Talk:War in Donbas

NPOV Violation?

Repeated references are made in the article to the "Fall" as opposed to "Liberation" or even "Capture" of Debeltsevo and other rebel held areas. The rebels and separatists are also referred to in places as "occupiers." To me this betrays a blatant pro-Kiev bias in the editing of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.29.128 (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Right Sector involvement

The involvement of the Right Sector group in the current conflict is well documented and indisputable. Upon noticing the groups unexplained absence from the info-box, I re-added them only to have the edit reverted by Iryna Harpy, diff here [1]. This user obviously has infected the article with his personal biasness, as when I sought to remove the involvement of the RNU, explaining that it is ridiculous if an extremist group on one side is allowed to remain while the other isn't, it was reverted, diff here [2]. The vibe I'm getting is that we are allowed to be more subjective when it comes to the involvement of 'less than savory' combatants on the 'pro-western' Ukrainian side while not affording the same standard when it comes to documenting combatants on the separatist side. This is ridiculous and unbefitting of an Encyclopedia. I do not want any POV pushing in this article, and only wish to know why the inclusion of the Right Sector is being censored. --Ritsaiph (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Have to agree with Ritsaiph. Unfortunately some editors have become strongly engaged here and are pushing a very one sided POV. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we all know what you POV is. Why do you feel compelled to leave POINTy comments days after a content matter has been resolved? Is it that you want to be seen to be involved - via means of your signature - despite the time lapse between a discussion's resolution and your self-righteous non-comment? It might just go a long way to explaining why you pull up comments and differences months apart in order to keep reminding everyone of just how much you don't anything that doesn't suit a POV you feel strongly about. Please stop being plain ol' redundant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the Right Sector; I'll let others hash that out. But there's no reason to remove the RNU. You can't use the argument that "you won't let me do what I want so I won't let you do what you want" on Wikipedia. Or in real world.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I was the one who added Russian National Unity to the infobox in the first place, diff here [3] I merely removed them to see if user Iryna Harpy had an agenda by reverting me adding the Right Sector, and not to my surprise, I was correct. --Ritsaiph (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Right Sector There are two questions: (1) is there at least one reliable source? and (2) is the inclusion of the group significant enough to mention? In the case of Right Sector, there have been many reliable Western sources that wrote about their involvement. The sources have indicated that their presence is significant.

"I merely removed them to see if user... had an agenda by reverting me". You have proved nothing. Long-standing editors often revert the deletion of properly-cited content, when there appears to be no good reason for the deletion. Have you read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point?-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

"Long-standing editors often revert the deletion of properly-cited content, when there appears to be no good reason for the deletion" - Toddy1. Is this the Wikipedia equivalent of going senile? Your tirade was pointless, and you have actually proved my point that the user removed sourced content without any explanation or reason. --Ritsaiph (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of points that need to be addressed here, not the least of which is WP:GAMING by Ritsaiph in order to elicit 'responses'. I don't appreciate WP:ASPERSIONS (as are demonstrated by the user's missive on my own talk page here) as to my having a "Ukrainian-centric group" [sic] agenda (I'm sorry but when, exactly, did I become a member of a Wikipedia cabal bent on flexing my mythological influence muscles to merit accusations of, "I am now aware you have a biasness for your lack of justification in removing material which is well known." [sic])

To be honest, outside of imaginary agendas, I see fundamental problems with the inclusion of either group and would suggest that both are probably WP:UNDUE. The major problem is that of WP:SYNTH: depicting either political party as being a party endorsed, pro-active military group would need WP:RS demonstrating that extremist party members are supported financially, morally, et al by the parties and are, ergo, the norm. Yes, both parties hold extremist ideas and are bound to attract the most extreme elements who can't be prevented from using the party logo. Does that mean that these militants are truly the embodiment of the parties, or is working on such a premise a conflation of two related, yet disparate, concepts (party as ideology and party as military entity)?

While we can claim abundant RS (outside of WP:BIASED and op-ed pieces), where is it? Does any of this serve as being informative for the reader in the infobox or is it just designed to be plain WP:POINTy?

