Talk:War in Donbas/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Russian implication in the event

There is no proof of the direct implication of Russia in the event. Apparently, a/p some "consensus", you can't add the words "supporting party" to Russia. No. It has to be DIRECTLY implicated, but "denied by Russia". Note that no source provided ever shows proof of direct implication of Russia. In the same vein, NATO is no less "implied" because NATO sends in munitions and humanitarian aid. But NATO doesn't appear as belligerent. I mean, it could, for like, 5 mins... before some other genius removes it.
Anyway, think what you want. You'll never prove Russia as implicated in the conflict, making the current configuration of your infobox vandalism. This is a propaganda war and those who don't get it are... idiots. 24.201.216.214 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of making the point that editors' studied obliviousness to the fact that there is an information war going on between the West and Russia gives the Ukrainian articles and Talk pages a surrealistic quality. Thanks for stating the obvious.

As for the substance of your comment, I do not mind Russia being listed as a "belligerent". You are quite right that Russia is not directly implicated, but pro-Novorossian Web sites regularly discuss (covert) Russian military support of Novorossia, referring to it ironically as voentorg (surplus military equipment trade). (This is, by the way, currently cut off, because Moscow wants the rebels to observe the truce.)

However, I just noticed that, under "Units involved", "Russian armed forces" is listed. This is absurd. (1) The Russian army is not a "unit". (2) If the Russian armed forces were involved in this conflict, the Ukrainian military would no longer exist, and areas at least as far west as Odessa would now be under Russian occupation. Has this entry been discussed before? There is no doubt that it must be removed.

– Herzen (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's because we've already had this discussion in August, with some other people, and the result was the same: Russia is involved by benefit of the doubt. Everything rotates around providing enough RSs to prove that Russia isn't involved, which, at first glance, are only RT and/or RIA Novosti, and somehow aren't RS anymore, like I said, a/p some "consensus". I feel editors need to understand that it's impossible to get WP to reflect NPOV in these affairs, unless an actual editors travels to Donbass and see what is going on there. The only sources we're getting here right now are either a) Russian implication in Ukraine per date, or b) Ongoing fight statistics. WP shot itself in the foot with the recent RS policy, and no consensus can change that. 24.201.216.214 (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Couple of questions

1) Why can't we say in the infobox there that Russia is a "supporting party", instead of saying that it is directly implied, but denies the fact? In the same vein, just to point out that the sources like "33 See - x" don't refer to anything supportive about Russia so to speak.

2) Why must Vladimir Putin be a direct belligerent? Per the same logic, a small text saying "denied by Putin" should appear underneath then, shouldn't it?

3) Why isn't NATO shown as belligerent of Ukraine, by same logic? NATO provides food and munitions to the Ukrainian soldiers, therefore it is also a supporting party.

Thanks, 24.201.216.214 (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(2) is a new level of craziness I wasn't aware of. I have removed Putin, Shoygu, and Valery Gerasimov from the list of "Commanders and leaders" with this edit. That was just kindergarten-level. – Herzen (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of neutrality, Herzen, why are you still persisting in calling it a 'civil war' (per the edit summary you provided in your above-mentioned edit)? There is so much sourced evidence to the contrary that you appear to be living in POV bubble.

As regards NATO being depicted as a belligerent, 24.201.216.214, please spend some time familiarising yourself with the discussions on this page (including the archives) with care. In fact, if I have to politely type "please spend some time familiarising yourself with..." one more time on any of the pages surrounding the events which have been taking place in Ukraine one more time, you will all be subjected to a sound that'll make Krakatoa seem like a penny bunger. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a joke? I mean, beside the fact that we have to add stupid colons every time we want to reply to each other, and it feels prehistorical enough with no "Krakatoa" implied. Adding a whatchamacallthem "stickies" to the top of this page would've helped a lot for newcomers. And seriously, I have nothing against NATO, if they're not, fine. But "Russia is implied... denied by Russia" sounds like something Obama's daughter would put up. No offense. 24.201.216.214 (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

How many "whatchamacallthem"s do you expect to be posted for newcomers? Read the top of the talk page: it directs you to WP:TALK. Read it. It has a section dedicated to good practices which reads, "Before starting a new discussion ensure there is not already an existing section on the same topic. Duplicating the same discussion in multiple sections on a talk page causes confusion, erodes general awareness of points being made, and disrupts the flow of conversation on the topic." After months of working on articles and debating them at length on talk pages, your input is disruptive. As for your final comment, how could anyone be offended by such a naive remark? Check the reliable sources: the RF's been identified as being directly and indirectly involved by multiple sources. Adding Russia as being involved according to reliable sources and denied by Russia was also discussed at length. Sources are given for evidence and rebuttal on both counts. Wikipedia adheres to neutrality (we're WP:NOTNEWS) therefore, as we merely recount what sources say, we merely try to present what is in the sources in as neutral a manner as possible. If you're unhappy with the presentation as it stands, you'd be very, very unhappy with the presentation if POV-ers had it their way, because the RF's position would not have had a look in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, cool. Thanks for the explanation. This is as thorough as it could be, I guess. I agree on deleting this section completely, if needs be. I got my answer, an opinion on what is going on, and a judgement on whether or not to continue to be implied. So this is, once again, as perfect as it gets. Even if, that which I'm sure of, once in a while there might be the same dilemma resurfacing again in the Talk, I know the answer I wanted to obtain and I finally obtained it. Thanks again, 24.201.216.214 (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Regarding my use of the term "civil war" in my edit summary: (1) I am not aware of any rule requiring editors to studiously adhere to the terminology used in articles in their edit summaries; (2) since I am not the Red Cross, I don't see why I shouldn't call pro-Kiev government and anti-Kiev-government Ukrainians fighting each other with artillery a civil war. Here is a quote from a Reuters story:

The Red Cross has made a confidential legal assessment that Ukraine is officially in a war, Western diplomats and officials say, opening the door to possible war crimes prosecutions, including over the downing of Malaysia Airlines MH-17. …

The ICRC has not made any public statement - seeking not to offend either Ukraine or Russia by calling it a civil war or a case of foreign aggression - but it has done so privately and informed the parties to the conflict, sources told Reuters.

Thus, the possibility that this is a civil war is considered by reliable sources, so I am not in a "POV bubble". I have never attempted to sneak in the term "civil war" into an article about the Ukraine, although I have mentioned that this is obviously a civil war in Talk pages. There is nothing wrong with mentioning an idea for which there is not consensus among editors or which most editors do not consider to be supported by reliable sources in a Talk page. If that were prohibited, discussion in Talk pages wouldn't be possible. And edit summaries are treated as Talk pages in this respect, not like articles.

Why is it that virtually anytime an editor attempts to inject some reality into a Ukraine-related article, or even just a Talk discussion, he or she gets threatened? – Herzen (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you get a user account, so people can't make fun of you for being an IP? – Herzen (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have like 5 different user accounts, but the damn thing keeps logging me out. What do you want me to do? Wasting my time logging back every time I feel like editing articles? Jimbo Wales should do something about it because it is indeed very frustrating.

