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 45.58.91.62 (talk) at 02:55, 13 May 2015 (→‎difference between soldier and fighter: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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. Not to mention Kudzu1. What an arrogance. Who are you to make such a strong statements to put yourself as arbitrator of the truth. Ango-Saxon (Canadain) arrogance. So Canadian will confirm British media credibility?? Again no one would have anything against if you call this thing Anglo-pedia or Saxon-Pedia or Nato-pedia or Western-pedia. But you like it or not White people and Western World is not entitled on TRUTH!

201.103.136.71 (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should know I take your indignation and wear it as a badge of pride. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know, what smart is ashamed of full gets proud in it. But honestly I do not care. This is not forum. I stated my facts and they are clear. All this is based in one sided sources with questionable integrity and credibility to be taken for granted.201.103.136.71 (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
201.103.136.71, don't bother - when it comes to ongoing events with different political agendas involved, many people, who don't live in Western countries, consider english Wikipedia to be just another propaganda tool. What western citizens choose to say or believe - well, it's up to them, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.11 (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you cite specific sources used in the page and indicate reasons they should not be considered WP:RS, we can try to build a consensus to remove or replace them. Otherwise, they will stay in. Dmurvihill (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's the nature of the beast. Wikipedia has a number of tools and policies that have been used to make the article what it is. One of them is a policy (WP:UNDUE) whose goal is to make sure that "fringe" views are not given undue prominence (originally created to discourage uncritical articles about wild conspiracy theories. However, in any war in which one side is smaller than the other, as is the case in Ukraine, that side's views will be considered "fringe" and will therefore be largely not mentioned in any article, while the views of the other side will be largely accepted as the mainstream truth, per the policy). Another related policy is the one that has to do with reliability of sources. Simply put, there is no neutral metric for judging which sources are reliable - it is simply decided that English mainstream media is more reliable than most Russian-language sources, or "small-press" English media, because that's the majority opinion of Wikipedia editors. In support of their opinions, numerous known cases of the Russian mainstream media, or "small-press" English media, being wrong about something are cited. That there are also numerous known cases of the Western mainstream media being wrong about something doesn't seem to affect its perceived reliability to the same degree. The problem is that there is no independent organization that evaluates potential Wikipedia sources to determine which percentage of factual claims that they report turn out to be true or false. This makes accusations of bias such as yours both predictable and unavoidable.
There are potentially a few ways in which the situation (specifically in this article) could change.
1) if the mainstream Russian POV becomes adopted by significant geographical areas or political groupings outside of Russia's borders. For example, a major party in one of the EU's more important countries (Germany's "Left Party" and France's "National Front" don't count as such), or in China (where officials and media have been carefully noncommittal). In that case, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE could no longer be invoked, and an article such as this would be forced to change radically.
2) if Wikipedia adopts a specific policy for "war" articles which recognizes that truth is the first casualty of war, and that therefore the emphasis should be towards presenting both sides' views equally and attempting to reconcile them, even if one of them is an internationally "fringe" view. I do not expect this to happen until the major Anglophone countries (the Five Eyes) find themselves in a strong minority in some international conflict. If that ever happens, I fully expect Wikipedia's WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE policies to be amended so that Wikipedia can still be used to present the mainstream Anglo view!
3) if someone creates a neutral metric for judging which sources are reliable, which proceeds to change the "balance" of sources that are acceptable in Wikipedia articles. As this is far too huge of an undertaking, it is merely a fantasy unless some powerful state or private interest decides to fund it, in which case the results might be open to charge of bias anyway.
All in all, your best bet is to recognize that the deck is stacked, that there is nothing to do about it, and try to solely use pro-NATO sources, which do sometimes publish things that go against the official narrative (that way, you are shielded from charges of bias, fringe theorizing, etc.).
