Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War

Abuse of sources

In many cases the claims made on this page are not or only partially supported by the content in the sources cited. Reports that clearly attribute claims to the Kiev government are misrepresented as if they reported the claims as truth. I'm working on fixing this but help would be appreciated from honest writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.104.117 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the above remark of SineBot. THIS ENTRY STANDS FAR AWAY FROM THE 'ENCYCLOPAEDIC CRITERIA OF WIKIPEDIA'. A big part of the content is based just in rumours and impressions of witnesses, and even if they quote the original source, it is by itself a speculations. THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE RADICALLY CHANGED AND REDUCED. I imagine that the irrational behaviour of some of the contribuiors would make impossible to do it in near time, but it will be an indispensable task. The authors are just discrediting themselves. --GabEuro (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Give specific examples. The text you changed or removed where straight up non-neutral edits with some WP:WEASELing and "alleged" thrown in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The edits I made are the examples. You won't find the text here supported by the source material at all. Most frequently you see something reported by the source as a position of one side being presented as a fact here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.104.117 (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, "Russian president Vladimir Putin remarked in April that the presence of Russian troops authorized under the naval base leases had been instrumental in making possible the Crimean status referendum" (in edit by IP) is Wikipedia:Weasel and not in quoted sources. To the contrary, these sources literary say that Putin lied. My very best wishes (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If you strip away the editorial elements for which there is no factual basis in the two media sources, and look at the statements of fact made, what remains is the quote of Putin which says the troops "backed" the Crimean self-defense forces. The statements in the text here that they were 'active' or 'laid the ground' for the referendum is unsupported. I did err, however -- I thought Putin referenced the naval base agreements in that speech, but on review it seems not. Presumably when I track down a citation including the information will be unobjectionable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.104.117 (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

So, barring some reason not to, I'm going to continue fixing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.104.117 (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

First, please drop the all caps. One or two words for emphasis is fine, but typing whole sentences in all caps means you're screaming. Second, sinebot is not a user. It's a bot that signs unsigned comments. Finally, any edits need consensus and removal of well sourced material is unwarranted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources don't actually say what the article says they say. This is fraud on wiki's readership. 50.100.29.3 (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Specific examples please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

First paragraph states " when president Viktor Yanukovych was evacuated to Crimea by Russian helicopters.[62][63]" first link is the home page for a 15-part video, second link is quotes from trailers for same video. Neither mentions helicopters at all. By some unverified accounts he left his residence in a helicopter leased to the Ukrainian Government for his use.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26315477 Calling this a Russian military operation in Ukraine" is fraudulent in the extreme. KoolerStill (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this should not be in the article, definitely not in the lead. It keeps getting removed then put back in, then removed again. But that's just ye ol' regular disruption that plagues this topic area - mostly anon ips putting in all kinds of nonsense - not any kind of systemic bias.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"Stealth invasion"

Just moved that term down in the lead. I don't object to the term's use and to it's inclusion in the lead, but it's a term used by Ukrainian and western military officials, should be attributed, and placed in the "reactions" section of the lead. -Darouet (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss here User:Iryna Harpy if you don't like my change, or feel that the wording I used, which copies that of the New York Times exactly, amounts to a "WP:WEASEL refactoring," as you so elegantly put it. Don't you think that omitting attribution might be more egregious than keeping it, in terms of WP:WEASEL? Also, why do you think that the "stealth invasion" term used by Ukrainian and Western military officials doesn't belong in the section of the lead describing responses of government officials? -Darouet (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I've just restored it as it was attributed in multiple RS at the end of the sentence. You didn't simply move it down to the bottom of the lead but refactored the content by the use of WP:WEASEL, WP:OR distinctions using 'Ukrainian and Western' as qualifiers. While I do consider 'stealth invasion' significant per WP:TITLE (after all, Russian military intervention is the subject of this article, is it not?), I don't necessarily deem the term essential to the opening of the lead, but I don't appreciate massaging inferences (i.e., WP:TROJANs) into the content.

I'm happy to collaborate on a genuinely neutral presentation of this content, but have a disdain for potentially setting up COATRACKS intended to POV push readers in either direction... and, like it or not, Anglophone mass-media still holds the prominent position in terms of English language Wikipedia RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Iryna Harpy - sorry, from the sources used, I only see that term in the NYTimes, and the Times attributes the term to Ukrainian and Western military officials (direct quote from the Times: "...in what Ukrainian and Western military officials are calling a stealth invasion.").

I know that editing is hot in these areas, so it's understandable that you and others (and me too, when I am here too long) might stop assuming good faith, but please check the reference before accusing me of "WP:WEASEL" or "WP:OR."

For my part, I'd appreciate just seeing a reference where the "stealth invasion" term isn't attributed to Ukrainian and Western military officials, and preferably a reference on par with the NYTimes. Unless I'm hugely misunderstanding the text of that source? Anything is possible! -Darouet (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to log off for the day, but will get back to this question first thing tomorrow. I'll be sure to verify the sources (i.e., that they aren't simply reflecting biased reiterations of the term emanating from one source in the first instance). There have certainly been spurious 'experts' and articles pushing UNDUE info based on bombastic and, frankly, disquieting opinion pieces that I've railed against on many of these articles on recent events in Ukraine. Apologies for lapsing into ignoring AGF. I'll do the right in reading through sources on a fresh head. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the version with your original edit moving the reference down to the end of the lead, Darouet. Yes, I'd definitely fallen into patented idiot trap No. 1 of having seen 'stealth invasion' in context here to the point of feeling convinced that it has been used in any given number of articles that don't exist. It's definitely UNDUE for the opening paragraph of the lead. Cheers for being vigilant and pulling me up on my error. It certainly doesn't need quotation marks. I might even be predisposed towards inline attribution if it weren't from NYT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Iryna Harpy - I really appreciate that - I would even say it makes me feel a little better about Wikipedia overall! I've been guilty of the same fault myself, at various times. Thanks for the correction and your work here. - Darouet (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we at least try not to be a mouthpiece for the western propaganda machine? LokiiT (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• The purpose of intro is to only summarize content of this page, and "stealth invasion" serves that purpose. There is no requirement for every statement in introduction be directly supported by in line citations, but only be consistent with body of the text. My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• I support the removal. The lead says "February", while the source uses the expression "stealth invasion" when talking about something that allegedly happened in August. And it's just one POV source. It's not like it's some widely accepted definition. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Those are arbitrary rules about the timing of the source when the page is about the entire event spanning from February to now. That sentence has been in the introduction for months now and there are many other links with the same. Tlsandy (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I can tell, trying to look more closely, it seems that the term first appears in early August when Russia sent its aid convoy into Eastern Ukraine. On 11 August, Andrew Kramer with the NYT reports that "Ukraine, the United States and European nations have repeatedly warned Russia against mounting a stealth invasion under the guise of humanitarian aid" [1].

On 12 August the term is used with attribution to Ukrainian/western authorities and the NYTimes by the CSMoniter [2] and RT [3]. On 12 August Newsweek uses the term without specific attribution, but not appearing to own the phrase either [4].

Later, the term is used with or without attribution.

It appears that the term originated with Ukrainian and western military officials, and I think it should be attributed. I also think it should appear in a section describing reactions: it may be a fact that Russian soldiers or military equipment have crossed from Russia into Eastern Ukraine, and that fact can be described plainly. The term "stealth invasion" however is more appropriate to commentary from Ukrainian and western military officials, and not to Wikipedia itself. -Darouet (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems the phrase is used even earlier - by FP at least - in April? -Darouet (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it only matters that the term was used in multiple WP:RS and properly summarizes events described on this page. Any better suggestions? Unconventional warfare? Was it used in publications in connection to these events? My very best wishes (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The term was used in FP in April in the context of "While a Russian invasion of Ukraine is far from certain, recent events in Ukraine mirror events in the lead up to the stealth invasion of Crimea." It was picked up from May by a number of op-ed pieces in the Financial Times (their FT View section), The Economist and other sources I wouldn't characterise as RS, but as conservative (that is, WP:BIASED) sources and written by 'conservative' journalists. The most balanced article, abstaining from heavily coloured, loaded language, using the term in May would be the "What Putin learned from the U.S. invasion of Iraq" (Al Jazeera). Even here, the notion of 'stealth invasion' is qualified as "There are even reports of stealth military operations by Russian forces within Ukraine." The article is certainly worth a read, and actually contextualises that what is essentially WP:RECENTISM (and we do need to be aware of the fact of no quality scholarly RS being available as yet) as being a component part of global economic power struggles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This is just a couple of words, an expression. It could be written even by any wikipedian - just to summarize content of page; we do it all the time and everywhere. There is no requirement to this to be established terminology. However, being an expression used in many publication makes it more reasonable to be used. Is it neutral? Yes. It simply tells that, yes, there was an invasion (as described on this page), but it was not recognized by Russia as invasion, apparently even in Crimea. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If it were to be used without RS, it wouldn't be considered just an expression any of us could employ as it falls under WP:WORDS and WP:SYNTH, particularly right at the top of the lead. Given that a broader search demonstrated that it has been used fairly consistently since the events of February to characterise various aspects of events in Ukraine, it isn't down to any of us to parse whether it was mimicry, loaded language, a couple of sources I don't consider to be RS (whereas the community does), or anything that could be objected to on a personal level. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