As per "making fun" part, I don't follow. Who was making ever making fun of me "for being an IP"? I'm not an IP, I am a person and I know who I am. Okay, past the forum blah-blah, I don't mind implicating myself in the project as is, I just think the log in procedure should be simplified, because sometimes I end up forgetting my log ins, people answer somewhere else and urghhh... It's just complicated. 24.201.216.214 (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If you keep on getting logged out, you're doing something wrong, or your browser is misconfigured. When you log in, there is a box you can check saying "Keep me logged in", which keeps you logged in for a month, IIRC. As for the "making fun", I was referring to RGloucester referring to you dismissively as an "IP". – Herzen (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to bother. Sounds like too much work, and besided, it's not like an issue of life and death here. Like I said, I don't mind people ignoring me wiping their feet off me. It's like this IRL too, so yeah, I'm accustomed. 24.201.216.214 (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: You dont really think that the conversation with our Canadian friend is enough to remove Mr. Putin [1] from the Infobox? That would mean Mr. Putin has lost the control over his armed forces and a General or somebody like that is responsible for sending the Russian troops into Crimea and allowed active army personel to participate in combat in Ukraine. So - as long as there has been no secret coup d'état in russia the president should stay in that box. Alexpl (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Who from Russia is directly implied in the war? Girkin and Anafeeyev? Those aren't under Putin's control. Any Russian flag near them should be removed, IMO, because in this particular conflict they represent the country they're fighting for, not the one they're fighting from. As per the Russian Army, well, if there are sources proving it neutral enough to appeal to both ends - they it can stay there. Otherwise, I'd remove it. 24.201.216.214 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I found that argument to be sound, although I still don't think that makes Putin a "commander or leader" in the Ukraine conflict: he is just the leader of one of the countries performing covert operations in eastern Ukraine. But if you want to put Putin back in there, go ahead. I am not going to fight that. But the other two I took out should stay out. They were the defense minister Shoigu and a general. Whether their chain of command has anything to do with operations in the Ukraine is speculative. It would make more sense for Russia's covert operations in the Ukraine to be handled by its intelligence services. – Herzen (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Alexpl: Mondolkiri1 has put Shoigu and Gerasimov back in that infobox with this edit, with the edit summary, "These are the 3 top officials in the Russian Armed Forces. They're all responsible for the military actions of Russia". That is OR. I believe we had achieved consensus that having Putin's name there is allowable, but having the minister of defense and a general there is not. Reliable sources have not reported on what officials in the Russian government are running the Russian intervention in Ukraine. Thus, we have no way of knowing that those two people are involved. Since the Russian intervention is covert, it is more likely that the GRU (military intelligence) is running things. (Yes, OK, I've just done some OR, but that's only to rebut Mondolkiri1's OR.) I have removed the two individuals in question with this edit. – Herzen (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

For once I agree with Herzen. Unless you got reliable sources which explicitly mention these guys, it shouldn't go in. Volunteer Marek  01:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying if it's the GRU or not the GRU that is involved here, it was Herzen that talked about it, but his argument is quite illogical, because the GRU actually answers to the President of Russia, to the Minister of Defense (Shoygu) and to the Chief of the General Staff (Gerasimov)! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Putin as decision-maker must stay in the box, but we dont know how they organized that operation and they wont tell us. So, since its highly speculative who actually reported to the leader, we shouldnt mention those guys until further evidence pops up. Alexpl (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the main issues

If anyone would be so kind, please explain to me the following.
Next to the famous "denied by Russia" statement we see a reference number. Upon going there, we see "See 1,x,y,z" in the appropriate section. And when we click on 1, for instance, the following text can be read: "They have already invaded Ukraine. I find it maddening and incomprehensible how governments and the media keep talking about the possibility, the danger, the threat of Russia invading. Russia invaded Ukraine early in the spring."
I'm frankly not understanding WP's policy here. Why is a "reliable source" the one referencing what some person is saying? And shouldn't then it say something like "According to X, Russia is implied" short, instead of the whole "denied" thing? That source provides absolutely no proof as to the real implication of Russia within Ukraine, especially if it's spelled out by an individual who only "thinks" this is happening. Shouldn't it?
Thanks, 24.201.216.214 (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you please give a link to the story where someone says "They have already invaded Ukraine"? I can't find that story from the information you gave, so I don't think that any editor is going to be able to make a constructive response to this new section you have created.

And figuring out how to keep from being continuously logged out from Wikipedia is not that hard. Your having Wikipedia accounts but not using them, making comments as an IP instead, does not impress other editors with respect to your sincerity. If you want to engage in dialog, you need to respect the culture of your interlocutors. – Herzen (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If you aren't willing to follow the way I just wrote to find the reference, here is the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/strobe-talbott-russia-ukraine_b_5688516.html?utm_hp_ref=tw It's under number one, BTW. Third-fourth line has my quote. 24.201.216.214 (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Russia has invaded Ukraine, has annexed one part of Ukraine, and troops controlled and paid for by the Russian government occupy another part of Ukraine. In Wikipedia the policy is that we have to cite reliable sources for statements, particularly statements that some people might dispute. (Flat-earthers, Holocaust-deniers, etc. exist in real life.) In the article sources like the one you mentioned are used as citations for facts.

You seem to be advocating the following approach: "According to Western media, the Ukrainian government and the NATO pact, Russia has invaded Ukraine by stealth,[1][2][3] but the Russian Government and the state-controlled media in Russia dispute this analysis.[4][5][6]" WP:YESPOV suggests that this is the wrong approach.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, you seem to have a flaw in that policy, so major that it shoots itself in the foot. The third point being "Avoid stating facts as opinions" is actually synonymous to accepting the opinion of majority as a fact by some akin to democratic approach. Unfortunately, this is not how it works IRL, because were it the case, all of the society's laws would be biased, and the work of all judges and other "advocating" figures would be rendered obsolete in the face of canon consumption by the masses. There is no proof of Russia invading Ukraine other than in the words of individuals of such worldwide importance that WP seems to accept them for canon. There is proof of Russia annexing Crimea under the circumstances of NPOV. There isn't any proof of troops controlled or paid by the Russian government occupying Ukraine, and I've never met a source with more than just basing its revelations on the words of some A-class politicians, once again. By affirming these POVs as canon, WP automatically positions itself alongside the Western media, and while I can agree that within them, WP's stance is in fact neutral, it doesn't reflect the worldwide POV anymore and such proof is clear with blatant differences in statements between this WP and the Russian one. So in short, yes, I "advocate" the aforementioned approach because I just can't see any other way for WP to remain self-awaringly neutral in such topics anymore. You, on the other hand, as many an other editor, seem to limit the POV to presumed neutrality and turn WP to another mass media outlet copying the Western POV. 24.201.216.214 (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr IP, I'm sorry that you feel that way. However, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Reliable sources determine what we write. We write based on the consensus amongst reliable sources. Remember, we write what is verifiable, not necessarily what is "true". You may not be convinced by the "proof" that exists, but reliable sources have been. Your opinion does not override reliable sources, and is in fact original research. RGloucester — ☎ 19:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this is funny because you, for whatever reason, presume that what I wrote above is purely my opinion (with "original research" being at stake and whatnot). Be that way, of course, you are entitled to yours. I should just point out, in that case, to the fact that whomever WP states as "reliable sources" are not "convinced" of events as "true". These "reliable sources" are in fact as neutral as WP itself primarily, and only rely on individuals they quote. So, like I said, it turns out that people saying things is more important than the factual evidence, and therefore, am not going to argue on this anymore. I simply won't be touching articles pertaining to political issues where propaganda war is ongoing, I just find it disappointing that English WP in no better than Russian WP in that matter, besides all the visible flaws Russian WP possesses. 24.201.216.214 (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't particularly support including "(denied by Russia)". It is an absurd way of negating what the sources say. RGloucester — ☎ 19:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

When you say that "There is no proof of Russia invading Ukraine other than in the words of individuals", you might just as well say that there is no proof that the Germans invaded on 22 June 1941... Do not be absurd.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Was this a reply to my comment? I'm sorry, I can't count the colons... Anyway, in case it was, and if you really want to discuss it and for that matter have no problem comparing 2014 to 1941, set aside about everything that separates these two completely different epochs... Well, 22 June 1941 the Soviet Army has met heavy bombardments near Brest made by the Luftwaffe as accounted for by surviving individuals who saw the iron crosses of Reichstag crafted onto the wings of the bombers. Would that count as evidence because the eyewitnesses made it so, or would that count as an RS from some history books suitable to be quoted on WP? I don't know, you tell me, my non-IP friend. 24.201.216.214 (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Have you seen this McClatchy story: Best evidence Russians are in Ukraine? How good separatist fighters are? That is in effect an admission by this reliable source that there is no evidence that Russian troops are in Ukraine. The competence of separatist fighters indicating that Russian troops are in Ukraine is an inference, not evidence. And that inference is based on the supposition that "stupid working class eastern Ukrainians can't be turned into effective soldiers with just two months of training". But that is exactly what has happened. Add to that that everybody knows that the NAF have plenty of Ukrainians and Russians who picked up combat experience in Afghanistan or Chechnya.