Esn (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the point. If one is to write article on something he should make sure his sources are reliable. It is amazing that audio record of Noland available to world and never denied by US is not an clear evidence, yet writing based on western newspaper is, especially as stated above considering record of lies from Salvatore Allende till today (not to go further in past). It is amazing that US ambassador is lecturing Czech president or Hungarian president, that Greeks are openly threatened not to go to Russia for military parade. This is evidently apparent. Is this to you "free will" of Europe. Or disciplining Europe into single thought. Does this raise eyebrow what messages then could be delivered to those western media. It takes no much analysis to realize "consensus in lies" across the NATO media that is denounced publicly by many known names and more over not accepted by any of significant media in other then NATO and significant world countries mentioned above. There is known fact that West was manufacturing tragedies and motives for intervention. They could not get German consensus on action till Malaysian plane was crashed. Now apart being loud no real proof of neither Russia not rebel responsibility is proven. Many western news published key evidence against Russia recently found by Dutch investigators, which shamefully Dutch investigators promptly denied. Simply, by constant public blame, image of Russian responsibility is created even though claims associated with Dutch investigators or Malaysian officials are constantly denied by the very same parties. The most astonishingly MSNBC with liberal views (for US standards, for European one this are clear no-conservative not to go further) Rachel Meadow (or whatever is her name) spent hours convincing audience it had to be Russians. First Russia has no responsibility for rebel action even if given them arms for arms given were not given to take down civilian plane. If so appear to be logical to Mrs Meadow, then in honesty she should be aware that every Western sold and supplied weapons given to other countries or movements count for western responsibility for every evil doing. Then, however, memory of Mrs. Meadow suddenly shuts down. Example: West armed Suharto in Indonesia, that commit genocide over East Timor people. Not one airplane, but if I am right few hundred of thousands of people dead. Would Mrs. Meadow accuse US for that in rage and not let it go and demonize responsible ones, claim sanctions against her own country. If Russia for not proven responsibility over airplane crash suffers EU sanctions, what shell be done to USA in moral outcry of Germans and EU. Where are this honest administrators of this Wikipedia to answer this question. Where is the "international community outcry" on behavior of US and UK. It was 200000 people against 400 in Russian unproven case. Even though it is now know and publicly available fact on that case, there is no outcry of western media quoted here as relevant and reliable source. There are no penalties on US and UK and their officials. You will not see BBC panels on discussing if US is responsible power after such an record demonizing it and requesting EU to get sanctions on US. Not to mention Iraq, Lybia, Yugolsavia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan... (end show goes on).... However, lamenting on Russian bear responsibility is overly present. Damn Russians.
So I am asking you based on your senses. If Russia is so so responsible to be penalized by sanctions by EU for one airplane (again not proven to be Russian responsibility even by Dutch(NATO) investigators) where is Western Media outcry on US, not on Indonesia, but US who armed Suharto and presented him to world as roaring economy tiger leader, proud of IMF, dear friend of HRM Elizabeth II. Where is pointed finger of blame, to demand responsibility and punishment. I believe Mrs. Meadow, when it comes to that, somehow loses herself in Prada, somewhere on 5th avenue. Where is anger of Germans and EU media who so much demonize Russia and Putin now. Nowhere? 200000 East Timorian dead and UK is celebrating pathetic Queen Jubilee and world watches in amaze. Dear friend of Suharto is not demonized as Putin. For God sake she is English!
So to write article that aims to be objective and truthful, you should do more then simply being Rupert Murdock agents in establishing his media prints into encyclopedic facts of the matter. Otherwise simply do what I have advised you for a sake of honesty, if nothing else. Call this FOX-Pedia, CNN-Pedia, NATO-Pedia, WesterView-Pedia so at least people know what they are dealing with. What is wrong with that.
How is this relevant to article? Well to help you, it shows you how one sided sourcing can lead you to strange conclusions. Again ask yourself if Putin is demon for one airplane (and again not even proved to be the case but Dutch(NATO) investigators) how come there is no Western media demonization of US and UK and their leaders on killing of one nation. Instead, one borrow the name to airport, the other has her statue in bronze in British parliament. They are praised by EU leaders and western media that are used as sources of "truth" here. Unlike them East Timor dead do not even have marks on their graves. .... "and waltz goes on"...
Finally if Russia is to be put as side in war in Donbas, then US and U should be put as side in genocide in East Timor. Otherwise this views are of David Cameron. On one side he honors Thacher on another he is blaming Putin. More over UK and US involvement is proven fact today. Russian is Donbas is proven even less then American in Ukraine overall. Keep in mind on your pages on East timor invasion you have not put US and UK as participants but supporters (which is quite different) and you did not associate them with genocide responsibility what wester media quoted bluntly do with Russia and Putin when it comes to airplane case.