so far did not publicly demonstrated any real proof (only the words)=Stealth invasion. can you not be stupid and show something? at least photoshop .... max 1 photo, not it possible that + so difficult? 89.105.158.243 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's important to remember that reliable sources may sometimes be important sources of commentary or perspective, but are not necessarily "neutral." The term "stealth invasion" seems quite obviously partisan, and I have trouble imagining any source with no sympathies on either side of the conflict using it. For these reasons, and because the term is often invoked with attribution, I still maintain that the phrase should be used in the reactions section of the lead, not the first sentence. I can raise the issue at the POV noticeboard and if nobody there thinks it's an issue, I'll drop it. -Darouet (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, I'm extremely dubious about using it in the first paragraph of the lead due to its being a partisan descriptor. Please let me know if you take it to the POV noticeboard as I do consider it to be unnecessarily leading (if you'll pardon the pun) for the reader. Actually, on re-reading it, it is qualified as having being 'termed' a stealth invasion. Going on the fact that it is well substantiated by RS, I think the POV board would be a waste of time and energy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Iryna Harpy, you can see my post at the noticeboard here. I agree with your struck comments. It's true it should be qualified as having been "termed," but that's a reaction to the events and not a dispassionate description, which is why I am saying that the term shouldn't appear until the reactions section of the lead. -Darouet (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"seems quite obviously partisan". Said who? No, it's not. Is any other published term in RS that defines these events better? If not, this should stay. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I think that the article text without the epithet "stealth invasion" describes the situation perfectly: "In late February 2014, Russia began to send unmarked troops and military equipment into Ukraine, following the February 2014 Ukrainian revolution and Euromaidan movement, including the contentious ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych." The term stealth invasion is an editorial addendum that adds no knowledge of what's occurred, but casts judgment on events. Judgment is fine for people reacting to events, fine for readers who may respond in one way or another, but isn't necessary for the encyclopedia article. -Darouet (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I personally believe the term is perfectly normal. This is merely a statement of fact about the intervention or invasion that was not admitted by the side which committed intervention. But it does not matter what you or me think. It only matters what sources tell, and they tell exactly that. You did not answer my question: is any other (better) term in the literature to define these events? My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You claim it doesn't matter how you evaluate the term, only "what sources tell." Fine: on google I see that I return 56 million hits when I search using the terms Ukraine, Russia, conflict, 2014. That number drops to 7,000 when I include the term "stealth invasion," meaning that only 0.013% of pages describing the 2014 conflict between Ukraine and Russia use the phrase "stealth invasion," whereas 99.988% don't. When I do a similar search in major world newspapers with LexisNexis Academic, over 1000 results are returned without the term "stealth invasion" (the maximum possible for LexisNexis), while only 12 results are returned with the term "stealth invasion." That means that less than 1.2% of articles use the term, and probably far fewer, if searches didn't max out at 1000.

If you actually follow your own criteria, you should obviously remove the phrase from the initial description of the name, as it is obviously WP:FRINGE, not WP:COMMONNAME.

Furthermore, I did answer your question: I said that the "article text without the epithet 'stealth invasion' describes the situation perfectly." I therefore proposed that we use the simple description:

In late February 2014, Russia began to send unmarked troops and military equipment into Ukraine, following the February 2014 Ukrainian revolution and Euromaidan movement, including the contentious ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych.

This more accurately follows the literature available (99% or more) than the "stealth invasion" term used by western and Ukrainian military officials, and occasionally by some media, often with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The term is fine and is well substantiated by RS and gives a good description of the events. Tlsandy (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Yes, it's fine. This is simply an expression/wording used in a number of sources that are not "fringe". Therefore, it can be used in a wikipedia article. It nicely summarizes content of this page. As about WP:Common name, this is about titles of pages. Yes, creating something like page Stealth invasion would be questionable and required discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not fine: the phrase is used by a very small number (.01-1%) of sources, often with attribution to Ukrainian and western military officials. I can see from your posts above that you both like the phrase and agree with those officials, but the phrase is neither common nor neutral and should not be used until the reactions section of the lead. Again, this is not a question of whether any sources use the term, but rather if it should be used at the outset of the article. -Darouet (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Less than 0.0001% of sources uses word "protein". So what? My very best wishes (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I am speechless. -Darouet (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the point is that that is a completely inappropriate search by which to judge usage by. Anyway, if it's in the article, might as well link it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a linking question: we shouldn't be using this phrase in the first sentence of the article. -Darouet (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand how you reached that conclusion, when reliable sources commonly describe the invasion this way. If not sources, what else do you base your conclusion on? bobrayner (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Bob, since you haven't read my posts above, I can update you: less than 1% of relevant reliable sources describe what you call "the invasion" (Russian military activity in the Donbass) as a "stealth invasion", and when they do so, they often attribute the phrase. The phrase is an epithet used to describe this military activity, but a rare one, and belongs in the reactions section of the article, if in the lead at all. -Darouet (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This wording nicely summarizes content of the page and therefore should be in the first phrase. It was not me who included this. It was used in a number of RS. There is no requirement for any specific wording (and this is just a wording) be used in majority of sources. This is not a title of the page (WP:common name) or a claim. No, this is not epithet. My very best wishes (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The wording is a brief, highly partisan "summary," the perfect example of an "epithet," and used very, very rarely in any sources. The wording is also unnecessary because it takes a complicated situation - the intervention by Russia into a conflict involving historical and cultural antagonism, civil discord, and a disputed change of government - and attempts to summarize it from one minority perspective. Reading the first sentence without the "stealth invasion" term, what critical information will readers lack? Why do they need an editorial response, unless we're trying to influence their views from the very first sentence? -Darouet (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question (what readers will lack?), this wording provides more clear and concise summary of the page. May be something like hybrid warfare could also work, but this is something debatable. There is a consensus in sources that unconventional warfare has been implemented, and this wording is an easily understandable description of the situation.My very best wishes (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you find some sources using the term "unconventional warfare" (the term doesn't currently appear in the article), and put this into reactions, e.g., "some sources have described Russia's actions as a form of unconventional warfare." Right now, the term "hybrid warfare" appears in the article once, and it's a term used by the Ukrainian parliamentary chair. As to "clear and concise," the sentence without the "stealth invasion" editorial commentary is far clearer and more concise. -Darouet (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Title

Few reliable sources call it an "intervention". More reliable sources now use words like "Invasion". Isn't it time to use a more neutral, more common name? bobrayner (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Bobrayner that using the word "invasion" might be insulting to populations in Crimea or southeast Ukraine on whose behalf Russia has intervened. The term "invasion" would tend to declare their interests has inherently illegitimate and take a side in a conflict. While governments, media sources, or you yourself may choose sides, that's not necessary for an encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not a particular term "insults" - hypothetically since it's not like we can go out there and ask - somebody is not a Wikipedia relevant criteria. The only criteria that is relevant is what is the term that reliable sources use. That is what the discussion should be about. Present sources for or con.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources we consider reliable for facts nevertheless have editorial and political biases, as explained at WP:NEWSORG. Whenever a war breaks out, we can describe it here at wikipedia without tallying lists of which newspaper has taken which side. In other words, we can maintain encyclopedic neutrality, even if politicians, editorial boards, soldiers or individuals don't. -Darouet (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Populations in any country who disagree with their elected government have many options, including leaving their country in search of a different one. Inviting a neighboring country to "intervene" in a military invasion is not considered a legitimate action in the modern world. Wikipedia policy is not based on what some people find insulting. It's based on secondary reliable sources. USchick (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think that one of the main arguments for "intervention", aside from looking at reliable sources, is that it descriptively encompasses the totality of Russian actions in Ukraine, rather than just direct military actions. RGloucester — ☎ 23:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Such as? USchick (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Agressive moves, like federation provocateurs on ukrainian soil or federation troops spending their "holiday" in Ukraine, are just not covered by "invasion". Alexpl (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, is this a joke? How can "invasion" be a neutral title? It's anti-Russian. And it's not common either. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Pro" or "anti" is irrelevant. We go with sources. And it seems more RS call this "invasion". My very best wishes (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not "irrelevant" to an encyclopedia editor, it's "irrelevant" to a partisan. According to WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED, even reliable sources may have political biases, but wikipedia should not. -Darouet (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I am telling that personal bias of a contributor ("pro"/"anti") is irrelevant. What relevant is WP:Common name. The title can be biased or whatever (from a point of view of certain contributors), but it does not matter. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

*Back on topic with the question being posed: the fact that there have been quibbles over whether "termed stealth invasion" is appropriate for the opening paragraph fairly much characterises the use of 'invasion' in the title as being a non-starter. Intervention is apt, whereas invasion implies something of a different nature altogether (see 2003 invasion of Iraq). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it pro-Communist to call Germany's 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union an invasion? It is anti-American to call the Bay of Pigs Invasion an invasion? The military occupation of Crimea meets all logical criteria for being called an invasion. To use any other title is to capitulate to Russian propaganda and lies.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

At no point in time will Russia ever admit to invading Ukraine, just like almost no nation in modern history has ever admitted to invading another nation. Therefore, the views of Russian government sources are irrelevant. The labeling of the conflict by politicians should also be suspect as labeling a conflict as an invasion ultimately means the government has to respond, which is something that few nations are eager to do. The only thing we can go by is the definition of the word "invasion" and how independent news sources report the conflict. I am willing to have a discussion on that, but considering the above, I don't see how we can escape the use of the word invasion when there is overwhelming evidence that Russian troops are or were in Ukraine fighting the Ukrainian forces. Vysotsky2 (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Good points. I agree. bobrayner (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

These were bad points from what looks like a one-purpose account. Guess what was the title of the only article it ever edited.
By the way, there are many more countries in the world that don't think there has been any military intervention, let alone an invasion. The corresponding article has been deleted in some languages already. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes; I imagine many people in various countries have seen, and believe, RT's stories. However, we can choose from a wide variety of more reliable sources which are more honest about the invasion. Our article titles should, and will, be brought in line with reliable sources. bobrayner (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you really blame everything in the world on Russia Today? It must be a truly evil channel. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

In line with that thinking, the article on "2003 invasion of Iraq" should be renamed "2003 US instigated invasion of Iraq". There are numerous RS supporting that (particularly scholarly research), as well as DUE content that's been omitted demonstrating that blatant lies were used to strong-arm the UN, the fact of Tony Blair's speech (overwhelmingly applauded by Western sources as 'the truth') which European lawyers unsuccessfully petitioned in order that he be tried for crimes against humanity at The Hague (as the US was not a signatory and still only has an ersatz relationship to the body), etc. I'm not an advocate of conspiracy theories, but economic interests dictate self-censorship in Western sources differing little from state censorship. Publications deemed to be RS need to be treated with caution when we're dealing with subject matter which borders on violating RECENTISM and NOTNEWS: when even Pulitzer Prize winning journalists have screwed up badly, all journalistic sources need to be treated with extreme caution. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha, Iryna you might find me supporting you there at 2003 invasion of Iraq. -Darouet (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If anybody feels that pages on the Iraq war should be renamed, I'm sympathetic, but that should be discussed on talkpages of Iraq war articles; we shouldn't let it distract us from improving this article. Which should be renamed to reflect the fact that reliable sources prefer "invasion" over "intervention". bobrayner (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for any misunderstanding, Bobrayner. I have no intention of turning crusader for 'the truth' and trying to lead the global revolution through Wikipedia. I'm afraid that my dark sense of humour (and all 'round cynicism) doesn't translate well when it comes to talk pages. I'm not positing that we go investigatory journalistic with regards to articles because that would be the ideal manner out-Uncyclopedia "Uncyclopedia".