As to why I left Russian National Unity there pending discussion, that's simple: yes, of course there's been a lot written about Right Sector and its involvement because they're a Ukrainian party who have Ukrainian citizens as members and the extremism of their ideology has been bandied around right from the word 'go'. RNU are not Ukrainian, yet have a presence in Ukraine fighting in a Ukrainian(?) war. Why are they present in a country they are not citizens of? And, no, you're not going to find significant analysis of their presence simply because it has been Ukrainian affairs, as well as larger Russian interests, that have been under scrutiny in the press. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, I personally don't give a sh*t about what you do or do not appreciate. The fact of the matter is you having unjustifiably and consistently removed well-documented and sourced information from reliable, as well as from partisan sources. For you to then write about justifying your decision by writing utter bullsh*t is just pathetic but also the icing on the cake.

depicting either political party as being a party endorsed, pro-active military group would need WP:RS demonstrating that extremist party members are supported financially, morally, et al by the parties and are, ergo, the norm. I mean, what are you trying to say here? That just becuase members of a group fight, the organisation they are apart of doesn't endorse them? The leader of Right Sector, Dmytro Yarosh is an aide to Ukrainian military chief Viktor Muzhenko and Right Sector would therefore have to condone (which it has) the conflict if its leader is involved. But of course Right Sector doesn't condone fighting in Ukraine, this assertion is just ridiculous.

"there's been a lot written about Right Sector and its involvement because they're a Ukrainian party who have Ukrainian citizens as members and the extremism of their ideology has been bandied around right from the word 'go'" Oh, so it's 'unfair' to comment/scrutinize on this particular group and its ideology becuase it's a Ukrainian group comprised of Ukrainians.

For some reason, you seem confused about what goes into an info-box. Let me make it easy for you: If it is mentioned in reliable sources, it goes into the fuck*ng box. Do you understand, or would you like me to re-type this statement for you to analyse?

I have come across too many people on Wikipedia who are like you Iryna Harpy. Pathetic, stupid and selfish people. --Ritsaiph (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Feel free to retype your complaint at the WP:ANI, Ritsaiph. Oh, and incidentally, that's a terrific piece of WP:SYNTH you've managed to squeeze in into your (shall we say) rather protracted tirade against me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: That "there's been a lot written about Right Sector" is not a convincing reason for excluding Right Sector from the infobox.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I'm fine with that, too. I merely presented explanations as to why I would consider both to be WP:UNDUE for the infobox. If they're both considered DUE, then I'm also fine with that. The only thing I object to is editors who jump straight into attack mode on my talk own talk page and made full-on personal attacks on other editors on the talk page of an article. Ritsaiph has some severe behavioural problems I believe need to be addressed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Thank you. I have restored the information to the infobox.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Cheers. I'm just surprised no one else did so earlier. It's not down to me to question consensus: I have no illusions (or grand delusions) as to WP:OWNing the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Herzen, I'm addressing only one of your tendentious edits here (without bothering to address other POV refactoring you've engaged in after this edit). As you see, per discussions in this sections, consensus stands at the inclusion of both the RNU and Right Sector in the infobox as being reliably sourced. Stop trying to edit war your POV into the content of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I hadn't read this article for months, much less edited it, so how could I be edit warring? All I did was see some wildly unencyclopedic editing choices (to call them expressions of POV would be to attribute some kind of merit to them) and respond accordingly. Evidently, the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" means nothing to you. (I did glance at some of these Talk pages occasionally, too see whether the circus was still in town.) Your bandying about the term "consensus" fools nobody, by the way. Editors managing to hound out editors who are here to build an encyclopedia does not consensus make. You used to know at least how to give the impression of being civil. – Herzen (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Military forces of "Right sector" are a part of Territorial defense battalions (Ukraine). If anyone wants to include more materials about them, sure, please do. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Herzen: The bounds of civility and assuming good faith were stretched well beyond the norm by three edits by you in quick succession:
A) Discussion as to the content deemed DUE for the content relating to edit No.1 existed in this section already.
B) Edit No.2 was the removal of sourced content. The reason it stands in its current form used can be answered by checking through the archived talk pages of this article and the Russian military intervention article. The infobox became heavily cluttered some time ago, and discussions took place as to how best to address these issues rather than duplicating multiple RS already in place. It was decided that, for the sake of cite kill, this was a more effective way of avoiding duplication and, as such, is in no shape of form a breach of WP:WINARS.
C) With edit No.3 you claim that RT is equally reliable as the BBC despite the fact that I know you are well aware of the discussions of the use of RT (and Sputnik - ex-TASS and RIA Novosti now combined) at the RSN and NPOVN relating to their reliability (or lack thereof) in the context of events in the Ukraine, Georgia, etc. (if not elsewhere)... particularly as the escalation of the propaganda element has been thoroughly examined by multiple RS over the last few years.