You are studiously ignoring an excellent point which "Mr IP" raised: there is an information war between the US/NATO and Russia going on. All this talk about Russia "invading" Ukraine only started when the rebels surprised Westerners by making advances against Ukrainian combatants. (I don't say "forces", because the most motivated Ukrainian fighters are not in the army but in Right Sector, or in oligarch-financed "battalions", such as the Azov battalion.) The idea that Russia invaded Ukraine was spun out of thin air by the Western media to keep the Western public from realizing how pathetic the Ukrainian regime and military really are. If "reliable sources" are instruments used in an information war, maybe they are not so reliable? – Herzen (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: Good point. However, we can't label every RS as not RS just because they are either centered toward the Right or Left. Fox News was already debated countless amount of times and was left as RS for the Republican candidates (at least). Correct me if I am wrong about the debate though. The only thing I can suggest is that we can write according to The Huffington Post...--Mishae (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't "according to the Huffington Post", though. It is according to various governments, including the Ukrainian government, and myriad reliable newspapers. RGloucester — ☎ 04:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I was refering to the ref above: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/strobe-talbott-russia-ukraine_b_5688516.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

From my understanding is that the IP guy is concerned about the particular ref being used for claiming of Russian troops being in Ukraine. I looked at the ref and I see what he is getting at, though luck I should say. On one hand the ref is an RS because its The Huffington Post, its not an opinion piece, and is written by a staff reporter. On the other hand, it looks exactly like an opinion piece because it encompases an opinion of Strobe Talbott. So, I maybe don't see a lot of Huffington Post refs, but I would prefer any other RSs over them. Majority of articles on Enlish Wikipedia use BBC News, The Guardian, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, more then they use say Fox News or Huffington Post. But, thats just my observation, you maybe saw some balance...--Mishae (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you there, and in my own writing, I don't ever cite The Huffington Post for that reason. However, if one will note, that is not the only source cited there. That is only one of many. RGloucester — ☎ 04:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: But thats probably the reason why the IP guy is so, shall we say, pissed. Because he knows that the The Huffington Post is no way an RS which can jeopardise Wikipedia credibility. And thats in itself a serious blow. So, my suggestion is that instead of making excuses such as like yeah, its not reliable but with another ref it will be lets just get rid of that Huffington Post ref that he is rightly not happy about and leave the second ref intact. WP will be better off without Huffington and Daily Mail refs and will attract more readers. :)--Mishae (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not pissed at whatever news agency that source came from and whether or not it's RS or not. I'm pissed at the WP policy, and if you're going to keep reading between the lines, I don't know how to bring this forward anymore... Am I really not that clear? Seriously, I wrote that WP considers "canon" sources coming from opinion-based stories, which is like accepting someone's version of events for happened reality. Whether it's The Huffington Post, FOX or New York Times is majorly irrelevant.

And just so we remain on the same wavelength, personally I think that Russia is indeed invading Ukraine. Think about it. The last week of August, there was a mere 15 km of guarded border between both countries, today that distance is over 100. However until I see with my own eyes a story, based on eyewitness evidence, and confirmed by serious worldwide agencies, my own opinion only remains what it remains, and I have no desire to force it onto this website. I think that will be also the day Putin resigns as president, но это уже совсем другая история. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What agencies? Are you talking of ITAR-TASS, RIA, Komersant, and various Pravdas which are Putin's backbone? Are you in denial that Kyiv Post, UNIAN, and Ukrainian Pravda are RSs for the articles on Ukraine? So what you want us to do is to start interviewing every individual as if we were reporters? That will never happen! Wikipedia is not a news agency period. Wikipedia is first of all an encyclopedia, a compendium of knowledge that is written by people in a popularistic way not the scientific way. Does the last sentence explains anything to you?--Mishae (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I never even said the word "agencies". Talking to you is real fun. And what do the names of Russia-affiliated media outlets have to do with WP's policies? I'm sure that if RIA Novosti were one day to write "Russia admits invading Ukraine" as headline, it would still be considered "popularisticly" non-canon, notwithstanding of what WP has to say. Like I said, I'm through with this b.s., seriously, think, do, edit whatever you want. You can even put Vladimir Zhirinovsky as belligerent, a/p some of your precious "RS" sources, he was admittedly "making open threats of annihilation" to the whole NATO alliance. And yes, the last sentence was very clear, thank you. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

KyivPost refers to Donbas war as Russia's war on Ukraine. Is KyivPost right? Not at all. If Russia is at war with Ukraine, Ukraine would not survive. Ukraine does not have the military technology to defend itself from a Russian invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.83.211 (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you may have heard a term recently uttered: "hybrid war". "War" does not necessarily imply "total war". RGloucester — ☎ 16:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hybrid war. Maybe. The goal of this war is to turn Ukraine into a failed state like Iraq, Syria, Libya. Novorus is a tumor inside Ukraine just as ISIS is a tumor inside Iraq and Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.83.211 (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This is, again, speculation. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It is "speculation", and that's why this article doesn't say "the Russo-Ukrainian War is a 'hybrid war' between Russia and Ukraine". I was merely refuting a narrow definition of the word "war". However, reliable sources are not speculating about Russian involvement. They have made it clear that there is such involvement. RGloucester — ☎ 17:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No proof of Russian involvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hm, there is an involment from Donbass and Novorossia, and because they speak Russian WP and reliable sourced need to mention that they are in fact Russian. Do I agree with the logic? Maybe, maybe not. One fact is clear, they are a tumor at Eastern Ukraine, and as sources say they receive equipment from Russia. Are they telling the truth? Probably not. But WP is not here to say which country is right and which one is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and primarilily identifies what's reliable according to our policy and what is not. I for one am in support of dumping this Huffington Post ref to be safe.--Mishae (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't determine whether there is "proof" or not. We merely report whether reliable sources think there is enough proof, and most do. Our own personal beliefs are largely irrelevant. RGloucester — ☎ 22:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Since we got another IP user and this discussion doesn't lead anywhere (perhaps it have something to do with me not understanding what the initial poster is trying to say), I would like to invite our Ukrainian and Russian pannel to put their opinions (or facts) here:

• @Aleksandr Grigoryev:
• @Lvivske:
• @Yulia Romero:
• @Alex Bakharev:--Mishae (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mishae: What is it you want an "opinion" on? What do Russian and Ukrainian editors have to do with an article written for English Wikipedia? It is not written by and for Russians and Ukrainians, nor is it written according to personal opinions: it's written according to WP:RS. The fact that a disgruntled IP (who is actually Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass) has entered the talk page and is complaining about Wikipedia policies and guidelines because they offend their sensibilities is irrelevant. I haven't seen a reasonable argument from this IP, just a lot of indignation. The fact of the depiction of Russia as being involved in the war (according to reliable sources) being presented in the infobox, along with denials by Russia is neutral. It may be a clumsy way of presenting what reliable sources are saying, but I don't see how better to do so. The onus of proof or disproof that Russia is involved is not on the editors here. A reminder, yet again, that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. We don't write the news, nor do we WP:EDITORIALIZE. I don't see any op-eds in the article, only on the talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think this discussion is a waste of time. Pro-Novorossiyan blogs openly discuss Russian military assistance to the Novorossiyan Armed Forces. (This aid is presently cut off.) This assistance is covert, so talk about Russian "military units" operating inside Novorossiya is silly, as is talk of a Russian "invasion". (Covert operations do not constitute an invasion.) However, this has been discussed ad infinitum and is a secondary matter. The main point is that since so many editors insist on calling Russia a belligerent, it is a waste of time for editors such as myself who are concerned with maintaining NPOV to keep on debating that (even though, strictly speaking, Russia is not a belligerent, and if it is, then the US is, too). – Herzen (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: First of all I would like to thank you for joining into this conversation. I'm not trying to push my opinion nor am I trying to agree or disagree with an IP user. I should have clearly stated it, but I assumed that everyone will get a clue on what I seeked an opinion on. I wanted someone to explain user Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass what our core policies are, and thats what I ment by an opinion. Sorry if my demand for an intervention (along with my poor rephrasing of English words) caused so much confusion. See, I saw that user Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass wants to do something that is against our policies, and I and RGloucester have tried to explain to him (and I and Herzen have even tried to understand his reasoning). Now since three wasn't enough I decided to invide 4 of the guys from the WikiProject Ukraine who will maybe shed some light on the situation. I for one am neutral to both parties.--Mishae (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"Wasn't enough" for what? That I stay and debate over issues beyond consensual reach? WADR, it's impossible to justify the WP:NOTNEWS policy for topics in which the news themselves are biased. What happens if a judge has to judge of themselves in a cerain situation? They don't, they get judged by another judge. But in the media world, it doesn't work that way, and I'm sorry, but it's not open to debate because this is how it is. So, with this said, I prefer to leave to the others, and would not want to be implicated in such projects anymore, a/p everything explained and re-explained above. Not even once have I said that WP editors don't have the right to interpret the sources the way they do. I'm just saying that to interpret the source is one thing, but to fully understand its intent, is quite another. 24.201.216.214 (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So in other words we just wasted all our time on your opinion? Yes, the news are probably biased, but without them we can't create an article and this is the sole purpose of this project. The purpose of this project is to create neutral and encyclopedic content (although we do suffer from Systemic bias which is common in every Wiki Project). As far as interpretation of sources go, we are not reporters, we just follow our guidelines (which are many, to be honest), but we need to follow them otherwise our project will pretty much die. As for WP:WADR we don't try to disrespect you in anyway. As a matter of fact we like you as an editor, we just don't agree with your POV. Sorry, but thats another guideline without which this project would have been long dead. :(--Mishae (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: Whatever our personal opinions, we know that the article deals with the war in Donbass (per WP:TITLE), not the dystopia known as the world economic order. Any attempts to stretch it would not be NPOV according to RS, and it would not be a Wikipedia article but, rather, a piece we're putting together for an independent news outlet/blog/forum... which we most definitely are not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mishae: Apologies if I gave the impression that I was being rude to you. I fully understood that you were asking for opinions in good faith. As for explaining policies to the IP, the IP-come-Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass has made it clear that s/he is WP:NOTHERE (per their response to a message I left on their talk page). The user's only objective is to be disruptive because they believe themselves to be a bit of a rebel and a great philosopher: there's no point in indulging such a contributor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: No need to apologize since it wasn't personal, we just didn't understood each other, that happens. :) As far as indulging goes, I just was trying to be polite (maybe too much?)--Mishae (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mishae: I suspect that the user is not so much being intentionally disruptive as breaking common sense advice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Thanks for the laugh. I think that the user just over drank some vodka since he/she claimes that the user comes from Russia (at least I can tell it by his/her English since I am no different). I never knew that vodka can give anyone a philosophical aspect, it should be then a good one! P.S. This is my first time of encountering a drunk editor.--Mishae (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mishae: Хфилософ расходился, как холодный самовар. ;) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Its a very smart analogy especially when it comes to Russell's teapot believer.--Mishae (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Drinking is only a temporary disturbance in any case. When one has consistent mental problems which sum up as "feeling like" editing WP, it gets worse. I wish you never know what it means to wake up every day feeling like a different person. 24.201.216.214 (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And yeah, I'm basically off. Just ROTFLing at what you make of my comments right after one of you remarks that I've been "wasting your time". 24.201.216.214 (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hold on. O.K. Let me get this straight, at first you mentioned about drinking issues which sorry to say, made us laugh, but since you now mention of "waking up as a different person everyday" that changes the story a bit. I myself have cerebral palsy, so just like you I wake up with different mood to edit this project. However, I don't disturb other users with my complains about my health because I know that Wikipedia is not a therapy and although people do get social here, we don't treat Wikipedia as VKontakte, Odnoklassniki, or Facebook because Wikipedia is not a social networking site.--Mishae (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never said anything about "drinking issues", you're making up stories. You don't know me and actually judge me from reading between the lines, which is simply ridiculous. As per myself, I don't have any "issues" to start with, if you think I have "issues" likely to disrupt the normal flow of WP editing, then you're welcome to report me and have me blocked. The only thing I know is that WP helps me get through harder periods, or pass my time, that for which I'm grateful to it, but of course I may be off the policy of wanting to "build an encyclopedia" because nobody made me sign legal contracts of doing so when I first clicked "Edit" years ago. 24.201.216.214 (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

About a new section

I don't think it makes sense talking about incessant fightings after the ceasefire agreement in September, under the Ceasefire agreement section. It's still technically in effect, but in practice, clearly it's not in effect. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2014 (London/Lisbon Time)

The fighting has happened in the context of the ceasefire, and it has been observed in many areas, such as Luhansk city (read the UN report, for instance). There is no reason to establish a new section. The only reason to add a section is if a significant event happens or if the old section gets too long. There's not reason to add superfluous sections, making the ToC longer. RGloucester — ☎ 00:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Buffer zone vs. demarcation line

With this edit, RGloucester replaced "demarcation line" with "buffer zone" as what was agreed on recently between the DPR and Ukraine. However, the sources cited clearly say "demarcation line", not "buffer zone". It is not just Russian media that use this term. The WSJ does, too. The article is behind a paywall, but searching for "Ukraine demarcation line" produces this in the Google News summary: "media as saying he had signed a deal with Kiev on a “demarcation line.”" Bloomberg makes very clear that a buffer zone and a demarcation line are two different things:

“Indications are indeed that Donbas will be turned into a frozen conflict,” Forbrig, a senior program officer for central and eastern Europe in Berlin, said by e-mail. “There is no chance that Kiev can re-establish its control of the area, the buffer zone effectively establishes a demarcation line.”

And this is what the RIA story I cited quoting a Ukrainian official says:

The border demarcation agreement between Ukraine and the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) has been signed, the Kiev-led anti-terrorist operation (ATO) spokesperson Vladislav Seleznyov said Saturday. …

Another meeting of the group held later in September resulted in a memorandum, specifying the implementation of the ceasefire. The document particularly includes a clause on the establishment of a 18-mile buffer zone between the Kiev forces and independence supporters.

Thus, RGloucester's replacement of "demarcation line" with "buffer zone" is apparently based on OR, not on what the sources cited say themselves. I thus propose rewording the article so that it once more accurately represents what the cited sources say. (It may be useful to look at the articles buffer zone and demarcation line.) – Herzen (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You didn't need to write an essay on this. I merely changed it to make it consistent with what the Minsk Protocol called for. Apparently this is something different. Please go ahead and fix it. RGloucester — ☎ 22:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. :-) At least one person has told me in a Ukrainian Talk page that I should raise a matter in Talk before undoing changes. But seriously, since Western media appear to be ignoring this recent development, it does not hurt to lay out the relevant issue in Talk. I may wait to make any changes until tomorrow, to see if any Western sources besides the WSJ pick this up. (Note that I consider RIA News and Itar-Tass to be reliable – RT to be less reliable and LifeNews even less so – but I like to get a Western source to back up a Russian source when possible. And by that I don't mean necessarily Anglophone – just Western.)