To repeat my earlier objections, RS would support the 'invasion' of Crimea, but most certainly not the entire chain of events covered by this article.

Incidentally, for other contributors engaged in editing the article without discussing changes here, please be aware of the fact that I'll be initiating some WP:BRD changes to the lead. It's developed into a weird battle of conflicting WP:WORDS such as "Despite the United States government accusing Russia of supplying the rebels with its military gear and infantry, Russia has distanced itself from such allegations ever since the beginning of the intervention, and has eventually kept denying them.": all of which adds up to not only unencyclopaedic attempts at editorialising, but a convoluted piece of WP:BOLLOCKS for the reader. It reads as exactly what it is: an impoverished attempt at WP:GEVAL without the reader being able to establish anything other than the fact that they're supposed to be barracking for someone, but not knowing who they're meant to barrack for. The "... and has eventually kept denying them." is just embarrassingly illiterate. Long sentence — short on information. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Invasion is a proper term for the incident. It is not discriminating nor specifically anti-Russian. It is a standard term for a military offensive. Just because it describes a military offensive, the word itself is not offensive, yet it does raises a brow for some users to get offended by it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Call it an invasion, already. It is ridiculous to think of this as anything else besides an invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vysotsky2 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Since this action was not recognized as an "invasion" by the UN, then no one has the right to call it so from the international law point of view let alone publishing the text online. Hence, this article should be deleted or edited in order to exclude all the propaganda used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.189.103.221 (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Great logic. So, considering that none of the 5 permanent members will ever admit to "invading" another country, we can now safely conclude with this reasoning that none of the 5 permanent members are capable of invading another country. Come on, man. Russia is going to veto any UN resolution that does, which is exactly what it has done in the past.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.186.221 (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

To continue this discussion I have a problem with NPOV and the title. I think the article should be renamed Russian intervention in Ukraine 2014-2015 because the military aspect is contested but obviously there is an intervention and will open a discussion on it when I figure out how or someone else could do so to save me the bother.Cathar66 (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

No. Discussed to death before, and the fact that "you have a problem" is your problem, not the article's.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You guys should name it more neutrally, like "2014–15 Russian military involvement in Ukraine's crisis" or so. "Intervention" sounds too offensive for encyclopedic tongue in application to real situation. Be more scientific, less emotional. 193.169.122.68 (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

How about "Russion invasion"? That was suggested at the top of this thread. Perhaps the discussion could start all over again. That would be fun. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be titled "Russian invasion of Ukraine". Russian troops have crossed the Ukranian border and are openly fighting the Ukranian military for Ukranian territory; crossing the border of a country to fight its military for its territory is called an invasion; therefore, what Russia has done in Ukraine should be called an invasion. Duxwing (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, I think Capitalismojo had his encyclopaedic tongue firmly implanted in his cheek. Yes, obviously regular editors on articles related to events in Ukraine over the last year and a half really, really love nothing better than going over the same energy sinkholes for lack of anything constructive to do. Incidentally, the IP who used this "encyclopedic tongue" argument should use google translate with care. "Язык" (tongue/language/etc.) does not translate into English in the manner you seem to imagine it to. We try to deal in facts, facts, facts. Thank you for your input, nevertheless. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I should agree, you need to be more careful with google translate, because "Язык" (tongue) DOES translate into English in the manner that I've used and I urge you to consult with Oxford dict, Longnan DOCE or any other competent source to rise up your skills. Now, I can mention your style of conversation, which is quite personal, harsh and non-scientific - not what encyclopedic discussion should looks like and not what I've expect from professional editor. If you able to talk more neutral, without remarks about my ip, origin and other nazi sarcasm, I think that "intervention" is when somebody trying to prevent something. Crimea annexation doesn't looks like "prevention", Donbass war doesn't looks like "prevention". Those are actions, we can't firmly understand and explain - were are preventions, reactions or thoroughly preplanned aggression. Let's not speculate on this, we have only opinions, not facts. I guess you will insist on fact of russian intervention in Crimea, but obviously, it's more than just an intervention and should be expressed in a separate article. And my last argument on using "an involvement" - not only russian troops seems presented on Ukraine's soil. Should we speak about NATO intervention in Ukraine? I don't think so, but frankly we can't ignore NATO involvement and supplies of weapons from some EU countries. Why do you call russians supplies and actions an intervention, but EU supplies and actions - nohow? Most of the world is involved in, but you stress only russian invasion. Sure, you are in your rights to have a personal attitude, but encyclopedia is not the place for stressing opinions, it's supposed to be objective, so be objective - call it an involvement or a participation or somehow alike. Thank you for your attention and pardon me for my poor English. 193.169.122.68 (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No, what _really_ is first of all is WP:NPA: 'Comment on content, not on the contributor'. And it is _specifically_ unacceptable to compare an editor to Nazis. Lklundin (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that Russia has been running a large scale and successful propaganda campaign. That includes infiltrating Wikipedia. The New York Times recently ran an article on this. Russia invaded Crimea, there is no other word for what happened. It is not relevant whether the people of Crimea supported or opposed it (in fact polls show the majority opposed the invasion - even Russian sources conceded that the referendum results were false). I would suggest that the only honest title for this article is "2014 Russian Invasion of Crimea". If neo-Nazis infiltrated Wikipedia and argued that the people of Europe did not support the D-Day landings, would we start referring to the 1944 invasion as a military intervention? I think not. What is different about the 2014 invasion of Crimea? There does appear to be majority support for the term invasion being used of the 2014 events. Does Russia have a veto in Wikipedia, or should the title now be changed?Royalcourtier (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Center for Eurasian Strategic Intelligence is a scam

http://www.bne.eu/content/story/baltic-blog-think-tank-out-thought

Please remove their references and all content derived from them (which is actually quite extensive). Twistedtc (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The linked Shekhovtsov blog post is pretty humorous. It seems however that our article cites the "think tank" only once? -Darouet (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, only the once. It also conforms to WP:BIASED in using INLINE attribution. The only question, therefore, would be whether it's been given undue weight. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, you have to check to eliminate media articles, and it would appear that claims made by CESI are being spread far and rapidly. Anyone can make a think tank once they come up with an official-sounding name. Twistedtc (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. If you have doubts as to CESI being a reliable source, you should post a query on the Reliable source noticeboard pointing out where it is being used and why it is WP:UNDUE in the context it's used in in this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is becoming increasingly editorial, so I'm going to try and clean it up. If people want me to explain my reasoning for specific changes in more detail I can do so here. Also, I am unsure about the convention of inline situations. Is there a reason the Daily Beast and Associated Press are explicitly stated in the second to last paragraph? 2001:44B8:258:B300:609D:6827:8210:3EF9 (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Didn't realise I wasn't logged in. Anyway, I just did a bit of a clean up. I removed a lot of editorial bits (although there are still lots of other editorials bits in there) and tried to reduce long sentences to make it easier to read. There are a few sentences that look out of place once all the editorial parts are removed and need to be put in context in a non editorial fashion. (e.g. M.A. Flight 17) Hollth (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I've hidden two sentences because they were clearly editorial, but I didm't want to delete any sources/information that might have been in them. Thoughts on the following two sentences? The first one didm't seem like it had anything in it that wasn't already in the lead. The second didn't belong because it was a quote and the purpose of it (evidence that Russia is active in Ukraine) is again already dealt with in the lede.

1) In the aftermath of heavy defeat of Ukrainian forces in early September, it was evident Russia had sent soldiers and armour across the border, with locals acknowledging the role of Putin and Russian soldiers in effecting a reversal of fortunes, causing Ukrainian offensive to be stifled.

2) "Separatists have always insisted they are armed with equipment captured from Ukrainian forces, but the sheer scale and quality of their armaments have strained the credibility of that claim."

Hollth (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

References

when a channel 4 report , that is a RS - report- reports something, and when locals say something , then that is RS material that can be used at wp , no? - Now you know the TRUTH, you know that it is nothing but the worst sort of propaganda that Russian soldiers and armour are or ever were in eastern Ukraine, and you despise the views of experienced journalists and those who actually bleedin well live there - because you have the TRUTH , but wp is about RS and not the TRUTH. - for the truth as you must know one reads globalresearch, one watches Ruptly and RT - but this is a place where RS propaganda should have a chance to breathe imo. and not get trolled and spa-ed to death- also you seemed to bugger up the bit about the demos near the top of the lead , saying it was euromaidan demos in donbass or something ? - are you trying to create nonsense - bloody nihilists - heres a youtube video about the chaotic news peddlers, I guess yu are a tremor of that movement kind of thing chaotic news -Sayerslle (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that rant has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Those sentences add nothing that is a) not already in the lede and b) are not encyclopaedic. This has nothing to do with truth or RS. There has been even more editorial stuff introduced into the lede that I will be removing. You are correct I did mess up the link with the demonstrations. I should have linked that to pro-Russian unrest. 2001:44B8:258:B300:7574:3623:C5E7:5D64 (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the wp:idontlikeit reverts. The changes I am putting in are backed up by policy. I will be removing wp:words and un-encyclopaedic phrases . I will be hiding the sentence again until you can justify what new, summarising information it contains, as per wp:lede and until it can be made encyclopaedic in tone. Hollth (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

its admirable - you know all the rules - with you 20 odd edits but you know all the bleedin rules - you keep hiding the most important events of august September last year sems to me - pov/spa warriors - ffs. Sayerslle (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In its current form it is not appropriate in tone and does not summarise the contents of this particular page. Ilovaisk is a specific example, i.e. not summarising. The paragraph preceding that sentence already discusses Russians being active in Ukraine, thus, that part is redundant. This page does not discuss a reversal of fortunes, nor a defeat of Ukrainian forces in September. So, again, these are not summarising this page. That sentence does not meet the criteria to be included in the lead.

