Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

POV removal of sourced material & WP:3RR

Sources are provided, this is nothing more than a POV push. Editing from a neutral point of view (per WP:NPOV) means representing "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

Volunteer Marek, you have violated WP:3RR. — [1], [2], [3], [4]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

No I haven't. Volunteer Marek 16:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This info about NATO general is not really relevant on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Der Spiegel is a reliable source and info about NATO general is relevant. Quote: —"For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over again, Breedlove's numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America's NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO."

Diffs of Volunteer Marek's reverts:

1st revert: 14:04, 24 October 2015

2nd revert: 14:06, 24 October 2015

3rd revert: 14:10, 24 October 2015

4th revert: 14:12, 24 October 2015

Including the material seems to me to be an improvement to the article, and although discussion was on-going, there was clearly no agreement that it should be deleted. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Those aren't four reverts. Stop making stuff up. Volunteer Marek 23:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You either don't know what a revert is or you're pretending you don't know what a revert is. Volunteer Marek 22:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition, clear violation of WP:HOUNDING, in which Volunteer Marek deliberately went through and removed my edits in 8 different articles — [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] see his edit history : 14:03 – 14:33, 24 October 2015. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's the same POV pushing by you which was rejected by consensus. So yeah, I undid your disruptive edits. What actually IS disruptive is you trying to WP:GAME Wikipedia by trying to find other articles to sneak your POV pushing into when you know damn well that this text was rejected before. Volunteer Marek 22:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the text is not faithful to the source — which states, "Sources in the Chancellery," not "some German politicians and diplomats".[13]

We don't even know if what the anonymous "sources" have said, is "info" — much less encyclopedic.

What matters is that we don't constantly inflate the figures of Russian military involvement.

The text in question actually presumes to ascribe a 'motivation' to Breedlove ("an attempt to subvert the diplomatic solution of the War in Donbass"). Is this mind reading, politics, or WP:SYNTH? — Ríco 20:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

"... by constantly inflating the figures of Russian military involvement" isn't what it says in the article, and looks a lot like synth.

Plus, just because the commander's estimates differed from Germany's foreign intelligence agency — or "those in the possession of America's NATO allies in Europe" — doesn't make him wrong. Recently we have learned they had special forces in the Ukraine, and that they had Russian TOS-1 "Buratino" thermobaric weapon launchers there. So when the commander said Putin had "Russian combat forces, some of their most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery," etc., some of what we have subsequently learned seems to confirm his comment, at least in part.

Finally, is this article about Breedlove? — Ríco 21:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but we report what reliable sources say.

Quote: —"It was quiet in eastern Ukraine last Wednesday. Indeed, it was another quiet day in an extended stretch of relative calm. The battles between the Ukrainian army and the pro-Russian separatists had largely stopped and heavy weaponry was being withdrawn. The Minsk cease-fire wasn't holding perfectly, but it was holding. On that same day, General Philip Breedlove, the top NATO commander in Europe, stepped before the press in Washington. Putin, the 59-year-old said, had once again "upped the ante" in eastern Ukraine -- with "well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of their most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery" having been sent to the Donbass. "What is clear," Breedlove said, "is that right now, it is not getting better. It is getting worse every day." German leaders in Berlin were stunned. They didn't understand what Breedlove was talking about. And it wasn't the first time. Once again, the German government, supported by intelligence gathered by the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany's foreign intelligence agency, did not share the view of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR)." — "Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine", Der Spiegel, March 06, 2015.

Still waiting on a reply to why the opinion poll has been removed – [14] -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Because previous consensus was not to include it. If you want to know how to achieve that reread old discussions. Which you participated in. Please stop it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek 23:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

There was clearly no consensus to remove the material in question, which was reliably sourced and verified. This is the only discussion here in which I participated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014%E2%80%9315_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine/Archive_14#Breedlove.2C_Soros.2C_Der_Spiegel -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Tobby72, it looks like you and Darouet supported inclusion of the Breedlove content, but Volunteer Marek, Alexpl,[15][16][17] Bobrayner,[18] and My very best wishes[19] opposed it — so why would you put it back in sans further discussion? Both Volunteer Marek[20] and bobrayner[21] opined that your editing was disruptive and "tendentious".