By the way: do you think this is worth putting in the Minsk Protocol article? More detail can be added there, such as the DPR side having agreed to give up one city and two villages they hold/held. – Herzen (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the significance of it, at yet. Is it a de facto "demarcation line" and de jure "buffer zone", a de jure "demarcation line", or whatever? We don't really know. I'm sure the OSCE will release a statement on this, if it is valid, so I'd wait for their confirmation before messing with the Minsk Protocol article. RGloucester — ☎ 02:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed: wait until we have clearer sources such as the OSCE. These articles have all been usurped time and time again by WP:RECENTISM. Enough making up WP:BOLLOCKS based on what one believes to be reliable sources, even though much of the Wikipedia community disagrees (as has been evidenced in a number of RSN discussions specifically pertaining to articles surrounding the events in Ukraine). WP:NOTNEWS, therefore don't treat it as such. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Iryna is quite right. The curse of recentism is upon us. Behold: an article from Tass (they've dropped the "ITAR") that says that the reports on what is now called a "disengagement line" are "untrue". Oddly, it quotes the same ATO guy that was quoted as "verifying" the "buffer/demarcation/disengagement line" thing. That's one of the many reasons Tass isn't very good. They report whatever without verification or confirmation. RGloucester — ☎ 03:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you know the problem is TASS (thanks for informing me of their changed name) and not that Kiev officials have a tendency to change their story? To engage in a little OR, the issue of whether a demarcation line has been agreed to must be a sensitive one in Kiev (see the quote I gave from the Bloomberg piece), and such an agreement existing bolsters the DPR's case that it has been recognized. I just think that we should bring these issues out into the open in Talk. No sense operating blind, treating reliable sources as oracles, making pronouncements we poor WP editors can't make an effort to make some kind of sense of in Talk, if not in the articles themselves. – Herzen (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, TASS did not report that an agreement on a demarcation line had been reached. That was RIA Novosti. I went with RIA Novosti instead of TASS because two Ukrainian sources also reported that this agreement had been reached. And if you look at the RIA story, you will find this:

"Yes, indeed, such a document is signed, there is a tripartite group that is working, and its goal is to create all necessary conditions for demarcation of the parties that are involved in the conflict," Seleznyov told Russia's Dozhd TV.

As I'm sure you know, Dozhd TV is an anti-Kremlin Russian news outlet. In any case, TASS did not report first one thing, then another. TASS and Ria Novosti reported different things about whether an agreement had been reached, although the reports of the two not necessarily directly contradict each other. (I consider TASS to be more reliable than RIA Novosti, btw.) – Herzen (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Tass, RIA, it is all the same to me. The point still stands. Even if "Kiev officials change their stories", journalists should be able to tell when to print stuff and when not to. RGloucester — ☎ 04:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure enough, the spokesman for the ATO changed his story. From Дождь:

Спикер АТО подтвердил создание линии разграничения между Украиной и «ДНР»

Спикер АТО уточнил информацию о линии разграничения между Украиной и «ДНР»

The mistake RIA Novosti made, which TASS didn't, was picking up a story by an anti-Kremlin Russian news outlet. (Sorry to paste Russian links; I believe you and Irina can read Russian.) – Herzen (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The OSCE is a consensus driven organisation. As long as pro-federation troops, despite the Minsk agreement, try to capture objectives like the Donetzk airport, the OSCE wont make a statement on a precise "borderline", because Russia will not agree. However - I think ignoring the subject, until more reliable sources become available, is our best option. Alexpl (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this subject is not worth including until the Ukrainians stop denying that they have agreed to a demarcation line. (The Novorossiyan leaders rarely make false claims, so this agreement probably has been reached: the Kiev regime is just denying this because it is in constant fear of being overthrown by Right Sector.) As for the Donetsk airport: that is just another case of Kiev reneging on a commitment it has made. According to the Minsk Protocol, Ukrainian forces were to leave the airport. Instead, they stayed and continued to randomly shell peaceful civilians. That is why the airport needs to be cleaned out. – Herzen (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Enough of your WP:SOAP, Herzen. You've been asked enough times to desist from WP:POV commentary on talk pages. Contrary to your personal behavioural guidelines, they are not blogs for WP:ADVOCACY. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Split

This article is becoming quite long with over 500 references. The section on combatants could stand on its own where it could accomodate more than the sketches included herein without unecessarily extending this lengthly article. This article could be renamed War in Donbass (chronology) which is distinct from a mere timeline in that it includes more of the very unfortunate details. Wikidgood (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I missed this when you posted it. I oppose a split at this point in time. At the moment, we have dozens of articles floating around surrounding this year's events in Ukraine when don't even meet WP:GNG. I know that I'm not the only editor waiting for the dust to settle in order to clean up POV articles from both sides. A split would only attract POV editors to settle in on one and the other article, which is precisely what has been happening throughout the year. Better to keep on top of the article as it stands and allow for some scholarly research to be published. If anything, we're currently faced with overly-detailed articles. I'll also invoke WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM on this proposal. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about Russian involved in the infobox

1. Why is Russia and Putin listed in there whereas the US and Obama are not? Whereas the former is alleged support to people of the same ethnicity, same language, same religion, same culture, same history, the latter is open support to people who are not, with hundreds of millions of dollars of military equipment to date, all of which have been made public.

2. If there is indeed Russian regular forces in the Donbas, where Russian regular forces are alleged to be in, then why the Ukrainian military only dares to fight in Donetsk and Lugansk and never dares to fight in Crimea, where Russian regular forces are publicly known to be in? Also, if Ukraine is indeed at war with Russian, then why Ukrainian military does not dare to fire on even one of the hundreds of big white Kamaz transport trucks that enter Ukraine without approval? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.252.168.162 (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it has been disussed before and the guy who started & orchestrated the conflict must be listed in the box. Detailed discussions can be found at the archive. Short: troops only from russia and ukraine, attack on covoy would have ment open russian invasion, without that fake-rebel-stuff. Alexpl (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Since February, Ukrainian soldiers did not dare to fire even a single bullet on a single known Russian target. On the basis of this, people cannot be expected that there are Russian troops in Donbas. Otherwise, why don't Ukrainian soldiers dare to fight to take back Crimea and stop Russian transport trucks from entering Ukraine without approval?