Most importantly, not only did you fail to catch up with the talk page discussions, you did not even attempt to follow BRD. If you have a genuine issue with content, bring it to the talk page, and do not use this page to make bad faith personal attacks on myself, other editors, and cast aspersions about a cabal at work. After the first sentence, the remainder of your comment reads as a very POINTy list of grievances founded on your own sense of self-righteousness. Mimicry of trashy accusations is the last bastion of someone who doesn't actually have a constructive argument. It is not evidence of 'hounding' out editors who are 'here'. If you have any such suspicions and can back it with evidence, take it to ARB. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Content fork

Regarding to this edit [4]... Well, I simply do not think we should provide that many images of paramilitaries and dedicate so much content about the paramilitaries, given that they are well described on numerous pages liked from this page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately your recent edits are likely violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. Tendentious editing, WP:NPOV, WP: RS. I also feel that this is a WP:DONTLIKEIT issue. "Pro-Russian insurgents" section is obviously much longer. -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Tobby, MVBW made a very specific argument about content. You made personal accusations against them. Who's "violating several Wikipedia guidelines andp olicies"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies to My very best wishes or anyone who feels offended. Essentially, my argument is that "Counter-insurgency forces and Ukrainian militias" section is much shorter than "Pro-Russian insurgents" section. There is no need to further shorten it. My very best wishes and RGloucester have also accidentally deleted a section called, "Chechen and Muslim paramilitaries". — [5], [6]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not your 'argument', Tobby72. Your history of WP:GAMING has not left you standing in good stead with editors who are WP:HERE. Are we about to go WP:REHASH another bout of WP:GEVAL POV-pushing? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It continues. No, simply telling in edit summary "deletion of cited text" is not enough. Not every cited text belongs here, and this is precisely the point. If needed, I can provide links to other pages with duplicate texts. My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I can also provide links to other pages with duplicate texts or similar content. For example, 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine ("Russian involvement" section). Why did you choose this particular section ("Pro-government paramilitaries")? -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Why did I choose to change this particular segment? Simply because I happened to read this particular segment. Sure, a lot of pages must to be improved, but I either did not read them or did not see anything particularly troubling. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think revision of the section on Counter-insurgency forces and Ukrainian militias would be a good thing. It contains some apparently random sentences that appear out of context. To illustrate the uselessness of these sentences, I have added in italics the conclusion I would draw from the out of context sentences.

• "It lost twelve fighters when it was ambushed outside Donetsk in August 2014." Only 12? And none since August 2014?
• "The National Guard is trained by U.S. Army paratroopers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade." So there are thousands of US paratroops in Ukraine? Since when?