201.103.94.240 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Whataboutism.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not see any relevance with the article. Maybe you should find meaning of words principle, shame and honesty. There is nothing "Whatabout" when it comes to killing of 200000 people in East Timor and those responsible are honored instead of being hanged. There should be only shame and blame on Wikipedia to participate in cover-up. Instead of blaming them, world faces cheep trill of Jubilee of Elizabeth II, honoring death of Margaret Thacher and Ronald Regan and their "greatness" at every step. Media you quote had no decency to raise their voice in name of those killed and demand responsibility. So it is 1. Principle: justice should be blind and truth should be based in facts 2. Shame: Killing of that many people with direct arming by US and UK should be denounced in shame and US and UK should be found responsible in full if same principles used in Nuremberg are applied 3. Honesty: to admit lacking of 1. and 2. instead talking on Whataboutism. I will repeat it again 200000 people killed in East Timor by Suharto praised, armed and sponsored by US and UK openly. There are many photos you can find on Google. Be not afraid of facts like media. For many years Western Media did not report anything on it, they bluntly hide it from eyes of public; interestingly what does it tell us about your sources? Yes in Wikipedia there is no finger of blame pointed though there are articles, pictures and videos on it and even parts of documentaries ("Manufacturing consent"). There is John Pilger documentary clearly mentioning it, going after IMF chiefs. Yet at the same time Putin is demon by Western media and EU Brussels oligarchs for airplane never proven to be his responsibility. This media instead on castigating those demons responsible for it (Demons of Nazi caliber) go after Greek, Czech and Hungarian president for attending military parade honoring those who fought against Nazi :-). If not sad (horror and sad) it would be comedy. That is what they found appalling. Quoting this media as relevant without clear checks and balances shows lack of senses to me. Whatabout, has nothing to do with what has been said. I am not Soviet representative I am pointing you clear luck of competence, consistency, neutrality, principle and lots of dishonesty in what has been presented here. I leave you to see if you should have feeling of shame for whatabouting comment, for even if I was whatabouting (though have never been in Soviet world not Soviet leader), you still could have taken action on the other side and correct what was written on East Timor invasion page. You could have use sources overly available to correct what was incorrect there in respect to truth that you are advertizing on these pages without bothering with Russia and Putin and Whataboutism. Your argument is as relevant as one of Bill O'Railly. Low punch as response to argument-ed criticism with labeling not followed but one single argument to support it. Again, remember I was never using East Timor to justify one side but to point lack of consistency in judgment and lack of credibility of sources used. What I used in argument to show your bias on US vs Russia in Ukrainian conflict itself is beloved Noland that was so "open" on the phone on what the real intentions of US were and lack of principle on Wikipedia to trust obvious and to be at least a bit suspicious about speculated western thought. Of course other speculations are by wiki standards to be ignored unless they align with western one. Hope you get what I mean now? 201.103.94.240 (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opening this as I do not believe that WP:NOTFORUM applies; anonymous IP is discussing systemic bias in the article and pointing out specific perceived editorial lapses, not simply using the talk page as a "soapbox for discussing the topic". Nevertheless, I would advise anonymous IP that the only productive discussions you will have here will happen if you accept the current page's editorial line and overall modus operandi (abhorrent as they may be to you) and try to work within them. Please also see the message on your talk page. Esn (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect to your comments I simply cannot believe how one can be more productive. I clearly stated point and backed it up with facts. Is productive when Todd and Kudzu1 to other participants suggestions answer using words as "rubbish" and strong cynicism and sarcasm.
Look you are kind and I respect it but I am not going to be intimidated by them. Discussion should be based in arguments and respect to other party. I have never show disrespect to anyone, and I was sharp but to the point with arguments to those treating me and others with disrespect. When you speak about achieving something knowing that all is sourced the way it is sourced chances are pretty low to impossible. I am not aiding Wikipedia as it is, I am fighting to change its very principles for the way it is structured it is so damaging to truth and it is such a waste of opportunity to build something so powerful in doing good to justice, to education, to enlightenment in corporate information darkness. Not big fighter though. Limited time. However, I respect your arguments and I am sorry if I failed your expectations. Btw if you are looking for Western Sources that can aid in your research focus on Democracy Now - Amy Goodman e.g., or Real News. There you can find lots of articles in English that can back up your story. I simply do not have time for that. Also world wide known US and British professors and intellectuals: Stephen F Cohen, Michael Parenti, Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Remzi Clark, comedian George Carling (not typical comedian), comedian Robert Newman, Harold Pinter, John Pilger, Jeremy Scahill, Michael Ruppert, Amy Goodman, George Galloway, and I forgot some more names to mention...
There are lots of alternative media in California, Seattle and NYC but you will need to dig. However I am not sure if these are relevant for Wiki but its worth of trying if you want to fight using your soft power approach. Good luck!