This is not a forum. Alexpl (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is not a forum, then you should stop slipping in sentences like "the guy who started & orchestrated the conflict must be listed in the box." What's behind Russia's moves in Ukraine? Fear of NATO. The US is the aggressor here; Russia is just defending itself. The US State Department started and orchestrated this conflict, not Putin. – Herzen (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me check... ... ... nope, still not a forum. Volunteer Marek  20:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I asked you before to stop hounding me with comments that do not bring the discussion forward in any way. But you just can't help yourself. – Herzen (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not "hounding" you. Don't make nonsense accusations as these can be interpreted as personal attacks. Volunteer Marek  21:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you say, at least, if you have any objective change to suggest and support it with reliable sources (regardless of our personal opinions about the issue)? Anything to add? To correct? I know, for instance, that the Spanish Wikipedia has developed a different approach towards the subject, but I haven't edited it and their criteria to consider the sources and treat the information is up to them. Working with what we have on the English Wikipedia, any objective suggestion? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Man, I had no idea so many russians speak spanish. The german "Bildzeitung" as a source for american mercenarys in the infobox? It´s crap, but gives it a nice international touch. Alexpl (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Enough of this paranoid battleground attitude. Not everyone who wants Ukraine articles to be at least a little NPOV is Russian. Before you start attacking other editor based on their ethnicity, please make an effort to look at their user page. – Herzen (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your remarks or questions, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and the subject matter of the article. Here are some thoughts on your concerns. 1. Why is Obama not listed? The reason is that the US is not providing lethal aid and it is not providing real time battle field intelligence so that it is not implicated in the actual conflagrations. Germany and Canada are actually doing more than the US. Canada offers 200 million NOW the US offers 19 million in 2015. There is a section for and/or article for International response. This notio that Obama somehow started this war is rubbish. Putin on the other hand has sent tanks, Spetsnaz special forces, anti-aricraft batteries ofthe most advanced type and he has directly manipulated the situation in order to grab territory. Your question numbered 2 is "why does Ukraine fight in only Donbass" and the answer is that they are fighting around and in Mariupol as well. But the Wikipedia talk page is NOT the place to discuss and argue about these matters. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the articles. If you have WP:RS to add information you are welcome whatever is your ideology.Wikidgood (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to the Spanish Wikipedia approach, I guess the proportion of Spanish vs Russian-speaking people editing is likely around 100 Spanish-speaking to 1 Russian-speaking. It has more to do with the cultural views in the Spanish-speaking world, which is not so favourable towards the West (I mean the Northern part of the West) and not so unfavourable towards Russia, and they more likely accept Russian sources as reliable sources. It's nearly impossible on any issue to eliminate the cultural influence on it. I, for instance have an encyclopedia from 1864 and it's quite funny from contemporary standards how it describes some subjects, namely religion: when describing several religions it briefly describes them and then it goes on describing extensively the deffects on those religions. When it comes to Catholicism "which we luckily follow" (quote) it has no deffects, only virtues, on that 1864 encyclopedia! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, you shouldn't tell fibs. Where is the consensus for removing Shoygu and Gerasimov? Well, I didn't revert it myself as I'm not comfortable with there being RS for their inclusion, but someone else has. If there is RS for their inclusion, I'll back it. If there isn't, I'll be the first one to toss them out of the infobox. Can anyone provide RS to back up their inclusion? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy My concern is not if Russia is involved or not (it obviously is) but, from the beginning, my concern is more about the people in Donbass than about the people in the rest of Ukraine or Russia, and even less in the EU or USA. Along with Putin, obviously Shoygu and Gerasimov shall be in the list, in my opinion. But concerning to a solution to this problem, now I don't see any alternative to a proper referendum (fair and independently scrutinized, preferentially by UN or some organization that has nothing to with the West at all), which is also possible (e.g., Brazil, South Africa, Argentina, democratic nations that are not connected to the traditional West). They've been victims of geopolitical ambitions and too many have died on the behalf of those ambitions!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have indicated that it would be helpful if you persisted from personal attacks. See the subsection "Couple of questions". Volunteer Marek wrote: "For once I agree with Herzen. Unless you got reliable sources which explicitly mention these guys, it shouldn't go in." Sorry to presonalize this, but if Volunteer Marek and I agree about something, I think it's safe to say that consensus has been reached.

Would anyone have any objection to my requesting this article to be semi-protected? The edit summary that the IP editor gave when he put Shoygu and Gerasimov back in was "oppose novgorod-based editor". And I am disappointed that Iryna Harpy is defending this edit. What do I have to do with Novgorod? There is IP craziness going on in this article, so it should be semi-protected in my view, like the MH17 article.

As for the point that Mondolkiri1 just made, it is not at all "obviously Shoygu and Gerasimov shall be in the list". As Alexpl wrote when consensus was reached, " Putin as decision-maker must stay in the box, but we dont know how they organized that operation and they wont tell us. So, since its highly speculative who actually reported to the leader, we shouldnt mention those guys until further evidence pops up." It is very tiresome to have to revisit issues on which decisions have been made. – Herzen (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Iryna explicitly said that she wasn't comfortable with the IP's edit. Apparently the IP knows something we don't. Do you happen to be "Novgorod-based"? Odd that an IP can pull such nonsense out of thin air. Regardless, I agree with Iryna. Sources should be provided as such if this is meant to be included, but I don't think it is a stretch to presume that top Russian officials have been coordinating Russian actions in Donbass. RGloucester — ☎ 04:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Herzen For me it would be amazing if the Russian Armed Forces acted without the knowledge of their Minister of Defence! Has Russia reached the North Korean level now, where, only Kim Jong-Un knows it (eventually, since noone knows a lot about what's really happening there)? Only the President of Russia knows? What's the Minister of Defence for? And, Herzen, what I said, was in the behalf of the people in Donbass, not on the behalf of Russia! Get that right! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking for something that should be easily confirmed or eliminated based on RS. Discussions based on 'it's obvious' count for nothing when it comes to article content. For all of the complexity we can read into the dystopia known as the global economic order, as Wikipedians we don't allow it to influence our work on Wikipedia: we sort through RS and make the best decisions as to presentation of the information gleaned from them. It's really that simple. I could be a screeching, card-carrying Trotskyist IRL, but it is my job not to bring my personal biases to articles. This is the actual meaning of WP:NPOV in the context of Wikipedia, not pandering to every puerile nationalistic, anti-establishment, pro-establishment source and interpretation available as some editors appear to believe 'neutral' means.

Oh... and, Herzen, the fact that you and VM agreed on the matter does not constitute consensus. Neither does my catching you out in a lie and calling it such constitute a personal attack. I've explained WP:SPADE to you before. I'm not going to delve into the IP's comment (although it is interesting that a one-off entry by an IP is pointed directly at you), but I am still asking for RS one way or the other. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I don't doubt that "top Russian officials have been coordinating Russian actions in Donbas". But Alexpl's point stands: since Russia's activity in Donbas is covert, we can't know who those officials are. Putting the names of any officials in that infobox other than the head of state is speculation and OR.

What do you think of my proposal to request that this article be semi-protected? (Really all the Ukraine related articles should be. Ukraine is like Israel/Palestine when it comes to WP.) – Herzen (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected against whom? There's been little in the way of IP activity here (or any other traffic) for some time. What is the justification/objective here? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I won't dispute if Shoygu and Gerasimov are removed, but I won't support that removal either. Putin, as the leader of all of them, obviously shall stay. As I tried to say, my position concerning to this issue is not being favourable to one side or the other. It's about facts. If that ir considered Original Research (it's necessary a bit of immagination to not implicate the Minister of Defence on military activities, but fine, let's immagine that he doesn't know what his staff is doing, which is worse for the image of Russia!) Fine! It won't be me who will dispute that! If some pro-Russian editor decides that Russia is like North Korea, OK, go on! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll consider the idea that, somehow, the Minister of Defence and the Chief of the General Staff are not aware about what their staff are doing (like they're ingenuous puppets). I'll remove them and consider only Putin, like in the times of the almighty Stalin! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen any sources, reliable or not, explain what branches of the Russian government are coordinating the Russian intervention in Ukraine. For all we know, it could be the FSB and not the GRU doing it, in which case the Minister of Defense and the Chief of the General Staff would not be directly involved. – Herzen (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

An IP added Shoygu and Gerasimov back in the infobox after Volunteer Marek, Alexpl, and I agreed that their names should be kept out. Only Mondolkiri1 dissented. Since I view Mondolkiri1 as neutral, Volunteer Marek and Alexpl as pro-Kiev, and myself as pro-Novorossiyan, I would say that that was a clear consensus, so your saying that you succeeded in "catching [me] out in a lie" is just your usual personal attacks which you really should make an effort to restrain. And no, just because I state what everyone knows and mention that some editors sympathize with one side or another does not mean that I have a battleground attitude.

The other annoying edits by an IP were the changing of "denied by Russia" to "denied only by Russia". In my edit summary reverting that, I noted that the IP was from Odessa, so the edit summary claiming that I am from Novgorod was probably a response to that. Do you have an objection to my requesting that this article be semi-protected? What downside can there be to preventing IPs from editing even a moderately contentious article? – Herzen (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I moved Putin to the top, maybe a bit in a rush, but I move him again to the bottom. Whatever! It wasn't him who started the conflict, after all. But, Herzen, this is not about Russia (my position here is not about Russia). As I have written in my userpage, I advocate the right of self-determination of the people in Donbass (though not under the circumstances under which the referendums were performed)... I'd be glad if we had here 2, 3, 4, 5 editors from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. But maybe we don't have. So, now I'll move Putin to the bottom again, and develope the rest as you wish! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, you are altogether too fond of making assumptions about editors being pro, anti or neutral. Unfortunately for you, consensus is not a vote. Your removal was not a consensus removal, but falls under WP:BRD: no more, no less. If there are sources able to put the two back in as incapable of being oblivious to Russian support (they are the inner sanctum and not in a coma), they go back in.