A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following:

Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors.

— Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Examples of disruptive editing

— Ríco 20:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Tobby72, while that discussion may have been the only other one "here", in which you participated — you have participated in others, in related areas.[22][23] — Ríco 20:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, thank you for making me realize what was going on.

Tobby72's reply — to my two replies (above in this subthread)[24][25] — didn't address anything I had written, to engage in consensus building.

What a waste of time! — Ríco 00:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. No clear consensus has been reached for deletion – [26], [27], [28], [29]. Volunteer Maek & bobrayner have repeatedly reverted edits by deleting verified information without substantial or convincing reasoning other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Rico didn't make any "personal attacks". Just like you're falsely accusing me of breaking 3RR, here you are falsely accusing Rico of personal attacks. Please stop. Your behavior is clearly WP:TENDENTIOUS and clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND. Rico merely pointed out that you are wasting other editors' time, which most definitely is true, it's something that you've been told before, it's something that you've been ignoring for months now with your obnoxious slow motion edit wars and it's something which highlights just how inconsiderate you are as an editor. Volunteer Marek 22:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy wrote that Tobby72 was "a disruptive editor" who had been, "casting WP:ASPERSIONS about numerous editors" — last May, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive886#POV pushing.2C removal of sourced material.[30]

An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums.

— Wikipedia:Arbitration (Casting aspersions)

— Ríco 23:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Tobby72, consensus does not have to be achieved for deletion.

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion
While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

— Wikipedia:Verifiability policy

You have to leave your disputed content out, unless you can get a consensus for its inclusion — something you don't have now, and didn't have in the previous discussion you referenced.

Per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Examples of disruptive editing, "a disruptive editor is an editor who [...] continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors."

Volunteer Marek[31][32] and Bobrayner[33] have clearly provided reasoning other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as have Alexpl,[34][35][36] My very best wishes,[37] and me.[38][39][40][41] — Ríco 03:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

And, e.g., is the following included in the article: 5 May 2014. Forbes. Putin's 'Human Rights Council' Accidentally Posts Real Crimean Election Results —Pietadè 22:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition, a credible poll by Pew Research very strongly indicates the official results of the referendum in Crimea (which violated the Ukrainian constitution and which were overwhelmingly in favor of secession) are correct: - [42]. Quote: —"For their part, Crimeans seem content with their annexation by Russia. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%)." Forbes commentary looks like it might be a false flag operation. president-soviet.ru is owned by an NGO not the Russian government - [43]. It was never on the Kremlin's website as blog contributor at Forbes alleges. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't "report" everything reliable sources say, in every article.

Is there some historical significance to the allegations that Beedlove allegedly exaggerated?

Tobby72, why do you think this allegation belongs in the article? -- Ríco 23:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

NATO's Supreme Allied Commander has been commenting on Russian military intervention in eastern Ukraine. Seems quite relevant to the understanding of NATO position. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

As a US general, Breedlove had access to American intelligence that "America's NATO allies in Europe" did not have. The US doesn't share a lot of its intelligence.

Breedlove replied to the Der Spiegel report, "it is to be expected that these assessments do not always exactly match the assessments of individual nations. [...] It is normal that not everyone agrees with the assessments that I provide."^[1]

Finally, would this pass the ten-year test? In ten years, will this addition still appear relevant? -- Ríco 17:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not because you couldn't include Putin's 'viewpoint' that Russia is not in Ukraine, and that the West — especially the United States — is lying, so you put that the USA is stretching the truth (and commanding NATO). -- Ríco 19:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The link you cite is an opinion piece. If this content belongs anywhere, I would think that would be in an article like Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation.[44] — Ríco 03:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

1. You left out, "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

You're equating the two things you want in the article with "significant views," but all content that any editor wants to include in an article isn't necessarily "significant" — and isn't necessarily even a "view" — for the purposes of NPOV. If that were true, everything would have to be included.