-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Speaking more generally, I think that copy-pasting texts about "Ukrainian fascists" to numerous pages (even where they do not really belong) is a bad idea. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The current state of the article is one-sided towards certain POV and a lots of balancing realiably sourced info has been removed under often flimsy pretext ("content fork", "no consensus", etc). I have never ever written something like "Ukrainian fascists" or "Ukrainian nazis". It would be pretty stupid. Similarly, to say that Russians are "terrorists" or "fascists" is equally stupid. On the other hand, the Azov Battalion fighters have undoubtedly links with neo-Nazi groups. - [7], [8], [9]. It cannot be denied. There is also no doubt that volunteer battalions such as Azov have taken the brunt of the fighting. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, there's been an inordinate amount of sabre-rattling about how unfair it is to characterise pro-Russian separatists, Russian involvement, ad nauseam for the past couple of years (that is, a superlative case of 'wearing down the opponent' until they give up on following innumerable, mainstream RS descriptions), yet when the shoe is on the other foot, 'neo-Nazi', 'Ukrainian fascists' and every other extremist descriptor used in some RS are POV-pushed into any and every article possible disregarding whether it meets DUE. Do we have two rules for content, or is it that tendentious and disruptive editors get the final word? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black — [10], [11], [12], [13]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Could you please try to make some sort of sense. Okay, I can see that you are admitting to being the kettle, but who, exactly, is the pot? It seems that you've pulled out valid edits going back over a year of editing without providing a context, and are trying to make a WP:POINT about editors who reverted or changed content added by editors who have been warned off by administrators for tendentious editing practices, or have had sanctions imposed on them preventing them from editing these articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Actually, the entire sentence, "Some of the volunteer battalions belongs to Right Sector. It lost twelve fighters when it was ambushed outside Donetsk in August 2014. Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh vowed his group would avenge the deaths." reads as WP:POINTy without any context other than 'we want to put in Right Sector, plus use WEASEL description like "vowed" to "avenge the deaths" here'. Even the article cited doesn't use "vow" and the single description of the response is pure WP:CHERRY. In the context of the article, it's only an aside to the primary information. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think revision of the section on Pro-Russian insurgents would be a good thing. Here is one example:

"Mozhaev also alleged that some of the more extreme views of the Cossacks include destroying "the Jew-Masons," who they claim have been "fomenting disorder all over the world" and "causing us, the common Orthodox Christian folk, to suffer."— Young, Cathy (21 May 2014). "Fascism Comes to Ukraine – From Russia". RealClearPolitics.com. "On 25 May, the SBU arrested 13 Russian Cossacks in Luhansk."—"Russian Cossacks Arrested in Luhansk: Ukrainian security forces detain Kremlin-backed insurgents". YouTube. Retrieved 12 June 2014."

Do we have two rules for content, or is it that tendentious and disruptive editors get the final word? -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It continues. Obviously we have two rules for content. — [14], [15]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

What "continues"? Your unyielding WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Yes, yes it does.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious editing, repeated deletions of reliable sources posted by other editors. — [16]. Please stop your disruptive editing. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing tendentious about my edits. There IS something very tendentious about your tenacious repeated attempts to reinsert text that several other editors told you repeatedly does not belong in this article. There IS something disruptive about a single editor, you, edit warring against multiple other editors to try and force their way through on the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I am talking about tendentious editing, repeated disruptive deletions of reliable sources posted by other editors. — [17], [18], [19]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

1st diff. Yes, I can partly agree: this text could be included if shortened and corrected to properly summarize sources. 2nd diff - No, that was correct removal or remotely relevant and uninformative text. 3rd diff - no, that was improvement of sourcing. My very best wishes (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, My very best wishes. 1st diff. Shortened. — [20]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't an inclusion in the spirit of "Yes, I can partly agree: this text could be included if shortened and corrected to properly summarize sources.": it was CHERRY and POINTy SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is worth noticing that some Chechen (like Isa Munayev) fought on the Ukrainian side and died. However, text inserted by Tobby72 (and especially the phrase about Nord Ost siege that did not involve anyone fighting on the Ukrainian side) was very far from WP:NPOV, to tell this politely. My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"Nord Ost siege" removed. — [21]. Btw, the pro-Kiev Chechen commander was a member of the terrorist group responsible for the Nord-Ost theatre siege. — [22]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? No, as far as RS tell, all members of the terrorist group were killed, together with 130 hostages by FSB forces, except only the famous double FSB agent Terkibayev who directed the terrorist group to the theater. But he was killed later. My very best wishes (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no substantive argument against the material other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT — [23] -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we know that you don't "see" it. That doesn't mean that such substantive arguments have not been made. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

And let's be clear here. This isn't just about adding some (undue) text. You are also trying to remove some info while you do that. Trying to be sneaky. For no apparent reason. Talk about WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Euromaidanpress, Youtube, Realclearpolitics. — [24]. Talk about WP:RS.