so you take out the Battle of Midway from the lead to the WW2 article kind of thing? a specific example, so not summarizing? - sounds like complete drivel to me.you obviously got a relentless desire to make the lead anodyne - why not show exactly what you think is ideal for a lead at that article, then if that is praised, -well, it'll show you really know how to write leads Sayerslle (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comparing an article that has a huge amount of scholarly articles about its subject and one that has none. Secondly the way in which they are in the lead is completely different. It is not 'Battle of Midway where x,y,z happened'. It is merely linked to its own page. Considering there is only one or two sentences regarding the event in the body of the article, no it is not summarising. It isn't in the summary of the War in Donbass either and, unless I'm mistaken, we are only summarising that summary.Hollth (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

So - every article is different you're saying , right. yes. you are mistaken imo that it is summarising that summary at war in Donbass. this is about what the article title says it is about and is not summarizing any other article leads in its lead. this article focuses only on the foreign policy of putin/lavrov regime and Russian soldiers and Russian intervention and influence and military hardware nato sees increase of Russian tanks artillery advanced air defence systems in Ukraine 2014-15 - that article has a wider concern I guess. the RS are united in asserting the importance of Russian actions august 2014 -( and are seeing a similar situation now) (#mariupol under attack - 'how will rt_com spin this then, protection for the residents they themselves are shelling' -[5])- if there is not much in the main body of the article that needs to be addressed - it may have been there and removed by putinist pov accounts - the place is swarming with them dontcha know. and their sole raison d'etre is to make articles pro-Putin -or else Dog in the Manger, just trash it up , and make the article impossible to read coherently -(You are correct I did mess up the link with the demonstrations)-(yeah, right) you look at their content contribution and its usually like 40 edits -all on one or two articles. that's how it is im afraid. Sayerslle (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new information to the body, not the lead. The lead should not have information that is not contained in the body. Hollth (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

yu took out the 'Nazi coup' bit - for today anyhow, - thats what this article will be in time - re-named 'Nazi coup and Ukrainian Nazi war on crimea and donbass 2014-2015 ' - ffs. mindless.Sayerslle (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Try to avoid using subjective and ambiguous terms. Phrases like 'one of the first' 'dozens of' are vague and ought to be avoided. Additionally, 'awkward questions' is not neutral, 'questions' is neutral. For that reason I'm reverting one edit to not include the non neutral 'awkward questions'. (I'm leaving the edit further in the body because that has some positives as well.) I'm also removing the lorries being painted white because it is not in the source and the source references the wrong event. I have no qualms with that being included in the lead provided it is correctly sourced. Hollth (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link that backs up the August events that you added to the lead. Feel free to add it again if you wish. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/14/russian-military-vehicles-enter-ukraine-aid-convoy-stops-short-border Hollth (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

yu could change the ref yourself rather than leave it reading so oddly, but, whatever, - as for 'awkward' I'll listen again but i'm pretty sure they were described as such in RS - you are confusing an idea of 'neutral' with tearing away at reliable sources so that they slur over things - that is , in effect, yu introduce a bias of your own - - sometimes it is reported in RS that certain questions are 'awkward' and if they are not 'awkward questions' on Wikipedia , you are writing your own history to suit yur own pov. (I do know the point you are making - when I first edited wp I used to write 'the actress is best known for her sensitive portrayal of' etc and 'sensitive' would get removed , and you are making the same kind of point here - but I think you are wrong in this case - awkward is not my 'subjective' term at all - its in the source. remember putin joked about how uniforms etc could be bought anywhere - but later, it turned out, yes, they were Russian special forces or whatever - so you see, those questions were awkward at that time and yes they are so described in RS, not in my subjectivity. Sayerslle (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Russian intervention in Ukraine

There are no Russian invading forces in Ukraine. However there are a limited numbers of Russian troops in Crimea since 1997 after the Ukraine-Russian Treaty. Some of the rebels are ethnic russian but they're Ukrainian. There are no proof of Russian soliders fighting in Ukraine. USA will of course accuse Russia of that, but the entire world remember how the secretary of state of USA Colin Powell were waving around "evidence" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, like the ones they have. And then after murdering millions and displacing even more, it appeared to be no WMD, and the American "evidence" were false. Sherzad (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

heres a youtube video the world according to Russia today - and the Volnovakha bus was grad rockets from kiev, and ghouta sarin attacks was Al Qaeda?israelis/cia/Saudis/anybodybutassadregime, and blah blah --sharmine narwanifacts , blah blah paula slier facts blah blah etc my brain hurts - Sayerslle (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This page isn't for discussing opinions. Please keep on to the topic of the article improvement. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

from ukraineatwar , know your Russian generals in Ukraine article Russian strela in bryanka 'Bryanka is a small town in Lugansk Region located 56 km from Lugansk. The town is currently under control of regular Russian Army units. This “Strela-10″ in the photo is going to its base located on the territory of Bryanka Drilling Equipment Plant'[6]Sayerslle (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You're going to get blocked. Don't push your luck. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

its my understanding any and every editor can be blocked, at various times, for various reasons. [7] Sayerslle (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That is funny. "There is no Russians invading Ukraine, but there are Russians invading Ukraine." Whoever started the section has no idea what he or she is talking about. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC) 176.14.228.185 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC) "Please remember that editing of English Wikipedia must be conducted from a neutral point of view"? Is this serious? For references on that see the "beligerants" and the very title of this article. While there are NO concrete evidences, you still keep it for propaganda purposes. Yes, no idea on what you are talking about. What's next? "Pol Pot's contribution to mankind"? That redirects from "Khmer Rouge's humanitarian policy"? I would be more than happy to be blocked from this rubbish; the fact that this page hasn't been deleted is the only evidence provided here.

wp articles use RS, like this one bbc news - its belligerent s, with an e - twitter latest -RUSSIAN ARMY #Pantsir-S1PANTSIR-S1 / SA-22 #GREYHOUND SEEN IN #SHAKHTARSK,UKRAINE.photo/1

Sayerslle (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Chief of the General Staff – Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine – Viktor Muzhenko said “the Ukrainian army is not engaged in combat operations against Russian units.” Well thats what RT says here [8]. To be honest I do not expect anyone to accept RT as an unbiased source. However, is it possible to verify this statement. Surely if it is a matter of fact that he said this it should be in this article. Perhaps I am entirely wrong about the purpose of the talk page, but it seems to me that this item is suitable for this discussion regarding the appropriate source material for the article. Please correct me if I am wrong. And certainly if the reference is bogus then it would be best for everyone to clear that matter up.

Okay, it's an abuse. I absolutely protest - the name of the article clearly makes guilty only one side, while the real reason is the Ukrainian forces, not Russian ones. Wikipedia must remain neutral until one side is found guilty. Ukrainians are brainwashing the whole western media about so-called Russian Invasion, while really it's a different story. 176.193.238.138 (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You assert that someone is guilty in this conflict - and that this is not Russia, but rather Ukrainian forces. Would you like to improve the article by pointing to a reliable source that explains how Ukrainan forces are guilty of their own country being the subject of a military intervention from Russia? Lklundin (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Occupation vs. blockade

I did my research regarding RSs and none states that the Russian forces have "occupied" Crimean bases, except for cases when Ukrainian sources insisted on "hostile takeovers" of their bases. Ukrainian sources aren't NPOV and we all know that. So the correct word to use would be "blockaded", because this is what the Ukrainian soldiers did to the Black Sea Fleet access via Simferopol when Russian forces have advanced further. Ukrainian generals were allowed to walk, talk and make cellphone calls during the blockade, but weren't allowed to leave the bases. Watch YT videos and you'll see these statements to be factual. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

'Occupation' is far more neutral than the other options available: see New York Times, Fox news. What, exactly, does 'blockade' mean in this context? The the Ukrainian troops were descended upon by 30,000 Russian troops and 'blockaded' from leaving until they were evicted? Sorry, it doesn't even make senses. Please explain how blockade trumps occupation where RS did report tense standoffs and incidents before the press became a buffer between both sides, and shooting incidents even after Ukrainian forces laid down their weapons applies. You're looking at footage after the initial occupation. The limited footage you see on YT is exactly that. Does it cover the entire swoop and every incident? If it truly did, we might have some answers for the 2014 Simferopol incident article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Russian troops blockaded Ukrainian military bases overnight, only incapacitating the guarding personnel. When the reinforcements came in by the morning, they were refused entry to their own bases. In my world, we're talking about "blockade" rather than "occupation". But, just as in the case with "forcible" (i.e. being produced by "using force"), one can play on the words and resort to calling a blockage an occupation, but I'm still implying the former term to be less offensive and more precise. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Breach of Neutrality

There isn't any proof that Kremlin slienced Human Rights workers only NATO spies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.11.177 (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

source? there isn't any proof according to putinists about anything bad the Russian regime ever done ever is there really lets face it? ever so cuddly int he putin? and when there is proof of assad regime crimes, torture [9], etc, lavrov and co just say 'call that proof?' - all a bit pointless dealing with that regime mentality. anyhow notforum- it needs reliable sources to back up what you say. meanwhile Russian marines Russian tv at Donetsk airport Sayerslle (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. This article is Western propaganda, ridden with Ukrainian-based sources. Was that what you wanted to hear? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• https://twitter.com ??????? hahhaah!!!!!

maybe if I make a picture of a hamburger from McDonald's on Red Square in Moscow ........... it would mean that the US seize the Kremlin ??????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calo yronili (talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

archieve to this Talk-Page not linked

it's probaly because this article was renamed "2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine" from "2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine", nevertheless, could the archives to this talk-page please be relinked to this talk page? Thank you. --87.123.60.101 (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester has requested administrative help in getting all the archives and other subpages put where they belong. Right now, I've found thirteen pages that need to be moved:

1. Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 1
2. Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 2
3. Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 3
4. Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 4
5. Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 5
6. Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 6
7. Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 7
8. Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 8
9. Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 9
10. Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 10
11. Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 11
12. Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 12
13. Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Sandbox

Am I missing anything, and/or is there a good reason to leave any of these at their current locations? Note that Talk:Russian invasion of Crimea, Talk:Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014), and Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) all exist, although I didn't see any archives for them. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

breakdown of prison system

I deleted recent edits that added information on prisons because it seemed to me too far off topic but perhaps it does belong , maybe in a section taking in 'Consequences of Russian military intervention' or something. not sure. Sayerslle (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is valid info and seem to be sourced [10], but it probably belongs to another page, possibly to 2013–15 Ukrainian crisis. My very best wishes (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If it is valid, it probably would have to be a stand alone page. RGloucester — ☎ 01:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidence needed that Russia controls the separatists

If we are to have the separatists as bullet points under Russia in the infobox, there need to be citations proving that Russia controls the separatists, rather than aids and influences them. Otherwise, it is highly misleading to paint Russia as controlling the separatists, if this is not the case. It's like suggesting that Iraqi Kurdistan is part of the United States, because the U.S. aids them. DylanLacey (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand what your intent is here, but the scope of the article is that of overt action (as regards Crimea) and covert support (the extent of which is unknown, but has been identified as existing in spades) for the pro-Russian separatists. What is needed for the infobox is a method of disambiguating the overt military intervention from the covert intervention in Donbass in the most succinct way possible, not by obfuscating any relationship between the continuing pro-Russian separatist warfare and the RF government in the manner suggested by your bold edit. Following BRD, we should be able to find a solution befitting the WP:TITLE of the article and the RS on which it is based. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a 'Supported by Russia' label on the DPR and LPR? Expressing that Russia intervened in the East in support of the separatists?