Marek wrote, "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."[45]

I repeated Marek's search, and now this Breedlove thing definitely looks like a minor thing to me. The first hit I got was the Der Spiegel report, the second was to a different topic, the third was the Reuters article, the fourth was to RT, and the rest were minor and not reliable sources.

2. There is no editor consensus here to supercede the principles upon which NPOV is based. — Ríco 19:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Tobby72, per 3RR, "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." That would apply to your first and second diffs, and to your third and fourth ones, so Marek did not violate 3RR.

You tried to add in the disputed content (borderlining) as many times as Marek deleted it. Since it had previously been deleted,[46][47][48] you made the exact same number of reverts as Marek. Worse, there were intervening edits by other users in between all four of your reverts, so you did violate 3RR:

Content	Previously Deleted from Article	Tobby's October 24th Reverts
A comprehensive poll released on 8 May 2014 by the Pew Research Centre surveyed Crimean opinions on the annexation...	[49]	1st revert
A poll of the Crimean public was taken by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on 16–22 January 2015...	[50]	2nd revert
NATO's supreme allied commander in Europe Philip M. Breedlove has been criticized by some German politicians and diplomats as spreading "dangerous propaganda" by constantly inflating the figures of Russian military involvement in an attempt to subvert the diplomatic solution of the War in Donbass spearheaded by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.	[51]	3rd revert
NATO's supreme allied commander in Europe Philip M. Breedlove has been criticized by some German politicians and diplomats as spreading "dangerous propaganda" by constantly inflating the figures of Russian military involvement in an attempt to subvert the diplomatic solution of the War in Donbass spearheaded by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.	[52]	4th revert

Gaming sanctions for disruptive behavior
[...]
3. 'Borderlining' – habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, in order to make it hard to actually prove misconduct.

Example: An editor never violates the three revert rule, but takes several months to repeatedly push the same edits over the objections of multiple editors.

[...]
5. 'Playing victim': Violating a rule and at the same time claiming others in violation of the same or closely related rule.

Example: An editor posts uncivil comments while at the same time accusing his opponent of uncivil behavior, demanding sanctions and citing policies that he himself clearly violates.

— Wikipedia:Gaming the system

— Ríco 23:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Tobby72, the closing "result of the discussion" — of the grievance you posted at AN/I was:

Tobby72 is warned against forum shopping and counseled to file a request at AE if there are further disputes regarding Ukrainian conflicts.

[53]

Why don't you do that? The title of your ANI post — "POV pushing, removal of sourced material" — is what you're complaining about here... — Ríco 21:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably because at that AN/I discussion Toby was told that:

"There's clearly nothing to do here unless the OP (i.e. Toby) needs a boomerang block for forum shopping and trying to abuse process to gain advantage in a content dispute. Guy"

"here's good reason for a boomerang but a warning may simply be effective if they have not done anything like this before.-Serialjoepsycho- " (and now they have done this over and over again)

and

"@Tobby72:, one point here: good faith tends to expire when Tendentious editing takes place. You have been told repeatedly that Consensus is against you in including that reference, as it's considered to be WP:UNDUE – at this point, it's best to Drop the stick, and move on. Failure to do so could probably be considered "bad faith". Bottom line: you're not going to win every argument on Wikipedia, even when you think you are "right". --IJBall "

to which Tobby replied

"Thanks, I think it's a good idea. -- Tobby72"

But somehow he ended coming back here and starting the whole thing all over again. In other words, obviously this "thanks, I think it's a good idea" was just a response to the realization that he might get boomerang blocked and a way of ending *that* discussion after his attempt at block-forum-shopping failed. Volunteer Marek 04:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This talk page is a forum:

“

Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus.

”

— Wikipedia:Consensus policy, in the Consensus-building pitfalls and errors subsection

He was "warned against forum shopping" at ANI, and then came here and forum shopped? — Ríco 17:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate sentence

IANA Wikipedia editor but (and I will admit that, IMHO, the bias of this article is immediately apparent because, e.g., the opposite view is not presented at all) the very fourth sentence "In August, Russian military vehicles crossed the border in several locations of Donetsk Oblast." seems to be inaccurate. None of the references linked contains any undeniable proof or evidence. In all of them there is either "presumably", "reportedly", or some people "report" etc. The sentence should therefore reflect that by, e.g., including "reportedly" as well. Ald Yupi (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

2 x 'reportedly' and zero 'presumably'. Please don't use this talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Not only Breedlove..., UN too...