If you want to apply for semi-protection, go ahead. I can tell you right now that it'll be booted out as WP:SNOW based on your rationale. Seriously, if you can't take on an IP or two without personalising it, you're too thin-skinned to be contributing. Work on your interpersonal skills a little and don't keep falling back on how cruelly you're being treated because you're not. Someone wise once said that, if you're going to crawl up people's noses, you're going to get covered in snot. Who was it? Oh, yeah! It was me! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Guess you were wrong about it being "booted out". And I had nothing to do with the article getting semi-protected. Don't you ever get tired of seeing Wikipedia as a battleground, feeling a compulsion to contradict everything I say? – Herzen (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's not make this talk page any more combative than it already is. I request semi-protection after new IPs kept removing stuff, which had not happened until after Iryna commented. RGloucester — ☎ 21:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the function of Novorossiya?

Suppose Putin never recognizes Novorossiya as a legitimate state, what would be the function of Novorossiya? Ukraine will never let go of Donbas and, as a result, war will go on indefinitely. Is the function of Novorossiya to kill and maim Ukrainian people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting topic for a forum, not here.Mondolkiri1 — talk 15:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Request to rename separatists in the infobox and the article as Novorossiyans

They are not advocating for a separation of Donbas from Ukraine. They are advocating for the conquest of all of Ukraine into Novorossiya.--199.7.137.211 (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2014‎

I guess that would only be possible (eventually) in the Ossetian wikipedia, since Novorossiya is only recognized by South Ossetia.Mondolkiri1 — talk 15:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter who recognizes Novorossiya. Just as ISIS is a tool of Saudi Arabia and Turkey, Novorossiya is a tool of Russia for killing.--199.7.137.211 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2014‎

I have not seen any reliable sources in the English language that call them "Novorossiyans". Have you? Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and is not an appropriate place to publish original ideas. Unless reliable sources in the English language call them "Novorossiyans", the article cannot.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

New Russians, more like. Don't we speak English, here? Oh, I suppose we don't. All of Ukraine isn't even "New Russia", so what you're saying doesn't even make any sense. RGloucester — ☎ 20:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That is correct. Novorossiyan translates as New Russian, just as Rus translates as Russian in English, or for that matter, Deutsch translates as German in English. Ukrainian was created as an English word in 1991, was it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The English-language word "Ukrainian" is much older than 1991. Certainly the word was understood from the 1940s onwards - the British and Canadian Armies took a lot of Ukrainians prisoner during the war, and allowed them to settle in England and Canada rather than sending them home to face Stalin's tyranny. If you visit the UK National Archives (formerly the Public Record Office) in Kew, you will find plenty of English language documents from that era using the word "Ukrainian".-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The word first came into common use in English with the establishment of the Ukrainian SSR, though the traditional "Ruthene" or "Ruthenian" often remained preferred as a matter of both tradition and of political opposition to Communism (and support for Poland in Galicia). After the Second World War, "Ruthenian/Ruthene" in reference to Ukrainians was essentially eliminated. RGloucester — ☎ 22:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Novorossiyans is not a term that is cited in any reliable source, as far as I know. And who are the Novorossiyans? The people that live in the historical Tsarist region of Novorossiya? The people that live in the areas that are under rebel control? The rebels?... For me, it makes no sense at all, to replace "separatists" with "Novorossiyans".Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur with User:RGloucester that the burden is on those who would use anything but English on En WP. You have not met that burden.Wikidgood (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ruthenian identity has not been eliminated, despite the agenda of Stalin and others. But that is off topic. Please see ORN if interested in that issue thanks. Wikidgood (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Novorossiyan project is essentially defunct at present. Rebel leaders want to unify the DPR and LPR to create a new state called Novorossiya, but Moscow has blocked this. – Herzen (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it ever really got started, so it is hard for it to be "defunct". Sure, they announced a flag and stuff, but there never seemed to be any real New Russia, just continued DPR and LPR actions. RGloucester — ☎ 01:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not so sure Kremlin is a 100% puppetmaster controlling the separtists to the point they can "block" anything. But IMHO Putin is biding his time until after the West loses some of its leverage. The WOrld Cup soccer, pending meetings, the effect of sanctions on the ruble. But oops. We are not a forum. As for direction of the article, we obviously don't want to be pawns legitimizing anybody's agenda. Wikidgood (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Moscow is influential enough to have been able to get Strelkov to step down, by making the delivery of humanitarian aid and further military equipment assistance conditional on his leaving. This is noncontroversial in the Russian blogosphere. (And no, I am not part of the sixth column lol.) And yes, of course the Kremlin takes the long term view. And no, this is not a forum. :-) – Herzen (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC

Russia played a key role in setting up Novorossiya in April and May. Novorossiya translates into New Rus. Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians are all Rus people, having descended from Kievan Rus and speaking east Slavic languages which are mutually intelligible. New Rus continues to be a tool of Russia for killing people, just as ISIS is a tool of Saudi Arabia and Turkey for killing Shiites, Christians, Kurds. New Rus operates independently, not under the direct control of Russia. Through the use of reverse engineering, New Rus is already manufacturing its own arms such as guns and artillery and soon tanks. New Russians may decide to one day invade and take over Russia. Notice that the people of New Rus are called New Russians.--192.252.168.54 (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2014 (

Er, one problem with this fantastical piece of WP:OR: Rossia translates as Russia. Rus' is an historical link between Slavic ethnic groups in the region. In fact, the physical territory under dispute only had short term Eastern Slavic pockets of inhabitation (mainly inhabited by non-Slavs) until relatively recently in history. Try getting your facts straight before creating elaborate theories. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Krymske

This town has been retaken by Ukrainian forces http://www.vgolos.lviv.ua/polityka/novyny/u-zvilnenomu-selyschi-krymske-luganschyni-pidnialy-ukrainskyj-prapor-foto-23120.html

Write that in the Timeline of the war in Donbass, please. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done already this was. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on "crimes against humanity"

My edit summary failed, so let me clarify here. I moved that little tiny to section to the war crimes section in Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass, which is where it belongs. This bit here is only a small summary section of the sub-article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I just have one thing to say about this: All (or at least the ones that are considered more serious) of them shall be listed, since this is one of the most serious issues concerning to the War in Donbass. Like in any other article that has to do with wars. I guess that WW2 (as an example) that is very well-documented about human-rights issues, this one should provide an example concerning to the edits about those issues. (at least, in my opinion, take into account a war that has neither to do with USA or Russia, such as the Rwandan Genocide). Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC) (00:11, 24 October 2014 - London/Lisbon/Casablanca Time))

This my opinion is not about the proportion of the atrocities, by the way, since 800.000 Tutsies were killed in the Rwandan Genocide, while, until now more than 3.000 Ukrainians or (if they wish to be called as that) Novorossiyans (very respectable number, but far lower than in the Rwandan genocide) have been killed. Numbers, sometimes are a bit fallacious, but in this context I think they are relevant.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC) (00:18, 24 October 2014 - London/Lisbon/Casablanca Time))

wikipedia page on New Russia's November 2 election

In my opinion, there should be one. If someone can start an article on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It is this article, Donbass parliamentary elections, 2014. RGloucester — ☎ 16:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverted deletion of Rasmussen attribution and more...