Marek, I'd recommend you to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've read it. Pointing out that you are not only trying to add text but are also trying to remove text in the same edit is not a "personal attack". False accusations of "personal attacks" however, can be, if yourself read WP:NPA, construed as personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Tobby72, I'd recommend that you read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. How many times are you going to WP:REHASH the same POV changes from article to article? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to comment that using youtube as source or Euromaidanpress doesn't fulfill RS criteria of Wikipedia. These sources need to be removed and better ones provided to support their claims.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Youtube isn't being used as a source, a video from a news organization which can be linked to on youtube is being used as a source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as Euromaidan press goes, the text it is sourcing is also sourced to Reuters so, uh, "better ones" ALREADY ARE provided. And it's trivial to find more since the story was reported by most media organizations (for example [25]).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I think your comment is off topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

This change is ultimately based on an unofficial website, http://bs-life.ru, which doesn't look like a reliable source at all. Please revert the edit.

See also some remarks from people in reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/3ig4tk/russia_inadvertently_posts_its_casualties_in/cugad1e — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardy.tardi (talk • contribs) 08:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

We are not here to qualify sources. Forbes, The Independent, NBC, IBT, and The Times all are carrying the story and treating it as a legitimate leak. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 21:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but how is this a legitimate leak? Just because all of those RS claim this is a legitimate leak doesn't mean we have to treat it like some undeniable truth. Lets think about it for a moment, the main "source" of the story is from a shady website called "Bs-life.ru" that nobody ever heard of until yesterday. Even Bloomberg’s Leonid Bershidsky dismissed this report as fake citing the url name and the grammatical mistake of "v Ukraini" instead of "na Ukraini" (in Ukraine). RS make mistakes too, and so does the US State Department. Does anybody need a reminder of how Strelkov's militiamen in Sloviansk were portrayed as Russian Spetsnaz in April 2014? [26] [27] Seems like RS nowadays pickup stories that make big headlines, without even verifying whether the source is reliable. Bottom line, Wikipedia is no place for rumors that turn into "leaks" overnight. SkoraPobeda (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea whether the leak is legitimate or not. But until there's a RS which says it's bunk we stick to the reliable sources which are reporting on it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And, uh, the sources you link to, do NOT state or show that "Strelkov's militiamen in Sloviansk were portrayed as Russian Spetsnaz". What the guardian article in fact says is that the proof in the photographs is not unequivocal (i.e. they could be Spetsnaz) but that Russian special forces probably are there. Try again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"the grammatical mistake of "v Ukraini" instead of "na Ukraini"" - what? Russian media used v Ukraini as normal grammar until 2005. source. "In Ukraine" is correct, "on Ukraine" (na) is imperialist jargon.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 14:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Marek, could they be Spetsnaz? Lets take Alexander Mozhaev for instance, that main bearded man accused of being a Chechen Spetsnaz GRU from the 2008 Georgian war [28], VICE News even confirmed his identity, and he's definitely no Chechen [29]. The other men were also found on social media and were not known to be in the Spetsnaz GRU. Did RS ever go back and correct their mistakes? Obviously not, because they aren't interested in that. As for Levivsky, your chart proves nothing. All of my relatives from Ukraine always said "na Ukraini", even during the Soviet Union. So that "imperialist jargon" is nothing but a lie. It is the correct terminology since Ukrayina literally means "borderland", don't let any website tell you otherwise. SkoraPobeda (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

SkoraPobeda, you claimed that the sources you provided, like the guardian, stated that other reliable sources mistakenly portrayed "Strelkov's militiamen in Sloviansk ... as Russian Spetsnaz". The sources you provided in fact say no such thing. What they say is what I already wrote above.