"Arms and fighters are still pouring into rebel-held areas of eastern Ukraine from Russia, a United Nations report said on Wednesday, as it put the death toll from 20 months of fighting at more than 9,100."^[2]^[3]—Pietadè (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

^ KIRSCHBAUM, ERIK; KÖRKEMEIER, TOM (March 7, 2015). "Germany downplays report of rift with NATO over Breedlove comments". Reuters. BERLIN/RIGA. Retrieved October 26, 2015.
^ Nebehay, Stephanie (9 December 2015). "Men, arms, still pour into east Ukraine from Russia: U.N." Geneva: Reuters. Retrieved 9 December 2015. The toll is conservatively estimated at 9,115 people killed and 20,797 injured, including civilians, Ukrainian armed forces and other fighters, Magazzeni said.
^ "Ukraine conflict has left more than 9,000 dead, says UN". theguardian.com. 9 December 2015. Retrieved 9 December 2015. Since the report's cutoff date of 15 November, six people have been killed and 21 have been wounded, he added.

Title

"2014–16" makes it sound as if the conflict ended in 2016. Why not Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present), or simply Russian military intervention in the Ukrainian crisis instead? I would've been bold and moved it myself because it doesn't sound like a controversial decision to me. Personally I prefer "in the Ukrainian crisis", but I'd like to know your opinions first. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

They say, in wholesale the "thing" is cheaper, so, why not "2014–16", "2017–18", etc. in the row?Pietadè (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that the latter option works. The first option may have merit, but I'm not entirely convinced that the title actually needs to be changed at this point. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There certainly is some WP:OR involved. When does this "event" start and end? Do we have sources saying that active intervention is occurring now? RGloucester — ☎ 04:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I take that bit back, as I've just read this in The New York Times today. The relevant portion reads "Though Russia’s military activity has quieted in eastern Ukraine in recent months, Moscow continues to maintain a presence there, working with pro-Russian local forces". In this case, I support Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present). That's the most regular title by Wikipedia standards, and solves the date range problem. It seems to make more sense than changing the title each year. RGloucester — ☎ 19:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No RS attest to its being over, therefore it does need to be treated as an ongoing situation. To be honest, my take is to leave the title as stands. Yes, it may connote that 2016 as being a date when the conflict ceased, but I think we're stuck with it for lack of options as to the title. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the main problem is the question of title stability. The present title is inherently unstable, in that it will require a change if the conflict continues into next year. It has already required two such changes. A move as proposed above would eliminate this problem. RGloucester — ☎ 17:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As for me, updating almost daily the timeline, the 1^st question would be: why not “Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present)” (if adding month and day one has to specify/identify (not our task), e.g., was the starting date on the day the former president was presented a “taxi-drive” by Russian military helicopters to Crimea, Russian controlled areas, the day of the first casualties on March 18, 2014, where unidentified 3^rd parties (like in Kyiv) shot dead some humans); the fact is that it has started, and is continuing (in the context of killed Iranian generals in the ongoing Syrian “Civil” War (how many participants there are…), and in relation to not small bulk of Crimean Wars)
Besides that, the present kind of title is like, imho, a fortune-tellers' or accountants' declaration, à la start at... and so one—Pietadè (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Given that there is consensus that the current title does not meet with WP:CONCISE, I'd also cast my !vote for Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I've boldly carried out the move. I hope this solution will be satisfactory. RGloucester — ☎ 23:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me. I was considering doing the same tomorrow if there were no objections expressed here. I don't see any need for an 'official' RM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

http://web.archive.org/web/20151208072133/http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-this-week-tv-rain-interviews-russian-volunteer-fighter-returned-from-the-donbass/

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Humanitarian aid convoy

OSCE monitors stated they observed vehicles transporting ammunition and soldiers' dead bodies crossing the Russian-Ukrainian border under the guise of humanitarian aid convoys.[76]

The source talks about "Cargo 200" vehicles, but there is no word about "the guise of humanitarian aid convoy". Also there is no word about ammuniton. I think we need other source or this statement is not verifiable.Bob twice (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Taken care of. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Could you please ensure that you read through sources properly when requests are made before tagging anything. In fact, the content was already accounted for in the RS. Thanks for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Losses of 76th Division

The 76th Guards Air Assault Division allegedly entered Ukrainian territory in August and engaged in a skirmish, suffering 80 dead.