Russia

• Republic of Crimea

Supported by Russia
Donetsk People's Republic
Lugansk People's Republic DylanLacey (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with version by Iryna, but I think that Crimea should probably be excluded. Yes, it was annexed by Russia, but it did not take any part (as a territorial entity) in the ongoing war. My very best wishes (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Iryna's version. There is no need to make this more complicated than it needs to be. I do think that Crimea should be included.

Perhaps something like this:
Russia
In Crimea:
Republic of Crimea
In Donbass:
Donetsk People's Republic
Lugansk People's Republic

How's that look? RGloucester — ☎ 05:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

DylanLacey's suggestion is workable, but I think RGloucester's version is more in keeping with the WP:KISS principle without looking too pointy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:as usual, User:RGloucester has done a good job and I find his version to be a very appropriate solution. Azx2 07:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Illarionov

1. There are, like, 50 "advisers" now, it's not too important of a post. 2. He was an adviser in economy, not politics or military operations. 3. He was an "adviser" 10 years ago. 4. It's too obvious that everything he says is just speculations. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine conflict vehicle tracking Source refers to the twitter, it is unacceptable.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/2015/02/03/ukraine-conflict-vehicle-tracking-launch/ Source refers to the twitter, it is unacceptable the whole world will laugh at the new chemical weapons by Iraq. Everyone hates the US you can not taking any photos, write next to about that that supposedly is Ukraine + and you everything believe = you have everyone hates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calo yronili (talk • contribs) 06:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC) What matters is whether the source is reliable. Twitter is the primary source here. This is a secondary source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC) The volunteer Marek I have seen the photo to twitter you want to kill Michelle Obama) you are arrest (a joke) + (but you believe in twitter is still much?) where there is a wiki rules on to Twitter Full reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.80.18 (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Donbass section

This section is very messy and needs to be restructured in some way. Currently there is a lot of overlap and redundancies between the subheadings. The most pragmatic way would be to form a timeline and remove all the other subheadings. Any objections to restructuring in that manner? Hollth (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

We already have timeline articles used specifically for that purpose. Yes, agreed that it needs to be better organised, but not in timeline format. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I share your concerns, however, given the events are ongoing I would still argue the most pragmatic method of organising would be chronological. If you have any other suggestions how to organise it I can try to direct it towards that? Hollth (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, the whole article is groaning under its own weight in terms of size, so we'll probably need to think about splitting some of it off with the way things are headed. I think the Allegations of Russian involvement is the largest of the sprawling sections at this point in time, so, yes, as no one else has commented on preferences (or objections) at the moment, I can see it as being useful to set the section up chronologically, so long as it isn't presented in bulleted list form. It would probably benefit by being broken up into sections following the chronology of allegations coinciding with incidents throughout the war. Go ahead. If anyone has objections, you'll find out soon enough. The fact that this section has been here for a few days already demonstrates an initial attempt at discussion so, per WP:BRD, no one can say that you just plunged in boldly. Good luck in sorting through it! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm putting everything in crude month based headings for the time being, but I'll move it towards event based headings for the near future. Hollth (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Allegations of Russian involvement section

I believe this now has grown to such a size, and is such a "stream of consciousness" that we should really split it into subsections, or even better, make a separate article on it, where all the currently listed evidence could be described in details. I can do a first draft of the new article but wanted to get the community consensus and suggestions on this idea? Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

As per the above section of the talk page, I'm going to change the entire Donbass section to be chronological which will result in 'allegations of Russian involvement' being removed as a heading (after al, the entire Donbass section is essentially allegations of Russian involvement). Personally I wouldn't want to see a new page of Russian involvement because I think that is pretty much what this page is supposed to be. So in my opinion, I would say we shouldn't make it a new article out of that section. Hollth (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that I'd be comfortable about having a dedicated article, but I haven't chewed over the pros and cons enough as yet. I really don't see how we're justified in trying to contain all of the information in an oversized article, but there are no clear-cut subsections to be developed as separate articles. Going on size of subsections alone isn't necessarily the best selection criterion. I'd be happy to hear from other editors as to their evaluation of where potential splits are warranted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The article needs a great deal of cleanup, and the lede is especially unclear and overly a stream of consciousness too. The "Allegations of Russian involvement" section contains too much of the historical debate when the Russian involvement might have been legitimately contested with a straight face, and too little of a good section introduction that would summarize the whole "they said"/"the other said" problem, the back and forth debate over nn months, and the current situation where there is incontrovertible and internationally-recognized evidence of direct Russian military intervention in Ukraine, beyond the initial Crimean project. It is time to copyedit both this section, and the lede, in order to get this Wikipedia article improved to a higher level. N2e (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly my point - it's complete mix, both in terms of time and topics. I will try to do some fixes then and let's see how it works. The idea of having a separate article was motivated purely by technical convenience, but the point that it's actually the right article to discuss this topic is valid. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Novaya Gazeta story

According to the only independent Russian newspaper, Novaya Gazeta, Putin approved the invasion of Crimea and a plan to break up Ukraine by fomenting unrest in the Donbass in Feb of last year, before Yanukovych fell from power. Source [11]. This should definitely be added (and not just to this article).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems like extreme fringe conspiracy theory and should be treated as such. Also "only independent Russian newspaper"? What does it mean.Is it the Russian version of National Enquirer? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"Seems like extreme fringe conspiracy theory..." = "I just don't like what this reliable source is saying so I'm gonna call it names!". Novaya Gazeta is not "Russian version of National Enquirer" (on the other hand, NE is probably hella more reliable than RT), it's a reliable and respected source. I'm pretty sure you know that. Please make constructive comments or stop wasting talk page space.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Didn't you advocate disregarding Russian sources as unreliable? Are you know claiming they are reliable? Sorry, but stating that National Enquirer is more reliable than Russian state news agency and that Putin has been plotted for years to annex Ukraine doesn't seem too convincing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Never advocated that. Show me the diff or strike the statement. Novaya Gazeta is reliable. If you don't know what Novaya Gazeta is - and your comparison of it to National Enquirer suggests either profound ignorance and lack of background competence in this subject, or intentional misrepresentation, take your pick - then you shouldn't be editing this topic area. And I'm not going to argue about whether RT TV is more reliable than the National Enquirer. Let's just call it a close tie (NE writes mostly about stupid crap but they tend to fact check their info, RT writes about important crap, but they make stuff up and are in business of purposeful disinformation). And your statement that something "doesn't seem too convincing" is just personal OR which contradicts what a reliable source says. That's your problem, not the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh and while we're on the subject of reversing one self and holding mutually contradictory opinions when it comes to reliable sources. Remember when you argued that Gazeta Wyborcza was a reliable source and told me to take it up at WP:RSN, when they wrote something you liked? Then a few days later you turned around and argued that the same source was not reliable because it was "pro-Ukrainian", when they wrote something you didn't like? Diffs can be provided. I think you're projecting your own foibles onto others. Just because you do this kind of thing, doesn't mean other editors do the same.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You've been following the RSN and a multitude of consensus discussions for the duration of the crisis in Ukraine, therefore you are fully aware of which state-owned and yellow press news outlets are deemed to be unreliable, and that there is no blanket 'all Russian outlets are unreliable' position. You've also been asked time and time again to stop using all of the related article talk pages for your POINTy advocacy. Enough. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, several editors including myself have been to ANI with VM where the discussions revolve about cherry picking sources to advance a POV. It's not clear in this case what the proposed changes are and why this particular source is so important. If this is a real development, it will be reported by other sources, not just this one. USchick (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes and the only thing that has happened was that some of these "several editors" got BOOMERANG blocked and you yourself have been repeatedly warned about making false accusations, some of which were extremely offensive and untrue. So actually, you're mostly lying again. The discussions at ANI did NOT "revolve about cherry picking sources to advance a POV". Maybe that's what you wanted these discussions to be about, but they always turned into discussions of disruptive behavior by yourself or others. Need I bring up the examples again? Like the time you falsely and maliciously accused another editor of racism? Then retracted when threatened with a block, then made the accusation again as soon as no admins were looking? Or how about the time where you - and this was a disgusting piece of work there USchick and I'm not going to let you forget it - accused me of threatening an admin's children?

