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.
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. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
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
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
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
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
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]
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 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]
Proof is a word that is only applicable to mathematics. There is so much evidence at this point that it is effectively a fact. There is no absence of evidence to warrant what is suggested. Russian military forces are in Ukraine, it shouldn't deny that. 68.227.167.123 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian public opinion
...According to the International Republican Institute.
(Not that the IRI would ever push a right-wing point of view?)