As to the little original research that you guys are conducting here, both your analysis of Mozhaev or "v" vs "na" is completely irrelevant until you bring reliable sources to the table.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I won't be able to find you a RS that calls them "Strelkov's militiamen" if that's what you're expecting. That's not even the point, the point is that there are some RS that don't come to a conclusive term of what to call those men. At first they were called "gunmen" [30] later they called those men Cossacks [31], and of course the most often term was the simple "Spetsnaz". Even with the original research that I showed, it proves that RS make mistakes and don't go back to correct themselves. The very same thing is happening right now with this whole hogwash story of 2000+ Russian soldiers killed, and 3000 wounded. The RS themselves are using a Non-RS for their media frenzy, isn't that silly? That is why I am in stark opposition to the addition of these numbers. And no, you won't find a RS that disproves this data because none of the RS are going to be disproving it. SkoraPobeda (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but that's not enough reason to remove the info. You either follow WPR:RS or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright then, today we bear witness that under-investigative RS uses non-RS, but it's ok to put it on Wikipedia because it's RS. If only you guys understood how frustrating it is to see a lie being labelled as RS. SkoraPobeda (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Ugh, I had to make a new account - I agree, the source is not credible and is the result of a propagandist feeding frenzy. Anyone with an IQ above 75 would be able to tell that those numbers are EXTREMELY unrealistic and ridiculous. Not too long ago a 'human rights activist' in Russia claimed 3500 Russian soldiers were killed. This is getting ridiculous. Please revert the figure back to its previous estimate, of 400-500 from the US Department of Defense. A much more credible source. ChuckChuckRuck (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Until there's a reliable source which says it's bunk we stick to the reliable sources which are reporting on it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"numbers are EXTREMELY unrealistic and ridiculous." - Is it? I mean the alternate estimate is 2,500 RU mercenaries, right? I don't think 3,200 wounded out of 40,000 is unrealistic either. However, personally, if it's 10k RU troops deployed on rotation of 40k, then 2k dead does seem high, especially since they are mostly in the rear and cleanup with the mercs as cannon fodder. At the same time, you have a lot of officers and soldiers embedded as part of these 'volunteer' units that are getting wiped too. I don't know, just personal opinion rambling here.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 14:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Marek, please read the reddit links I provided. They *prove* beyond doubt that this bs-life.ru site is not reliable at all. Please load their website in Google translate. It has *no street address*, its whois record is obscured, yet it's depicted in the Western media as a Moscow based newspaper. It's as good as any site that can be built in 10 minutes. Mardy (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, here's a reliable source which debunks (with investigation) the Forbes article: https://www.rt.com/news/313653-russia-ukraine-soldiers-fake-forbes/ Mardy (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments on reddit are nowhere near being a reliable source. RT is nowhere near being a reliable source. See WP:RS. No go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Then how come that an unknown Russian site, with no valid contact information, full of ads, is a reliable source? Please elaborate. In the RT article and Reddit comments there is some information which *everyone* can verify. You don't need to trust them, just do the checks yourself (knowing Russian, or having Russian friends helps!). Mardy (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The "unknown Russian site" is not being used as a source. Forbes, The Independent, IB Times, NBC News and The Times are being (or could be) used as sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Marek, dont be a fool. Forbes is nothing but a blog, and the sources those writers use are bogus. Therefore, the echo articles cannot be taken as a legitimate source. Ukrainepolicy also used it, does that mean we can use Ukrainian propaganda as a source? I agree with Mardy. You are being a hypocrite.Two Russian journalists warn that the source is not legitimate: https://twitter.com/NataliaAntonova/status/636475839316631552 | https://twitter.com/NatVasilyevaAP/status/636467968331882496 Someone revert it to the solid numbers from the US government. ChuckChuckRuck (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/ChuckChuckRuck, when you said that you had to make a new account, what was your previous account?-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Even if Forbes "was just a blog" (blogs can be reliable depending on who writes them) you still got four other reliable sources up there. Are we using Ukrainepolicy? No? Then it's irrelevant.