And anyway, this is a reliable sources. You got a problem with it, go to RSN. And yes, there are other sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there a proposed change to this article? Or is this a personal attack? USchick (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a response to your personal attack and renewed provocation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This is an article talk page. Personal uncontrolled outbursts are inappropriate. USchick (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you nicely. Please stop making provocations. Don't accuse me of stuff which isn't true. Don't refer to my responses to your false accusations as "personal attacks". Don't refer to my comments as "uncontrolled outbursts". Don't lecture me on the purpose of the talk page, when you are the one who hijacked this thread with off topic stuff about ANI and your own personal axe-grinding. Then I won't have to bring up all the nasty things you've done to others. Deal? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks USchick (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, is there a proposed change to this article? USchick (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The actual source is not Novaya Gazeta, but another RS, however even Novaya Gazeta itself certainly qualifies as RS. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In case one of you appreciates the opinion of somebody not involved in these personal feuds, I think that Marek could be on to something (whether that 'something' may be "true" is an altogether different issue), but he should write about it on some personal page, in his own name. Here on wikipedia, a reference to a single source (reliable or not) does not justify a section (and in my opinion, other newspapers writing about this newspaper article are not really worth mentioning either). Marek tries his best to prove that Novaja Gazeta is reliable, which is not wrong, but it makes his contributions to the actual wikipedia article seem like 'own research' or whatever wikipedia calls it. Again, explore the topic, Marek, but I think that wikipedia should not be some kind of news website or blog (or an academic journal in itself). So, Marek, I am not trying to destroy you, but you have to realize that you are behaving like an independent researcher and you should ask yourself whether wikipedia is the best forum for your ideas. 77.175.64.145 (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made some edits to the paragraph in question, described and justified over here. RGloucester, Iryna Harpy and Kudzu1 support the changes. Esn (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount, your accusation of Novaya Gazeta in pulp fiction only shows your understanding in politics of today's Russia. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

This article is under discretionary sanctions. This edit [12] has been made in an attempted edit war. It was reinstated against consensus. One source does not make something newswothry. USchick (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No, this edit undid your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removal of well sourced text. The edit that has been made in an attempted edit war is your baseless removal of well sourced text. I still have no idea what WP:NOTNEWS has to do with any of this. It seems you're just trying to throw around random acronyms and irrelevant policies to bully through your POV. Likewise the claim that "one source does not make something newsworthy" is... well, either you didn't actually bother to look at what you were reverting (there's two sources there), or it's just more obfuscation. There are actually more sources out there about this, it's just I'm not a believer in putting in [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]...[104343533] citations after a piece of text. One or two solid sources - which is what we have here, are sufficient. The info has nothing to prove, it is what it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources used all refer to the same ONE source. I have not addressed anyone in particular and I don't appreciate the personal attack against me. USchick (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well of course they refer to the same one source because it is the source that obtained the documents. This is like saying that we shouldn't have an article on Snowden because all sources "refer to one source" (Snowden). And there were no personal attacks. Stop it. Making baseless accusations of personal attacks is itself a personal attack. Read WP:NPA. Here it is: " Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. " Which you've done repeatedly. Still unclear on how you managed to drag WP:NOTNEWS into this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is an unverified claim reported by one source that may be considered reliable, that hardly qualifies as "news". However, the edit war is real and needs to be considered under sanctions. USchick (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not one source. It's multiple sources. Is it "news"? I have no idea what you're going on about. If the edit war is real, then don't start it (a single revert of a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT pov edit is not an "edit war" and has nothing to do with discretionary sanctions. Removing well sourced text for POV reasons, as well as harassing other users as you are doing however does fall under DS).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is tendentious time-wasting in the extreme. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." USchick (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're missing Kudzu1's point. Kudzu1, feel free to correct me, but it looks like your comment about tendentious time wasting is referring to USchick's little games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The existence of a plan to take over the Crimea and other parts of the Ukraine (it was created years ago) was discussed/described in a large number of publications; this is nothing exceptional. However, according to these newer publications, editor in chef of Novaya Gazeta Dmitry Muratov has a copy of an actual (still unpublished) document describing this plan in all detail (see here, for example) and he said about some details in his interview at Echo of Moscow. This all was published in multiple RS. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If it was discussed in other RS, please provide them. This is a conspiracy theory and needs to be sourced according to policy. USchick (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

As already noted - and your response to me pointing this out was only some personal attacks and false accusations - there is more than one source for this. That this is a "conspiracy theory" is your own original research. The reliable sources reporting on this do NOT in anyway, anywhere, in no sense, not at all, refer to this as "conspiracy theory". So please keep your own opinions to yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's not a conspiracy why is it a secret? The invasion already happened, if they planned it in advance, that would make it a conspiracy. USchick (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

We're not interested in your original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Putin had several "contingency plans" about Ukraine, starting from 2003, according to his own former economic adviser [13]. Speaking about conspiracies, yes, one could certainly classify this war as a crime against peace by Russia, but this must be sourced.My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Who is "we"? I am challenging this edit and I'm asking for additional sources. USchick (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The non-disruptive, non-tendentious, editors of Wikipedia. There's already three sources there, and since the main one is a major press agency, this has also been picked up by numerous other outlets, which are trivial to find.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's trivial, please find reliable sources and include them. USchick (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources have been found and are already included. Please read the actual article rather than making empty statements that don't make any sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

USchick, you're wasting everyone's time here. Please do what you know it's up to you to do: go through all of the talk on this article, articles that have been merged and split to form this article, plus the multitude of articles surrounding the crisis in Ukraine. All of the numerous editors involved in this article are well aware of the sources as they've been picked over, analysed, edit warred over and, most importantly, discussed thoroughly over the many, many months they've evolved over. Asking that we go over them from the beginning because you demand it is POINTy. Do your homework, then come back if you have a genuine problem with the content. No one is under any obligation to indulge you if you haven't kept up. There is page consensus regarding the content of the article based on RS. It doesn't cease to be based on RS just because you want a précis. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the consensus, thank you. I'm not asking for clarification, I'm challenging the edit. A conspiracy theory backed by news reports from one questionable source is not consistent with policy for RS. I have asked for additional opinions at the RS Notice board. USchick (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy theory. None of the sources call it that. It is not "one source", it's three sources (plus more can be easily found). It's not a "questionable source", it's a highly respected reliable source. Please stop misrepresenting the nature of the sources. Basically all you got here is your own WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you're making stuff up to push it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

All of the sources so far are based on one questionable source that hasn't been confirmed. Even that source only claims to have only a report, that no one has seen, and they have no idea where it came from, and they may or may not publish it later. Maybe. USchick (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion and original research. Unfortunately at this time Wikipedia is not based on individual editor's opinions and original research but on verifiable information in reliable secondary sources. If, at some point in the future, Wikipedia chooses to alter its policies and stop being an encyclopedia, it might wish to have your input in regards to this issue. For the time being, while we appreciate your desire to contribute, your suggestions are not constructive and are not in spirit of our policies. Thank you and best of luck in making your personal opinions known in other online forums.

Or, as Iryna points out above no one is under any obligation to indulge you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I see, it's nonsensical to discuss here, you've all already made your POV-conclusions as per "consensus". This is a waste of time, I'll leave now. Bye --87.63.114.210 (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

RS Notice Board result from uninvolved editors Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Questionable sources, asking for opinion. Please fix it. Thanks. USchick (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

1. That's not a consensus. 2. Only one of those editors is even quasi-uninvolved, and the opinion given was basically inconclusive. 3. This high bar per WP:CONSPIRACY seems to be something you have decided to apply with no basis for doing so. Russia having territorial ambitions isn't exactly Mossad doing 9/11 or the Apollo 11 landing being filmed on a Hollywood sound stage, as WP:FRINGE theories go. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

What makes it inconclusive? USchick (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

New comments approve the sources. USchick (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Kudzu1: this is waste of time. Next time, when someone starts an entirely inappropriate thread about "discretionary sanctions" or behavior by other users on article talk pages (instead of rising such questions on appropriate administrative noticeboards), I suggest that everyone should ignore it and do not respond. My very best wishes (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I've retained my google alert search strings and haven't seen any more on this subject since the first couple of days when the alleged memo was reported (in the Anglophone press, at least). Is anyone else aware of any follow-ups as to the veracity of the memo? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the memo was published and widely covered in everything from the New York Times to CBS news, the Telegraph, Irish Times etc. Basically every major media outlet. Outlets like RT have kept mum about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Putin Himself has admitted to it. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31796226 The memo is just frosting on the cake. There is unlikely to be another primary source for the memo.Hilltrot (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit war against User 109.152.156.43

This editor has provided explanations for their edits. Their edits have been repeatedly reverted with no explanation in a brand new edit war. Would anyone like to address it? USchick (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This is, again, a waste of time. The changes were tendentious, poorly sourced, and unconstructive, and they were undone properly under the WP:BRD principle. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

And then editors ganged up in an edit war. May I remind people that this article is under sanctions. The editor explained their edits. There has been no discussion since then, only unexplained reverts.USchick (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor introducing the change to seek and obtain consensus. Unfortunately for him, he was blocked due to sockpuppetry. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

lol, ok USchick (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

useful user uschick please help eliminate ukraine claims from article. user kudzu is try to push ukraine claims as facts. they are claimed by ukraine!!! russia claims not allowed, but ukraine claims is ok? this is all work of user marek who is agent and who delete my comments. i ask for help from humble user herzen and respectful user molobo, but no one is to come to remove ukraine claims. i cannot edit this it says because some nato admin has blocked page. please help useful user us chick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RossiyaCitizen22 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Our policy at WP:NPA specifically restricts comments to content, not contributors. Although I imagine many boys dream of being an 'agent' (or what about nato admin ?) it seems negative when you write that as opposed to 'useful' or 'respectful' (which I imagine is something all contributors aspire to). Lklundin (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because a few experienced editors have managed to block the less experienced editors, doesn't make this article balanced all of a sudden. USchick (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Duly noted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

40K

Note that 40K for the number of Russian troops is unsourced. Indeed, the Ukrainian government was at some point mentioned 50K, but since they only throw random numbers around, without any connection to reality, it the number comes from the Ukrainian government, it should be clearly attributed as such.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Where should we put number of soldiers and police who defected?

According to both Ukrainian and Russian sources several thousand of Ukrainian military and tens of thousands of policemen have joined Russian side. Should this information be put in casualties or results section? I gravitate towards losses section, but would like an opinion first. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I, for one, would like to see your sources. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Why so little number of protesters killed in "Casualties and losses" section? There were more. Here is some below.

Why so little number of protesters killed in "Casualties and losses" section? There were more. Here is some below.