I think statement about company-strength losses needs some sources.Bob twice (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find this statement. Where is it? –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It's already fully covered in the WP:RS provided for the brief paragraph (see the relevant article). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) → Russo-Ukrainian war – De facto war between Russia and Ukraine. WP:CONCISE. – Article editor (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Article editor, Peter SamFan, RGloucester, Mandruss, and JFG: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Done One right above, that is. Peter Sam Fan 15:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Revert this immediately. This is no way an "uncontroversial change". What in the name of Jimbo is going on here? A proper WP:RM needs to be had if such a huge change as this is going to go forward, anyone with two pence worth of sense would know that. RGloucester — ☎ 15:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

That was my reaction when I saw it. It seemed so obvious that I didn't feel the need to comment; I assumed the responding admin would handle it. Apparently not. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Article editor and Mandruss: Great. Now I'm in trouble. Maybe User:Article Editor was wrong? I don't know. Peter Sam Fan 15:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hell yes they were wrong. Titles of articles about world political crises are never uncontroversial. Likewise titles of articles about high-level political candidates, racial, gender, and other social issues, and so on, and so on. Removing the word "state" from Cannabis policy of Colorado state was uncontroversial, but changing "cannabis" to "pot" would probably be controversial. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

To me the first meaning of "pot" is pottery, i.e. baked clay. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I'm flabbergasted! Nice job catching this, RGloucester. Now perhaps we should delete the unfortunate Russo-Ukrainian war redirect? — JFG ^talk 18:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do delete and salt the redirect. Until there is a "Russo-Ukrainian war", there's no reason for it to exist. The disruptive editing on all of the recent events in Ukraine articles is out of hand. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Can we mark this discussion as closed now? –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Not really. I don't think this will be resolved until the "Russo-Ukrainian war" name space is WP:SALTed. There has never been such a war, and the resurrection of this OR title is disturbing. Anthony Appleyard, is there any possibility that you could salt it, or should I do so via WP:RFP? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy and Compassionate727: Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: Thanks for the salt

, now let's close the RM. — JFG ^talk 15:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Snow Oppose We go by WP:COMMONNAME here on Wikipedia which this proposed title does not meet. I agree with the above that the move was not uncontroversial, and recommend a big wet trout (if they are open to it of course). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Olimpics, truce, and dates

The 2014 Winter Olympics took place from 7 to 23 February 2014...
2016 Summer Olympics run from 5 August to 21 August 2016..., and, not all Summer events are accompanied by elections (not re-elections), "catch the moment"?—Pietadè (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Some changes to the lead

I'd like to make a few changes to the lead, which editors may revert and discuss here if they feel that necessary.

I think that the second sentence should be split in two. The first sentence should mention the removal of Yanukovych in a clause, so that readers understand that the seizure of Crimea by Russian soldiers followed this event. I think that everyone, whether they support, oppose, or are neutral about Yanukovych's fall and Russia's response, can agree that this event precipitated the response, and readers would want to know.

The second sentence should mention in a clause that the result of the disputed referendum was for Crimea to join the Russian Federation. There are a number of reasons for this, but most importantly the result of the referendum is at least as important as the "disputed" descriptor characterizing it. Right now, when I read the paragraph, it is genuinely unclear what the referendum's result was.

Lastly, I think that the clause in the second paragraph, "According to a former Pentagon strategy adviser..." should be removed. The adviser is Phillip Karber, and while I have no objection to his claims being repeated in the body of the article, I don't think they carry enough weight to merit being in the lead. The surrounding material sourced to OSCE monitors paints the same picture and is more credible.

