Talk:War in Donbas

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War in Donbas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12: 14 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Ukrainian place names are transliterated using the National system.
Please see the guidelines on the romanization of Ukrainian on Wikipedia for more information.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Military history: Russian & Soviet B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

European history B‑class Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia B‑class High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ukraine B‑class Top‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

remove Russian armed forces from infobox

They are clearly not doing combat. It is arguable if they train NAF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. No. They clearly are "doing combat". I encourage you to read the sources cited in the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are not neutral sources. These are American sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All sources, cited as proof for involvement of the Russian Armed Forces, are either just accusations without evidence, or have only circumstantial evidence, which original source, when properly back-traced, lead either to the Ukrainian services, or western agencies, allied with the Ukrainians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.11 (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are pretty funny, but Russia is in the infobox and it ain't going anywhere. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed the point - it's not about if the Russia should be in the infobox, or not - of course it would be there, albeit with a note that the Russian government deny its involvement (this is the english Wikipedia after all); it's about the veracity of the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.10 (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russia's laughable denial of involvement is immaterial to the reality that Russian troops have been verifiably documented to be on the ground and fighting in eastern Ukraine. The article already notes in several places that the Kremlin maintains the fiction that "I triple guarantee you, there are no Russian soldiers in Donbass" (pardon my paraphrasing), as is proper. It doesn't belong in the infobox, as Russian military involvement is a repeatedly, exhaustively proven fact despite Putin's game of deception. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it appears there is already a note on Russia in the infobox that its government denies involvement, for whatever that's worth. Personally, I don't even think we should have that note, but them's the breaks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"verifiably documented", "exhaustively proven", but by whom? The problem is, when back-traced, most of the so called "documents" and "proofs" lead to the same origin - either Ukrainian services, or agencies, allied with them. Which definitely put a shade of doubt even on reliable sources. And I'm not sure that personal opinions about russian politics are relevant on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.11 (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All this rubbish has happened many times before. For example, they denied that the Soviet State was responsible for the Katyn massacre; they denied that the people who seized government installations in the Crimea in 2014 were Russian Spetsnaz/Army; eventually they admitted it. It is the same today as always.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I was left with the impression, that the talk pages are supposed to be discussion about the quality of the article content and its sources, not a political dispute. Obviously I was mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.10 (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Whoever started this thread is doing a horrible job of building consensus. The only argument seems to be that the information is from sources that they considered biased. Unless you can convince enough editors and build consensus in support of your claim, then this thread is a waste. Myopia123 (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is proven or not regarding Russian REGULAR soldiers is not up to Kudzu1. It should be up to the international court. Of course there are Russians fighting in Ukraine, but it is REGULAR soldiers that count. For one thing, I have not seen a single Russian air force bombing sortie on Kiev. Do you?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.200.29 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 3 April 2015

Nice red herring. The information in this article is well-sourced. Not liking it is not a valid reason to remove or undercut reliably sourced content. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly think Ukrainian army can withstand REGULAR Russian forces backed by airpower? If so, you are delusional. Look what happened in Crimea. Ukrainian soldiers never dared to fire a single bullet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.200.29 (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to boast about the awesome power of the vaunted Russian military, boy is this not the website for you. WP:NOTFORUM. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia that contain information which I do not like being discussed so openly. I don't go bitching and moaning on them. Provide WP:RS and build WP:CONSENSUS or deal with it. Myopia123 (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Western society, proof is everything. If you don't have proof, then don't put something in the infobox. News articles are not proof. It's like some people claim a Russian Buk shot down MH17, well, that's a CLAIM, that's not a PROOF. You cannot say there are Russian REGULAR soldiers fighting in Ukraine sent by the Russian government unless you have PROOF.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.219.200.144 (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2015‎

Unlike Western Society, all Wikipedia requires are Reliable Sources. These people really need to read this page which discuss RS's in detail and then come back here. Myopia123 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is ACCUSATION that there are Russian regular soldiers in Ukraine. There is no proof of this. Not a single Russian regular soldier has ever been captured as proof. Accusations should not be put into the infobox. Only things that are proven should be put into the infobox. This is a matter of ethics and morality. Wikipedia has a responsibility to provide true information to its readers, not unproven accusations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.219.200.144 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2015‎

Actually there is proof and in fact a whole bunch of Russian regular soldiers have been captured [1]. This is a matter of reliable sources, so drop it, Russia stays as a combatant in the infobox for good. You might try a different website as an outlet for your "opinions".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or here, here or here. Basically, they're not even pretending anymore (which makes a whole bunch of people who've participated in these discussions in the past look really silly now).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce the use of quotation marks where they weaken NPOV

Using quotation marks to describe belligerents' rhetoric seems fine, but we should reduce their use in passages that are primarily intended to describe events.

Probably fine:

demonstrators regathered for a 'people's assembly' outside the building and called for a 'people's government'

Turchynov vowed to launch a major "anti-terror" operation

Needs work:

which prompted the Ukrainian government to launch a "counter-terrorism" operation to retake the city. (just say "an operation")

They said that they would use force if needed to defend the building from "criminals and terrorists" (just say "defend the building")

etc.

The quotation marks aren't technically wrong (they really are quotes), but they often read more like scare quotes. Both sides receive this treatment, but I think it more often slants against the Ukranian government. I don't see any reason to believe there was bad faith, but I think they weaken NPOV nonetheless.

Dmurvihill (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2015

This edit request to War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Russian army is not involved in the war in the Donbass. Somarzen (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Amortias (T)(C) 19:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is NATO biased

In all this one cannot consider Western Media as reliable sources. At the same time Eastern media are ignored. Russia is part of conflict and US is not?? Well everyone could see, and US never denied what Mrs. Noland was saying. There are reports of US Contractors involved in the war. How come this does not make US as part of conflict in Donbas and makes Russia. This is not about Crimea but Donbas Actually there are more physical proofs of US involvement and presence of their politician on Ukrainian soil and interference in Maidan than it is of Russian presence in Donbas - again Russian from Russian Federation official institutions, not local Russian with volunteers. Many times especially UK media embarrassed themselves talking on Russian soldiers because they speak Russian or say they are Russian. That does not prove they are soldiers of Russian Federation for there are Russians in Easter Ukraine, lots of them, and there are also Russian volunteers from Russia as there are French on the other side. Many Ukrainians on East consider themselves Russians too. This was disgrace of UK self-proclaimed the most respected news organizations and you can find those clips now on youtube. There is clear effect of "Manufacturing consent" among all those media especially US and UK. There are no significant media from China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Russia, Greece, Iran, Indonesia,.. etc. that agrees on Western views. What makes Guardian or BBC so relevant. What makes Western media so much relevant then those other countries ones. We all know how they were badly and consistently wrong before. Look at your sources for this article. They are either Western Ukrainian or NATO countries and Quatar (in tune with Nato). Call this NATO-pedia then. There is no neutrality at all. Its utterly biased simply analyzing its sources. 201.103.136.71 (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]