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 69.166.125.108 (talk) at 01:00, 24 May 2015 (→‎General Staff of Ukraine:there is no regular Russian units in Ukraine). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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]

I think the subject of what figures and wording has come up a number of times on articles related to recent events in Ukraine without any serious consensus as to how to tackle the infoboxes. From my recollection, there was 'sort of' consensus for keeping the infoboxes as uncluttered as possible, although I'd be damned if I can remember which of the articles it was discussed at (and going through all of the archives is highly unappealing).
My position would be that, where it may be appropriate for the body of the article to include variants on estimates from BIASED sources, it's confusing and inappropriate for the infobox. Even as regards the body of the article, it's UNDUE to offer up multiple biased source estimates. While RS figures are appreciably low, the figures brought up here are extraordinary. I fail to see how RS could be that far off the mark. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. So how about we move the Ukrainian claims of rebel casualties and vice versa from the infobox to a section in the body of the article (so as not to delete it entirely and show the POV of the two sides) and leave figures for losses admitted by the respective sides and of course figures confirmed by reliable sources? It will also take of some weight from the cluttered infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
!Voting a big thumbs up on that as a good compromise. If anyone sees cause to dispute the 'according to' in the body, they're welcome to do so: at least it won't be as obtrusive in the body should there be any BRD. In all honesty, the infobox is as huge and perplexing enough already for a reader to have to wade through without different quasi-estimates of maximum and minimum casualties. Almost a quarter of the length of an entire, byte-heavy article is enough for anyone to go cross-eyed before giving up on figuring anything out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only thinking now to which section to move these claims. What do you suggest? EkoGraf (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, EkoGraf, I'm not ignoring you, just caught up with a couple of Russophobes/Ukrainophiles refactoring content on articles that don't appear to be being watched. I don't have any bright ideas on this at the moment. If I don't get back to you on the subject in the next day or so, could you ping me to remind me? Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your workaround the infobox is definitely an improvement, EkoGraf. While, ideally, a huge de-clutter may have been the desired outcome, there's certainly no quick 'n easy fix. Aside from moving extraneous content out, you've accomplished greater transparency for readers in order that they recognise (at a glance) that the figures are (biased) RS estimates. That's all we have to work with, and it doesn't come across as being misleading as per the previous 'version'... but still allows for scope in the reading of 'officially declared' numbers. Well done, bright spark! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! :) I really thought for months that inserting possibly misleading/propaganda figures in the infobox was not really informative for the readers. I also saw an opportunity to create a summary section on casualties in the article that had not been created up until now. EkoGraf (talk) 05:12, 20 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?

45.58.91.62 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General Staff of Ukraine:there is no regular Russian units in Ukraine

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b3nL4i914m0 I suggest we should remove regular Russian troops as a participant of the conflict and keep it on as a supporter. Because general staff of Ukraine admitted absence of Russian forces — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDK-169 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Russian regular troops in Donbas. If so, General Lentsov wouldn't be in the JCCC. In western countries, the law specifies very clearly, innocent unless proven guilty. No proof of Russian regular troops sent by the Russian government, then by law there is no Russian regular troops in Donbas. No one denies there are Russian troops in Crimea. In Donbas, there isn't any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.58.86.171 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article WP:TALK page, not a WP:SOAPBOX. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a court of law, nor is it original research. We use reliable sources, not 'contributor' WP:POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources listed state there are Russian troops in Donbas. They say there is evidence. They do not say there is proof. It's all speculative. At the end of the day, you have to make a choice. If you put Russian armed forces in the infobox, then you have to put a footnote saying denied by Russia, which means it means nada putting Russian armed forces in the infobox. Either they are there or they aren't there. This isn't Schroedinger's cat which is both dead and alive at the same time. Either the Russian armed forces is in the infobox or the Russian armed forces is not in the infobox. It cannot be both in and not in at the same time. As of now, there is a footnote stating denied by Russia, so by assumption the Russian armed forces is not in the infobox. The Russian armed forces is in the infobox only if there is no footnote which states denied by Russia. Simple as that. A man cannot be innocent and guilty at the same time. You cannot say a man is guilty with a footnote stating denied by that man. That is not western logic. And wikipedia is a western website. So there you go.45.58.86.171 (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence is proof. And yes, the sources do say that there are Russian troops in Donbass. I have no idea what you are going on about in the rest of your comment. WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence is not proof. Otherwise we would already know who shot down MH17. Put Russian armed forces in the infobox if you want. It means absolutely nothing because of the footnote which states denied by Russia. Anyone with half a brain knows Ukraine does not dare to fight the Russian armed forces. See? No fighting in Crimea, is there? 69.166.125.108 (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_in_Donbas&oldid=663738247"