Any input appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

1. There is no connection between the removal of Yanukovich and Russian military intervention. Ukraine domestic political affairs can not serve a reason for Russia to invade its territory. Russia only used it as excuse, but it's a different story. 2. The results of the referendum are not important, since it was illegal. Therefor the word "illegal" is better than "disputed". 37.233.63.200 (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The referendum is illegal from Ukrainian standpoint, which is irrelevant to our, Crimeans', decision to leave Ukraine and join Russia. We, the people of Crimea, made our decision the same way as people of the US made a couple of centuries ago. Our decision was provoked by illegal coup in Kiev. 185.7.100.98 (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's not important what people of Crimea think. Also it's not important was there a coup in Kiev or wasn't. What is important is that Russian Federation invaded Ukrainian territory.212.90.182.118 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

We, the people - very funny in this contest. Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation (see 310 new patriotic slogans by North Korea (BBC))—Pietadè (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Pietade: Do you have the right article? Results per Earwig's Copyvio are as such. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Apparently not...—Pietadè (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

New article

Someone has created an article called Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014-present). I think it probably needs cleaning up.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Validity of this article

Does this article satisfy all Wikipedia standards, especially from the POV and weasel-words aspect? Why isn't there a Russian-language version? Wildespace (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia is extremely heavily moderated towards their official state narrative. In other words, a majority of their community denies Russian intervention at all and refuses for an alternative point of view to be expressed. --VoidWanderer (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, that characterization ("heavily moderated towards their official state narrative") would seem to apply to the English Wikipedia with a vengeance (except that "official state" perhaps should be changed to "MSM"), :) :). Anyhow, it's a difficult problem since all writing carries a POV, whether acknowledged or denied. In the Wikipedia's favor it must be noted that there is a corresponding article about American(-led) intervention in Iraq in 2014 et seq, although perhaps it should be noted that the latter involves far more personnel. (Nobody could ever call that one a "stealth invasion".) Son of eugene (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is extremely heavily moderated towards the assumptions made by the west based on the media and political narratives, so I think the question at the outset of including view from Russian-speaking (that is both Russians and actual Russian speaking Ukrainians in the affected areas) people would likely be more objective, than the views that reach us through the western media. It is sadly diffiult to find any quotes or interviews with ordinary Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the areas within and near the occupied areas, and these are the people that should be writing part of this article - but we are not giving them any say, and the reaction above to not allowing Russian speaking text at all is part of the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.124.48.105 (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

To be frank, and to push back against some accusations against the 'western' editors, the interest in unbiased and varied sources is I guarantee you significantly greater and more reliable with 'Western' editors since we won't take RT/Sputnik at their incredibly unreliable word. On the issue of the 'MSM', lumping organizations like Reuters and AP within these groups is common, despite them oftentimes providing the first-reporting that trickles down to places like NBC/ABC/Fox. A reasonable glance at this information reveals very little 'bent' to place the Russian Federation as some sort of adversary, but merely the facts that it has sent military forces -- nowadays well admitted -- into a sovereign country and annexed part of it. Alternate stories and points about this can be given a glance, but doesn't mean us 'Western' editors will take the Russian media at their word, as their reporting (even now) on MH17 has very well revealed to any rational human being. Bemoreinformed (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that, as is true of the the above section, this is a Wikipedia talk page and not a forum or personal advocacy site. Articles dealing with subjects surrounding the events in Ukrainian have been run ragged with personal point of view pushes, as have their talk pages. Rehashing the same themes over and over is a time and energy sinkhole for editors, therefore any more forum style commentary will be removed as the soapboxing they are. Please respect the very first talk page box that appears on this talk page. Thank you, in advance, for taking the time to read the archived talk pages before you commit any opinions to this page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Invasion

The article should be called the Russian invasion of Ukraine. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:6051:389F:3949:8E32 (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC))

Can you find evidence that that is what it is called in English-language publications?-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2016/11/20/international-criminal-court-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-is-a-crime-not-a-civil-war/#51c820f37fec (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:6051:389F:3949:8E32 (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC))

