the article text do you have in mind? Staszek Lem (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please verify

a commander in the Dnipro Battalion, managed to quickly reach an agreement with Russian commanders

Since Russia denies involvement, I doubt that a "Russian commander" could parlay officially. Please somebody who has access to source, double-check, whether it was really a commander of Russian military or just sloppy writing, actually meaning "Russian separatist commander" (or sloppy summarizing by a wikipedian). Staszek Lem (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Please keep in mind that the insurgents are formally "Russians" in ethnic sense, not necessarily in citizenship sense. But you understand, in Wikipedia we better try to be clear on the issue. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it is referring to the Russian Armed Forces, who were on the ground during the battle. The source says "Russian", as it was Russians that were there. Whether he "parlayed officially" is irrelevant. RGloucester — ☎ 22:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The source says (I managed to locate a snippet to otherwise paywalled text) "Yuri Beryoza, a battalion commander from the Dnipro battalion, began calling Russian commanders on his mobile phone". - I find it amusing that one can believe that upon incursion "Russian Armed Forces" commanders swiftly supplied Yuri Beryoza with their phone numbers. Much more plausible that rebels and Dnipro have contacts. But a phone call to Putin from Dnipro... nah. Not important issue anyway to dig further. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2015

Semen semechenko figure of over 1,000 losses should be quoted on the Battle box, since its as autoritative as a Ukranian Goverment figure of 300 Russian KIA. 200.48.214.19 (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv-post-plus/bodies-of-victims-of-ilovaisk-massacre-still-being-found-counted-weeks-later-368297.html
200.48.214.19 (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: I'm not sure that kyivpost.com meets the threshold needed to be considered a reliable source. Do you have a backup source if it is denied? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: KP itself is RS. The number isn't from Semenchenko but from Senchenko, a Ukrainian government official. It is already in the prose, but I doubt it is suitable for the infobox. Pinging our resident numbers expert. RGloucester — ☎ 23:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not? Kp its a RS and the number comes from a goverment official.200.48.214.19 (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: EkoGraf is keeping track of the numbers, so I'm sure there is a reason he hasn't included it. Wait for him to respond. RGloucester — ☎ 17:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

We got a more recent source (December) that says only 241 soldiers were killed. And another from about the same time as the 1,000 claim saying 300 died (close to 241). So the 1,000 report is out-dated in comparison to the December source which also gives a similar figure to the 300 source. EkoGraf (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2015

RT has video of English speaking soldiers fighting for the Ukraine Government. So if you are going to attach Russia in the belligerent column with little evidence, then actual video evidence should place NATO as a belligerent as well, with the 'denied by NATO' tag out of fairness, for this battle/conflict. Please correct. Mythreal (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What figures are these?

So out of 600 soldiers some 300 were killed and 545 were captured. Why are we taking these "official" statistics that time and time again keep proving themselves to be false over seperatist claims? 78.68.210.173 (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What is your specific suggestion about statistics? (Don't forget to provide references.) As for why "over separatist claims", the answer is very simple: it is close to impossible to count how much they killed. You can count reliably enemy's planes or tanks destroyed, but not personnel. At best, you can rely on the number of enemies captured and exchanged afterwards. If you claim you captured 1000 and then released 400, you cannot claim +1000 in enemy losses: either you let 600 go (not losses) or you massacred 600 POW (war crime) or you still hold them (unverifiable info if not coming from 3rd party). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's all estimates. Every estimate is unscientific until a commission digs into it. So they (from all sides) should all be posted, even though they are all rubbish. The only ones that seem to come close upon verification are the captured statistics and they are almost always the same between the two sides (this is because they keep trading captured POWs during their ceasfires while they all rearm). These guys lie about each other all the time. But the problem is that here clearly WSJ sources contradict even official Ukranian sources, not to mention seperatist claims and yet we have people here arguing that the WSJ is reliable for this conflict. The source for 600 soldiers is taken from WSJ while the casualties clearly exceed the (by WSJ) proposed participating amount of soldiers. It's laughable.78.68.210.173 (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh this is such fucking bullcrap. Now someone made a sneak edit changing the referenced material (600 soldiers) to the unreferenced "at least 600" without ever replying here. God. Pathetic, wrong and sad. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Read the fucking source by clicking the footnote before ranting. Unlike you, I did this and even mentioned this in my edit summary. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to financially support a newspaper I find decrepit. I just assume "good faith" about previous edits which have been added and kept in a protected article. I guess that is something I should not be doing 78.68.210.173 (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This number is in the preview (visible at least in Firefox). Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There may be numerous reasons why numbers mismatch. For example, today WSJ reports 600, tomorrow 400 more are thrown in. Therefore, as it was already written somewhere, the numbers may be final only when the dust settles and researchers analyze all this misinformed, underinformed and outright bullshit, and come out with reasonable estimates. Otherwise wikipedia may only report what is reported, and no wonder math does not work. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I don't understand, why are you so worked up with the issue. Clearly all three sides in the conflict are pumping propaganda. It is normal during the wartime (to keep morale high, etc.etfc.). You will find "truth" in 25 years (or never). Wikipedia is not supposed to hold ultimate truth. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't very worked up until I realised that there is a group of users that are apparently monopolizing these types of articles. That's what is upsetting me. And indeed, there are many mismatches! That's what I am saying elsewhere and here, very little is reliable. Include all sides of the story, take nothing for granted until someone actually counts the gravestones. But that seems to hit some nerves among a certain estrada of people here .78.68.210.173 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course there always is cabal. OK, let's be specific and review what exactly numbers do you want to cite from the "other side" and what is the source? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Dude, generally speaking this has grown beyond that. I'm not sure, to me it just was suspicious that the numbers clearly contradicted themselves (and thus were in fact not reliable) but other unreliable sources (from seperatists) were not accepted. I suggested to Gloucester how at least the issue of whether or not the Speratists or the Ukranians broke the deal concerning peaceful withdrawl could be researched objectively but he wasn't interested. Saying that he is only interested in reposting things from "reliable sources" (in this case unreliable). - This was in relation to a post of mine here that got deleted. Concerning this specific post...I'm not even sure what the seperatist are claiming atm but IMO it should be added. Anyway, every death in this sad war is a sad death. It seems that people have been trying to add things in the past from Ria Novosti and such but that it has been removed by the so called cabal. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)