You might want to lay off the personal attacks like "fool" and "hypocrite".

Also, I also thought that the "other account" you referred to was Mardy.tardi. But in the comment above you say "I agree with Mardy" which indicates that this is not the case. So let me echo Toddy1 in asking what is your other account? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Marek, The Independent quotes Forbes as the source. Can I remove it from the article page, then? Also, Both Ukrainepolicy and The Times quote directly that bs-life.ru website as their sole source. Shouldn't we just restore this whole section to how it was before this piece of "news" broke out? Mardy (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No, The Times is just being a secondary source. Which is what we use. Again, until there's reliable sources out there which say it's bunk, we report what reliable sources are reporting.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And are you going to answer Toddy1's question? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what question? The only question I see from him was not for me. Mardy (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"Ukrainepolicy also used it, does that mean we can use Ukrainian propaganda as a source?" - wait, so you're calling western academics "Ukrainian propaganda" now? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 14:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the western academics believe that if the headlines are on other sites, then they too must have that story. So technically yes, they are swallowing propaganda and becoming a mouthpiece for it themselves. SkoraPobeda (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please observe WP:NOTAFORUM and drop the editorializing which does nothing to improve the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

We should not be including this figure in the article at all, certainly not presenting it as some sort of undisputed fact. All of these outlets are basing their reports on something published on this one very shaky site that was created using a readily available template. It appears that there is only one point of contact for the outlet as NBC, Radio Free Europe, and Russia Today, all mention the same "representative" speaking to them about the site by e-mail and no details appear to exist about any other staff. Even though it is supposedly a major Moscow-based business magazine, an Associated Press reporter in Moscow does not seem to have ever heard of it.

The idea that because this site's claim has been repeated by more reliable outlets this means the information somehow is no longer questionable is absurd. None of these outlets have any way to verify that the original article's claims were legitimate or based off any real sources and the "representative" did not provide any outlets with their supposed sources. I don't believe we would ever accept this site as a reliable source given that we know nothing about it so suggesting its claims should be treated as fact just because some "reliable sources" repeated the information despite not being able to verify it for themselves is ludicrous.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate, you've been around long enough to know that a Wikipedia's user original research doesn't trump reliable sources. Thank you for your opinion, but it's irrelevant until someone finds a source which explicitly says these numbers aren't true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Another debunk, from a Russian blogger close to opposition figures. In English, just please take the time to read it: http://ruslanleviev.livejournal.com/37565.html Also, why isn't this *HUGE* news in the CNN, BBC, The Guardian? You would think they'd report it too, if it was true? Please put prejudices aside, follow the source chain and get to the bottom of the facts. It's just a Russian click bait site. Mardy (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The original source is fake, that is plenty of reason to remove the info. You can't just use secondary articles as a source when the information in those articles have proven to be fake.ChuckChuckRuck (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You still have not answered my question Chuck.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, secondary sources is exactly what we use.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

stopfake.org debunked it as fake

http://www.stopfake.org/en/debunking-the-fake-article-on-2000-russian-soldiers-killed-in-donbas-everyone-fell-for/

172.98.153.169 (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That's more like it. Need a bit more though, this is user generated content, no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Marek, in my opinion you are reversing the logic: in order to add something to an article, we need reliable sources. Those numbers come from a blog of an anti-Russian journalist hosted in Forbes, some tabloids and many Ukrainian sites, and they all refer as a primary source to an unreliable site (bs-life.ru). None of the big news agencies carries this news. The US department did not update his estimates. Now, do you really expect the BBC to write a piece of news about this news (which they didn't report) being fake? Or do you expect Ukrainian sites or the journalist who posted the news into his Forbes blog to retract it? It may happen, but most likely it won't. So what, do we have to stay with these fake numbers in Wikipedia, just because the formal process requires so? I have a proposal: we revert those numbers to those given by the US department and, if you wish, we can add a small section in the body of the article, where we report of this "news" and its criticism.Mardy (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Russia should be removed from the belligerents section and listed as a supporter

Because there is no Russian unit listed in the units section

207.35.219.34 (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)