The ICC is a flaky group of dilettantes, mostly lesser NATO sycophants. The ICC is even accused by African states of being racist. Oddly, the USA is not a signatory to the ICC, nor is Russia, nor is Ukraine. The ICC appears to be just another time-wasting European boondoggle with zero credibility. Santamoly (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Just because somebody somewhere called the events in Ukraine an invasion does not necessarily make it one. Is there an accepted objective definition of what constitutes an "invasion?" If yes, then how do the events in Ukraine measure up against such a definition? In the absence of such criteria we are merely dealing with opinion and propaganda - hardly worth a Wiki entry.Moryak (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The word "invasion" implies an an more purely unwelcome intrusion, whilst military intervention implies that there are benefits to both parties in the particular territory. In this situation Russia is entering territory of Russian speaking Ukranians, who think of themselves as essentially of the same culture as Russians - and indeed want stability and safety like everyone else. When US invades Badgad, or Vietnam, there is no benefit to Bagdad residents or Vietnam residents whatsoever, whilst Russia's forceful entry to Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine was to protect its own people from anti-Russian provocations. The word 'military intervention' doesn't take Russia off the hook, however is a more neutral term, with the details contained in the article and not loaded in the title, and more appropriate for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.124.48.105 (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

In the English language, the word "invasion" is neutral - it does not imply that it is a good or bad thing. For example, the Allied landing in Normandy in 1944 was referred to as an invasion by the Allies. The German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 was welcomed by many of the inhabitants of towns and villages that the Germans passed through (they thought they were being liberated).-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Back to the definition issue - the American Heritage Dictionary says: invade - to enter by force in order to conquer or overrun. In the case of Crimea, Russia already had some 12,000+ troops in Crimea out of 25,000 permitted by the Ukraine-Russia lease agreement. It is doubtful if even today Russia has 25,000 servicemen on Crimea. During the events of March 2014 Russia did not enter Crimea by force - so where was the "invasion?"

Moryak, the talk page header says: this is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. The (un)forceful transfer of Russian forces to Crimea may be dicussed in specialized places. --VoidWanderer (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Russia's actions were clearly illegal under international law, so the article should be called an invasion rather than just a military intervention. (2A00:23C4:6384:FE00:FF:5B53:3C80:B5A5 (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC))

Repeating that this is an article talk page, not a soapbox. Please desist with the WP:BLUDGEON. The article deals with the RF presence during the period of the crisis in an umbrella article. It is not simply about the annexation of Crimea, so you're barking up the wrong tree... without any reliable sources to back up your contention that this was all some sort of outright invasion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The Ukrainian government called it an invasion: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10666742/Ukraine-accuses-Russia-of-armed-invasion-after-Crimea-airports-blockaded.html (2A00:23C4:6384:FE00:3097:458E:1716:CE46 (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141114002830/https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/kiev-claims-intensive-movements-troops-crossing-russia-123248755.html to https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/kiev-claims-intensive-movements-troops-crossing-russia-123248755.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140520122050/http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=-5141 to http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=-5141
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/30/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSKBN0GS10C20140830
Corrected formatting/usage for http://ura.ru/articles/1036263086
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141110102048/http://www.foi.se/ReportFiles/foir_3892.pdf to http://www.foi.se/ReportFiles/foir_3892.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

[1] KIRSCHBAUM, ERIK; KÖRKEMEIER, TOM (March 7, 2015). "Germany downplays report of rift with NATO over Breedlove comments". Reuters. BERLIN/RIGA. Retrieved October 26, 2015.

[2] Nebehay, Stephanie (9 December 2015). "Men, arms, still pour into east Ukraine from Russia: U.N." Geneva: Reuters. Retrieved 9 December 2015. The toll is conservatively estimated at 9,115 people killed and 20,797 injured, including civilians, Ukrainian armed forces and other fighters, Magazzeni said.

[3] "Ukraine conflict has left more than 9,000 dead, says UN". theguardian.com. 9 December 2015. Retrieved 9 December 2015. Since the report's cutoff date of 15 November, six people have been killed and 21 have been wounded, he added.

[1]

[2]

[3]