201.103.94.240 (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, 201.103.94.240 not all mainstream news is spewing propoganda and not all alternative news sources are reliable... D3RP4L3RT (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who's George Carling? If you mean George Carlin, somehow I doubt he has an opinion about what's going on in Ukraine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

request to rename separatists as rebels

They are not separatists because they do not wish to separate. Their goal is to take over all of Ukraine, which makes them rebels, like the ones in Syria whose goal is to take over all of Syria. 204.197.183.97 (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources to back up that assertion?-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is assumed. They try to take all of Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has policies such as WP:OR and WP:RS that you need to read.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know for sure they want to take over all of Ukraine. In fact, the old Ukraine is currently divided up between the new Ukraine which has the same flag and New Russia which has the white blue red flag. 104.243.107.11 (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And this knowledge is based on..... -- Toddy1 (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Separate into what? It makes no sense. The objective of rebels is taking Kiev. Even an idiot know that. 207.35.219.34 (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great point, dude. Got a reliable source, or can we go back to ignoring your fringe original research now? -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV blanking of sourced material

Please explain how my additions [1] specifically violate Wikipedia policies on neutrality. Otherwise, this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

  • (London-based think tank Rusi estimate of combined rotation)
  • NATO's top commander in Europe General Philip M. Breedlove has been criticized by European politicians and diplomats as spreading "dangerous propaganda" by constantly inflating the figures of Russian military involvement in an attempt to subvert the diplomatic solution of the War in Donbass spearheaded by Europeans."Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine". Der Spiegel. March 6, 2015. For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over again, Breedlove's numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America's NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO.

And this is absurd: [2], [3], [4], [5].

Everything has been discussed here: Neutral point of view/Noticeboard - Ukraine conflict, and here. Your constant removal of well sourced material is blatant POV-pushing. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was discussed there and ... THE FREAKIN' CONSENSUS WAS AGAINST YOU!!!! Stop playing disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
VM-please don't shout. I agree with Tobby72 that this vital information should be in the article, especially as it is supported by RS.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shouting is perfectly acceptable when someone just refuses to listen. We all know this has already been discussed. We all know there's no consensus for inclusion, and if anything, a consensus for no inclusion. There's no point in going through the argument again unless your and Toby's intent is to waste (more) of people's time. We've been through this. So how about I refrain from shouting and you too refrain from being tedious, tendentious and disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is cherrypicking, and there's clearly no consensus for it to be added to the article. bobrayner (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, where did your WP:FAITH just go? Now, you can try feel it: It seems to me that your purpose on Wikipedia is to secretly spew anti-Russian POV all over the place. I see how you WP:POVPUSH together with your little gang on the Ukraine articles, while accusing others for doing so. Cool, I just inserted some links to Wikipedia essays, perfectly WP:CHERRYPICKed for my comment. I think that now you would be throwing some links to WP-essays at me with a message of stop being disruptive, you are sooo neutral and blahblahblah, but reading my prediction, you are likely going to ignore me. Lol. Tobby72 is making constructive criticism, while you are being simply rude to him. I see that types like you are running this show, and as a result I have lost my trust in Wikipedia. Wikipeda does in fact work for a lot of topics, just not these politically sensitive topics. What a shame. Bye. --But..why..321 (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment was the one and only post by But..why..321. Remarkably, he/she was able to quote various Wikipedia policies that a real first-time editor would not know...-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have to agree that it's positively fascinating. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RUSI estimate

With respect to "RUSI estimate" included on the "Strenght" section, the source (article on RUSI website) actually do not support claim that is official RUSI stance. If one goes to the bottom of source last page, the following statement appears;

"The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) alone, and do not represent the views of RUSI." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.113.61.186 (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but that just means it should be properly attributed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MyMoloboaccount, why are you not paying attention to discussions on this talk page. As per VM, it only needs to be attributed, not removed (as you've attempted to do). The submission was further substantiated by The Guardian. Don't removed reliably sourced content based on flimsy pretexts reflecting your personal WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Whatever WP:OR objections you have to the author, your view as to whether he is credible or not is completely and utterly irrelevant: he most certainly does not qualify as a POV crackpot according to RUSI. In fact, he's a Senior Research Fellow in Russian Studies at RUSI, and the content is to be further elaborated on in an upcoming RUSI occasional paper. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

conflicting casualty numbers

Poroshenko says nearly 7,000 civilians killed. UN says overall killed is about 6,100, including soldiers.