Рыбак и студент http://argumentua.com/reportazh/ubiistvo-deputata-vladimira-rybaka http://censor.net.ua/video_news/281627/kak_pohischali_gorlovskogo_deputata_vladimira_rybaka_video http://112.ua/video/v-mvd-rasskazali-podrobnosti-ubiystva-i-pytok-deputata-gorlovskogo-gorsoveta-rybaka.html http://www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/63245.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7vmF9IDQWY http://www.ostro.org/general/society/articles/443375/?pagen=7&fb_action_ids=712950995413033&fb_action_types=og.likes

Убийство баптистов и массовые захоронения http://ipress.ua/ru/news/na_donbasse_pohoronyly_vosmerih_protestantov_kotorih_rasstrelyaly_terrorysti_dnr_76204.html

Убитые гражданские на Донбассе http://nv.ua/ukraine/boeviki-zamuchili-do-smerti-spasatelya-gschs-gerashchenko-33547.html https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%87:Tagira/%D0%A6%D0%B8%D0%B2%D1%96%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%96_%D0%B2%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%96%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%83_(2014) http://inforesist.org/v-milicii-nazvali-spisok-prestuplenij-dnr/ https://twitter.com/tweetsNV/status/557106035346112512 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constantinehuk (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Map is inaccurate

The current map is from October and is no longer current. Esn (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a map last updated 25 February. The fact that Crimea is outlined in red makes for a convoluted description, and I'm not certain that I can vouch for the map's veracity. I'd prefer to see the dated map updated, but have made it clear that other editors are invited to respond to it per WP:BRD. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

An imperfect solution, as the map now displays only half of what the article covers (the other half being Crimea). What software do people use for updating these maps, anyway? Esn (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've self-reverted. It was my last bit of editing last night and I didn't realise that the red around Crimea isn't visible in the thumb. SVGs seem to be the order of the day, but I still use photoshop which works with vector graphics, but doesn't recognise the format. I'm assuming that those working with the open source software would have layers/workpaths already set up for separate maps because I can't find any versions with the layers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm really bad with that stuff, or else I'd help. One might ask at the Graphics lab. RGloucester — ☎ 00:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I've downloaded both versions of the map (the one currently being used, plus the February one by someone we're not in a good collaborative position to approach, nor would I wish to encourage). In both cases, they've actually been converted to PNGs, meaning they're on those contributor's local computers, so they're of no use because there aren't any XML parameters to work with. This means having to start from scratch (sorry, I truly don't feel like dedicating a couple of weeks to recreating everything available at militarymaps.info). The number of requests at the Graphics lab tagged as 'stale' suggests to me that we'd be hard-pressed to find anyone there willing to do the same. The only thing I can thing of is pinging Niele who would probably have some earlier form and asking him to update it, or send on his uncompressed file (including layers, etc.) to me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine Army and British troops

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31610026 is that right if it is we must change the infobox --Kumanhan (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No, per the discussion at Talk:War in Donbass. The UK and U.S. are not providing combat support to Ukraine and do not qualify as combatants. I am aware that the Kremlin has an acute interest in portraying this conflict as a good old-fashioned proxy war with the West, rather than yet another in a long line of instances of the Bear beating up on a less powerful neighbor, but I'm not inclined to feed its propaganda with the false equivalency of pretending non-lethal training by Western advisers far from the combat zone is somehow akin to Russia supplying tanks, artillery, and SAMs to a rebel militancy. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

How are you aware of the Kremlins intentions ? provide your source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.2.248 (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

It's known as using WP:RS, and this page is not a forum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

So please provide your reliable sources - I dont see then here. The editor states that he is aware "Kremlin has an acute interest in portraying this conflict as a good old-fashioned proxy war with the West". Provide your source please. ( Iryna Harpy please dont use any more intimidation tactics, I am only asking for your reliable source. ) Have a wonderful day Irina :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.2.248 (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

What intimidation tactics? And what RS are you talking about months after the fact, and no further information on British troops? Please desist from using this talk page as a forum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia harasment includes spurious posting on peoples user space, so dont do it ! As for the RS - your the one with the onus of proof, not me. Irina, remember that you cant just go posting on peoples user spaces because you would reather they not participate or hold editeor like you to procude their sources. You claim that this there is a RS - so prove it. RE: " Please desist from using this talk page as a forum." well all there is to say about this is "as to thine own self Irina". So - thats dont intimidate editors, show your sources and dont use this place as a forum, or as a soapbox. But then you spend all day every deay editing this page. Have an even better day than the last one Irina Harpy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.0.0 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. According to your edit history, I've never had any interaction with you whatsoever... or could it be that you're IP hopping? Take care about bandying 'harassment' around lest it comes back to hit you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what motivates the guy who signed 94.118.0.0 but I agree with what he/she is saying to Irina: using other people's talk page as a forum and his/her personal soapbox is just wrong and seems to violate WP policies. Anybody can come to my talk page and see what ridiculously long soliloquy Irina wrote there. Totally uninvited. Irina even answered some other user's post on my talk page. Kaum zu glauben!!! --Mondschein English (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Breedlove, Soros, Der Spiegel

I see there have been a few edits back and forth regarding content on George Soros' view of the conflict, and German fears over U.S. General Breedlove's "bellicosity." I'm opening a discussion here in case anyone wants to comment.

The Der Spiegel report's relevance is obvious: high level German officials are alarmed at statements by U.S. General and NATO Commander Breedlove on the subject of Ukraine. They believe that he has systematically exaggerated the "Russian threat" or military activity in Ukraine and, along with Victoria Nuland, have hampered a diplomatic solution. Whatever one's appraisal of their fears, the opinions of German government leaders, reported in Der Spiegel, are bread and butter for this article.

By contrast, Soros is not an entity relevant to this conflict and, unless there are objections, we can probably remove his comments. -Darouet (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The way this is being inserted into this article (and numerous other - obvious POV pushing) talks about "European politicians" as if they were some monolith. The wording is obviously POV and tendentious and the editor in question is behaving disruptively in general across half a dozen articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Marek - I'm not that other editor, and while you may have a history with them that helps you form your conclusion, their edit was not wild or tendentious. More judiciously, the added text might have specified objections as arising from within high levels of the German state, and not all of Europe. Nevertheless, Der Spiegel does ask, "Are the Americans trying to thwart European efforts at mediation led by Chancellor Angela Merkel?" It continues, "Europeans have also begun to see others as hindrances in their search for a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict. First and foremost among them is Victoria Nuland, head of European affairs at the US State Department. She and others would like to see Washington deliver arms to Ukraine and are supported by Congressional Republicans as well as many powerful Democrats."

You call this edit a part of "POV pushing," but can that be said of the Der Spiegel article itself? And could simply removing content that should really be re-worded also be called POV-pushing?

I'll propose a wording that better reflects the source. In the meantime, is there any reason to have Soros' views, supported by a youtube video, in the article? -Darouet (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek is wise; that looks like tendentious editing. bobrayner (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

A discussion pertaining to NPOV is currently taking place here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard – Ukraine conflict. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

bobrayner, neither you nor Marek addressed the substance of the Spiegel article, nor my arguments: it's obviously not the editing that you view as tendentious, but the newspaper content, and views expressed by German politicians with whom you strongly disagree. If you didn't edit in such a consistently partisan fashion on this subject you'd be able to see that. -Darouet (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have agreed above that the wording that was being inserted into the article was indeed tendentious. If you want to propose alternative wording that's fine, we can discuss it. But I tend to agree with Alexpl's comment below - basing that much on a single editorial does appear to be an exercise in undue weight. Are there other sources which state the same view? A brief mention might be possible.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about Darouet. You must have handpicked a comment or some isolated view from a german paper. Having worked with most of the relevant german online publications on the german WP-articles on the crisis for the last year, I got a different impression. So - sources please! Alexpl (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"Ukraine-Krise: Nato-Oberbefehlshaber verärgert Alliierte", Der Spiegel, 07.03.2015.

"Propaganda aus Brüssel?Deutschland legt sich mit der Nato an", n-tv, 07. März 2015.

"Alliierte kritisieren Nato-Oberbefehlshaber Breedlove", Die Zeit, 7. März 2015.

"The Ukraine crisis is not what it seems", Robert H. Wade, Le Monde diplomatique, 31 March 2015 :

—"A group of eight retired US intelligence analysts wrote to Angela Merkel on 30 August 2014, alarmed at the anti-Russian hysteria sweeping official Washington and the spectre of a new cold war. They warned her to be very cautious about accepting the intelligence about Russia’s role provided by U.S. leaders. “The accusations of a major Russian ‘invasion’ of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the ‘intelligence’ seems to be of the same dubious, politically ‘fixed’ kind used 12 years ago to ‘justify’ the U.S.-led attack on Iraq. We saw no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq then; we see no credible evidence of a Russian invasion now.” "

"Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine", Der Spiegel, March 06, 2015. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

None of those claims had an active influence on the development on the ground in Donbass. All concerns about warmongering NATO or the US people in those old reports did not prevent the Minsk-II agreement from happening. So all those concers in all those sources have proven to be somewhat pointless. Not much more we can ask for. Since germany has no intel on the ground, I also believe that there is little validity in any claims about a lower/higher Russian Federation troop concentration in Donbass, coming from german politicians. Alexpl (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

For example, this source clearly states that this is much ado about nothing. In fact if you look for "Breedlove Germany Ukraine" the Der Spiegel editorial doesn't even pop up. All that pops up is a whole bunch of idiocy from RT. Which is why certain editors are trying to insert it here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. bobrayner (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Alexpl's comment above is wholly spurious - German concerns over U.S. bellicosity in Ukraine have no "active influence on the development on the ground in Donbass" ? What exactly is that supposed to mean, and how on earth is it relevant here? Furthermore, are you really claiming Alexpl that you have personal knowledge that the BND has no "intelligence on the ground" in Ukraine, and that the Minsk-II agreement renders the views of German politicians meaningless? I have no idea what you're writing about.

Of course not - and even if so, it would have no relevance here. However: The impact of the stories you have presented remains negligible. If you cant present anything which generated a more lasting public impression, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Alexpl (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As to Volunteer Marek's cited Reuter's article, all Steinmeier (who is one of a number of voices in Germany) says is that " we have no interest in any dispute emerging from this… We have to see that we stay closely together, also in the question of assessment of risk, and not differ in our advice." Contradicting Breedlove's statements, the article continues, "German officials said information from their BND intelligence agency and other sources was that a ceasefire agreed in Minsk was shaky but holding. The battles between the Ukraine army and pro-Russian separatists had mostly halted and heavy weapons were being withdrawn." Marek it looks like you didn't even read the article you posted here. -Darouet (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ummm, yes, I did read it. Did you? Like the part that says: "German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier downplayed a magazine report on Saturday of tensions with NATO over hawkish comments about Ukraine made by the Western alliance's supreme allied commander.".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Which is wholly consistent with German fears over Breedlove and NATO's aggressive stance, neither contradicted by Steinmeier nor by the article you cite. You really believe the newspaper reports and statements by German politicians are either contradicted or invalidated by Steinmeier's diplomatic comment that Germany has "no interest in any dispute emerging from this" ? That doesn't follow. -Darouet (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I still don't see any reason why it should be deleted and have to agree with Darouet. "been over this, please stop trying to sneak it in, it's disruptive and dishonest" is not enough, vague WP:IDONTLIKEIT claims don't count. — [14]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Look, you keep trying to put this into the article (sometimes in sneaky ways with misleading edit summaries or buried in other edits) and multiple editors are telling you that they disagree. The discussion is above, as well as in other places. You are carrying on a slow motion edit war against consensus. At this point it's not up to me to provide any further rationales. It's up to you to try and convince others.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, your note above, that Steinmeier played down a report critical of his own policy, contributed no substantive argument against the material other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT; the "multiple editors" you refer to include a single word by bobraynor, and an incomprehensible comment from alexpl. On the other hand Tobby72, though I think the spiegel article is important, it was written a while ago and to justify inclusion, it's reasonable to find a couple other sources that note internal German disagreements over foreign policy. -Darouet (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, those kind of sources should not be in short supply in any democracy - if the topic is relevant to the public. I´m looking forward to see what you come up with. Alexpl (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

As quoted, the text about Breedlove is at least uninformative. Which claims by Breedlove were criticized, exactly? It is also undue on this page. I can agree that statement by Soros might be removed as well (undue). My very best wishes (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Map

The map in the information box is long since outdated. Does anyone have a high-quality updated version? Utahwriter14 (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Сasualties section

Clearly must be corrected. References are biased and unlikely believable. Such an exaggeration of Russian losses supplemented with fishy refs goes against the neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.181.159 (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The edit to losses section made by user EkoGraf on 11.03.2015 states that: "14,600 Russian soldiers killed". However the provided source does not attribute the losses to Russian military. They use term militants. I suggest that this part should be edited to "14,600 killed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreastr (talk • contribs) 14:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

agreed. SyriaWarLato (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Agreed as well, source is a Ukrainian government source and that source does not attribute that figure to Russian military KIA. A better source would be the Nemtsov report

http://www.putin-itogi.ru/putin-voina/

The current figure is extremely misleading, and I think we can all agree that it needs adjustment. According this report and this RFE article, 220+ Russian soldiers have been killed. This is a much more reliable and specific figure and I think it should be used.

http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-nemtsov-report-ukraine-war/27011532.html Melting Pot of Friendship (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Revert

@Darkness Shines: I must say I disagree with this edit of yours and its rationale.

First, it was added randomly with no elaboration whatsoever by @Aleksandr Grigoryev about the documentary later in the article. As such, the burden for getting consensus falls on Aleksandr Grigoryev, which, please correct me if I'm wrong, he did not elicit from other editors. On the other hand, @Hollth provided a reasonable summary for his edit, which I entirely agree with.

Secondly, the fact that Putin admitted to his involvement is already mentioned in the second paragraph, which not only contains context surrounding the events of 2014 and but also contrasts sharply with the sudden nature of the opening sentence.

Thirdly, the current opening paragraph comes across as one-sided and the writer seems like he has a point to prove.

So not only is the opening paragraph unnecessary and written in an unbalanced manner without context, the burden of attaining consensus, which you called for, fell on the person who added it in the first place, who failed to do so. In addition, could you shed some light on why you reverted this change by Hollth, or have I overlooked something? Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hollth, the fact of Putin admitting the invasion of Ukraine on April 17 means absolutely nothing. There is no way one may really trust the official Kremlin today. The documentary film however is a real benchmark of how the Russian propaganda was effective in shaping a worldview towards Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Aleksandr Grigoryev, it means everything. When you no longer have to write dueling narratives for Crimea, you can simply write what happened. You don't have to allow some stupid writing claiming the troops in Crimea were actually from Zambia to enforce a treaty with Alpha Centauri because it was printed by the German Media who will print all the news, whether it is fit to be printed or not. His comments have actually been used by those opposing him to finally put this baby to bed. It also cements the title for this article which I supported. There were those at the time who argued that the Russian Military weren't really involved in the annexation of Crimea and shouldn't be included in this article and hence the article should be deleted.

There is no arguing anymore that Putin used Russian troops to annex Crimea. Not having to waste time with stupidity anymore is nice. Do you disagree that Putin used Russian troops to annex Crimea? I'm not necessarily fond of this edit. However, the importance of Putin's 2hr victory lap documentary in a Wikipedia editing environment where constant stupidity had to be allowed in to keep things "NPOV" about Crimea is substantial. Hilltrot (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring that the onus was on you, not me, I still don't follow with why you would revert. I moved the documentary to where it was more relevant and not completely undue, as it was in the opening sentence. I didn't change any information regarding it. Putin admitting on the 17th has nothing to do with this change. I didn't touch that bit. Reverting didn't alter that either, so I find it difficult to understand that reasoning. Nor do I understand why you reverted the other two edits, neither of which were contentious. It makes no sense to have two international responses sections. We also have a main page for international reactions and, with a page this large, it makes sense to the Estonian comments to the main page. I'll be re-introducing those if you have no qualms?

If you wish to include the documentary information, I have no issue with that. The first sentence, however, is not where it belongs.

Hollth (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think this would be fine to notice, but very briefly and in the end of 1st paragraph. Done: [15]. 15:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. I didn't think it appropriate for the first sentence in the lead. I don't have a problem with a brief allusion at the bottom. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hollth, just for clarification as to why I reverted your conflation of international reactions: the first deals with reactions to Russian intervention in Crimea, whereas the second deals specifically with reactions to military intervention in Donbass. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Putin declares russian troop deaths in peacetime a secret

is this story pertinent to the topic at all I wonder [16] 92.3.15.0 (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be added.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that this is WP:DUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

There are many comments in Russian-speaking press about this: It is hard to fight the hybrid war by the Kremlin when every "holidaymaker" [soldier] has to be buried as if you personally killed him [17], Now nobody will ask about Nemtsov's report because this will put you to jail.[18]. Some speculate that the new law was signed because death rate in Russia suddenly increased by a few percent [19], [20]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is relevant, and should be in the article. In other regimes, such measures are typically used to try and minimise the appearance of casualties - do sources say anything about that in this case? bobrayner (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

At this stage, analysis appears to have gone quiet since the initial reports. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I was told that yesterday NBC reported that about 20,000 Russian troops have entered Ukraine and are killing Ukrainians by the thousands. Should we put it in the article? Let's stop the Russian perpetrated genocide of Ukrainians and Poles, now!!! --Mondschein English (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I've missed this particular account, ey? (note to the uninitiated - Mondschein English is a sockpuppet of a banned user being obnoxious/sarcastic).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Dude, this is the second time you accuse me of being a troll and a "sockpuppet" (you wrote on my talk page first, by the way). Do you want to bet $ 50,000 (50 thou USD) that I am not a sockpuppet of anybody especially this Lokomotiv guy? It is probably a small fortune in Poland, but if you are so sure, why don't you take me up on it, Marek? Like we say in my neck of the woods: put your money where mouth is, or shush. :-) --Mondschein English (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Strong accusation... Any proof, Marek? --Mondschein English (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

They're/it's back! I'm ascared... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You, Irina, have written a long monologue on my talk page... Why? Who are you and what do you want from me? --Mondschein English (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sky news reported - did not withold their report Russian soldiers deaths Ukraine sky news, and vice news report coming soon on Russian soldiers in Ukraine [21]92.3.5.4 (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, 92.3.5.4. This looks potentially interesting. Let's wait for the comprehensive report to come out. It's too early to add content at this stage as Wikipedia is not journalism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

no ,but its possible that some of the reportage has a place in the article - the vice news report Russia denies, but92.3.2.173 (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders

I dont know, but when i see this , its looks funny. --spacemonks (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Philip Karber, former Pentagon strategy adviser

Hi all, in this edit I just replaced the term "independent assessment" with the Daily Beast's description of it's source, who is Philip Karber. I think this information is fine in the article (perhaps better in the body than in the lead, given the source), but should be attributed properly. -Darouet (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that qualifying/attributing the assessment is desirable. Also, considering the length of the lead, detailed content of this calibre is best left for the body. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Changing location of or removal casualties.

Different sources estimate numbers of Russian soldiers killed during the war in Ukraine between 30[273][274] and 3500[citation needed], the majority killed since August 2014.

I want to make casualties another section or remove until we actually know. Partially because we won't know the blow by blow of how many casualties there are in Eastern Ukraine until after the conflict which may not end for years. Also, the military casualties are not sufficient enough to actually impact the conflict itself. Undue weight. Civilian casualties, especially among the elderly are likely to be very high and we really won't know anything until much later. Also, the 3500 figure seems to be a bit off. . .Hilltrot (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to remove it. I've noticed a rather extensive casualties section. So, this isn't really needed.Hilltrot (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So, out of curiosity, does anybody know how many gosh darn Russians, real Russians, not Ethnic Russians originary of Eastern Ukraine, have died in this pseudo conflict, so far? At least, by and large... Because here, between angry Poles and Ukrainians, birds*it brained Americans, and stuff, I don't know what to believe anymore...

Kind regards and all the way U, S, of A. We've got rock 'n roll, we've got country music playing, and if y'all don't like us y'all don't know what you are saying, U S A, U S A... --Mondschein English (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mondschein English: Could we please curtail this kind of commentary on talk pages after having discussed it before? It's unproductive, and I know you're much better than resorting to this behaviour, even if it is out of frustration. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

1994 Budapest Memorandum

The 1994 Budapest Memorandum guarantees the territorial integrity of Ukraine, but Crimea is disputed as a violation due to the change to territorial integrity caused by the referendum vote (Kosovo precedent), and as far as I know, Ukraine has not actually claimed infringement on its territorial integrity in Donbass: no martial law, etc.; in addition, it could be argued that neither government of Ukraine is politically independent, which would nullify the Memorandum until political independence is restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWizard (talk • contribs) 05:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This argument is bunk for any number of reasons, but I do think the mention of the Budapest Memorandum should be removed from the lede, or at the very least moved further down in the text. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Primarily, the user's reading contravenes WP:NOR. "I think" is not a reliable source. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

the map is not correct

Crimea should be the same color as mainland Russia because Crimea is a province of Russia.

207.35.219.34 (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)