https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/almost-7000-civilians-and-1675-soldiers-die-over-1000-people-gone-mission-due-to-conflict-in-donbas-388096.html

207.35.219.34 (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do these figures 'conflict' with each other? There is no absolute estimate, therefore casualty numbers are derived via WP:CALC, or according to estimates by a neutral, attributed source. Could you please specify what your issue with the numbers depicted in this article actually are? If you have access to absolute figures from a reliable source, please direct us to the source/sources and explain why other sources should take priority over the UN estimates. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, I think this is a fine example of how WP: CALC and neutral/reliable sources should superceed claims by warring parties. This example shows the improbability of Poroshenko's claim that 7,000 civilians died since the UN has been able to confirm only 6,240 deaths which include civilians, separatists and soldiers. Also, seems Poroshenko intentionally downplayed government troop losses. He claimed 1,675 soldiers died, while the Ukrainian MoD has said the figures catalogued by the National Museum are the correct ones (reached 1,960 by 14 February). Even Kyivpost's count is 2,053 dead soldiers as of mid-April. I read an article where the Ukrainian government does not acknowledge deaths of soldiers who are not part of the regular Army (paramilitaries). So the figure Poroshenko gave (1,675) was probably just regular Army and did not include hundreds of paramilitaries as well as members of the Interior Ministry. I am even considering that it would be best to remove the Ukrainian claim of 7,577–14,600 dead separatists and the Separatist claim of 32,580 killed and wounded soldiers because, when taking into account what the UN (reliable source) has confirmed, all these figures seem like fantastical propaganda from both sides. Opinion? EkoGraf (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Poroshenko says 1,657 Ukrainian servicemen KIA. This is not that inaccrate. Many of the combat related deaths died in hospital, so they are not counted as KIA who died on the spot. Also, many soldiers such as Right Sector and OUN fighters are not servicemen. Kyiv Post reports 2,000+ soldiers killed, which includes servicemen KIA, servicemen died of combat but who were not KIA, non servicemen killed, soldiers who died in accidents and other non combat related causes, and possibly even foreign soldiers for example from Georgia, Croatia, Chechnya. It is Poroshenko's much higher reported number of civilian deaths that is suspicious. 204.197.187.131 (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, his civilian figure is questionable. In regard to your commentary on the soldiers, yeah I saw Poroshenko was referring to only those killed in combat. So it would turn out they are additionally ignoring deaths in hospitals. And yes the Right Sector guys, the foreigners and others are not regular servicemen, like I also said. But they are still paramilitaries fighting in the ranks of government forces and at this point the Ukrainian government is simply playing dumb about those hundreds of additional losses while talking about deaths among their regular troops only. At this point they even stopped including the Ministry of Interior troops, whose losses also run in the dozens. EkoGraf (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so we all agree that numbers are being hushed up, drummed up, and generally massaged by both sides. As to how this can be applied to conform with Wikipedia standards is beyond me simply because trying to apply CALC including 'claims' on both sides is ridiculously uninformative, and stating that we don't believe it (and just don't know) contravenes WP:OR and WP:NPOV. For better or worse, we're stuck with the system you're currently using, EkoGraf. The only article that has the potential to be expanded in more detail is the "Casualties" article you've been working on. Even there, it needs to be treated per DUE... and avoiding COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only raised the possibility of removing government claims of rebel losses and vice-versa from the infobox since they do not correspond (not even slightly) to the reliable sources confirmation (UN). EkoGraf (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UN documents 6,200+ killed overall. It is important to notice they say the actual number could be much higher. So 10,000+ is not out of the ordinary IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbass#cite_note-100

207.35.219.34 (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, 10,000+ civilians and combatants dead is not out of the question. But claims of 14,600 separatist dead and 32,580 killed/wounded soldiers is out of this world. EkoGraf (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

difference between soldier and fighter

In the infobox it says UAF has this many soldiers and NAF has this many fighters. What's the differerence in terminology?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_in_Donbas&oldid=662097439"