Regarding this reversion, I did not like the removal of the attribution which was not justified in the edit summary when the reverter also did something else in his reversion. On that basis alone, it seems questionable. Reversions should always be explained unless reverting clearly non-compliant edits.Moreover the justification for the primary reversion seems weak and combative, although it may well be sustainable upon further inquiry. Wikidgood (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:INTEXT, the present form is misleading. No in-text attribution is required, and using it is an attempt to push a WP:POV. It is not only Mr Rasmussen that believes this. It is the vast majority of reliable sources. This is a bit of WP:GEVAL. As far as the Ukraine shelling, that has nothing to do "Russian involvement", as the section heading says. It is already recorded elsewhere, notably at Shelling of Donetsk, Russia. This section is only about Russian actions. RGloucester — ☎ 00:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No idea why you did that. User Herzen used weak sourcing [2] and constructed a phrase which makes readers assume there was some sort of serious artillery barrage on Russian Federation Territory from the Ukraine. Looking at the source, that seems highly inappropriate. Alexpl (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to Rasmussen, I didn't change anything for now, since the source is actually about what he stated, and subsequent reactions by other people. I guess there are probably other sources, but I think another has to be added in order to change it, in my opinion. Concerning to the shelling in Donetsk (Russia) I added the reaction of the deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, since his reaction may have to do with the section, though not the action by itself (then it would fit in a reverse section, hyperbolically speaking "Ukrainian intervention in Russia") Mondolkiri1 (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be glad if a solution for this topic could be achieved here. A statement from a Russian official concerrning to reliatory actions is relevant for this section, no matter if this content is uncomfortable for both sides. It can be rephrased, but it's useful in the text.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mondolkiri1: I strongly disagree. Not only is this WP:UNDUE (a "single shell", really?), but it is also out of place. It doesn't make any sense to inject a sentence about something that has nothing to do with Russian involvement in the war, that is about a minor event in July, in the middle of a paragraph that is talking about the late August "invasion". It is out of chronology. That matter is dealt with elsewhere, and as it stands now, the prose simply doesn't flow and doesn't make any sense. RGloucester — ☎ 22:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mondolkiri1: I agree that this doesn't belong here. The only reason that I reverted this edit was that the edit summary "says Russia" by Volunteer Marek was defamatory and inflammatory. (@RGloucester: A single shell maybe, but the Ukrainians killed a Russian civilian and injured another civilian on Russian soil with it.) – Herzen (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No doubt, Herzen, which is presumably why it has its own article. RGloucester — ☎ 23:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: When I reinserted the text I wasn't pretending to say that it would be a proportionate response. I actually thought about the case between Israel and Gaza. Hamas sends a dozen of rockets that kill a couple of Israelis and Israel grounds Gaza and kills 2000 Palestinians! However, I just pointed out that a conclusion should be reached here. For me, it's OK if it's removed. I don't really think that the Russian shelling was a consequence of that particular event. For me it's fine, either if the text stays or if it's removed. Given that I'm not seeing any opposition concerning to the removal of this content, I revert my reinsertion of the text.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Accountability for the actions in Donbass, Comparing to other WP articles about this issue, this article is biased

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've compared this article with other articles and news from non-English sources concerning to the War in Donbass. And I've noticed that this article is too lenient towards the Ukrainian official position. The Ukrainian government also has responsabilities in what has been happening in Donbass, like Donbass people would not be Ukrainian citizens. As a Portuguese, I'd find ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE if the Portuguese govt would be doing these actions against either Portuguese citizens from Azores or Madeira. So, I'd expect the same from the Ukrainian authorities. And very little has been talked about the Ukrainian authorities, in this article. Mostly only concerning to Ukraine, US and EU positions, and the Ukrainian official positions (which haven't been voted by Donbass). What about if editors here really are AWARE of the Donbass people's preocupations are? (no matter if that is uncomfortable against Russia, EU, USA or the Pope!). Because they're 6-7 million, and they have been killed or in practice expelled from their lands because of this idiotic geopolitical issue, that only brings eventual +s to Eurocrats, US and the Russian establishment! This is, from scratch (in my opinion), a deep issue about how this article (in English) has been constructed. And as I said far far far before this thoughts have been edited, that has nothing to do with the Russian position, since I don't care at all about what Russia thinks or doesn't think. This has to do with my perspective about the Ukrainian government, the Novorossiyan government, the Russian government, the Western governments and last but not least, about the other entities or governments attitudes concerning to the people of Donbass. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Comparing to other WP articles about this issue, this article is biased I'm fortunate to understand also very well Spanish, Portuguese, and quite well, Italian and French articles in WP, as well as the sources from the countries that have either Portuguese, Spanish, Italian or French as their languages. And from these ones, particularly from France24, as well as others, I've noticed that the English WP is very lenient towards the Ukrainian authotities, as they had nothing to do with the issue. From the other language sources, I know that the Ukrainian official authorities have killed a lot of people, maybe more than the insurgents! Let's get this article out of any bias! And I'm not biased! I'm only for the truth (not any Washington, Berlin or Brussels-promoted truth, the actual truth about what has been happening). Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2014 (GMT/Lisbon/London/Dublin/Casablanca Time)

This is your opinion. It is also President Putin's opinion. And people who work for the Russia Today TV channel also have to express the same opinion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

As all other Russian Federation State Media. I hope our colleague did not form his opinion with the help of those. Alexpl (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not any Russian opinion, it is an opinion from a Portuguese that has nothing to do with immingrants from Ukraine (I have nothihng against them, actually I've worked quite hard for these workers and made frienships with those from Ukraine, inoder for them to get their fair income, including against my own Portuguese bosses, to get their salaries legally afforded to those Ukrainian workers (both Ukrainian-speaking and Russian-speaking). I was very comfortable writing almost only in airlines articles, until I was almost caught in this issue, right after I started editing here. And I'm an admirer of GORBATCHEV, as I have written in my userpage. And Gorbatchev (yes, he's still alive and speaking) has been quite critical about the so-called Western (I'm from Portugal, so I'd be Western, but I'm absolutely against this circus between the EU Eurocrats and the US neocons and the Russian imperialists) have supported Western Ukraine against Eastern Ukraine plus Russia. Now, I wonder how EU got its Nobel Prize, because trying to put Western Ukraine against Eastern Ukraine was worst possible idea that EU could have had. Now, at this time, I support the people who are suffering the most from this battle between EU+US and Russia for Donbass. I've decided to support the people from Donbass, though they have been just puppets of Russia, EU and the US. And that's unacceptable when almost 4000 people from there have died, thanks EU, US and Russia. For me, thanks, but no thanks! Let the Donbass people decide! The People from Donbass! In fair and independently scrutinized referendum (I had already said that this would be the solution that I envisioned.. and it's not going to be yet this time, but scared of USA noone is able to scrutinize that election).Mondolkiiri1 (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to kick me from the English Wikipedia for these opinion, go on, I'll be glad to have more time to edit in the Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and French Wikipedias!Mondolkiiri1 (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont see how to find out the will of the people there, as long as gunmen from Russia hang around. And since the war continues, with Pro-Russians having announced just yesterday to attack Mariupol, if it is not given to them by Ukraine, I guess it will be a while until a referendum could be disussed again - or put into the article. Alexpl (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, what I guess that what I meant was that no side is interested to give chance to the people of Donbass, in order for them to speak their will, and make their will valid enough to be considered. No! Russia says its theirs, Ukraine, with the very "uninterested" help of EU and USA, says it's not. Though, as a Portuguese (neighbour) I'd be more interested in an unified and stronger Spanish state, I found ridiculous that the Spanish state didn't allow Catalonia to go on with their rerendum. My position is that there must be a fair and independently scrutinized referendum in Crimea, and also in Donbass (either if it's all the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts or just part of them)! Because Ukraine is not treating them as Ukrainians at all! If that was here and "Lisbon" (let's say) was doing to us in my region what Ukraine is doing to them, I'd vote: Yes! Let's be independent! But that's up to them, not to me, or us, or people in Kiev and even less people in USA! It's up to the people in Donbass! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is impossible to have a "fair" referendum after the situation that one is voting on has become a fait accompli. There is no fairness. What's more, the residents of the Donbass, those that remain alive and not as refugees, anyway, are living under the barrel of a gun. That's the gun of Russia, and the gun of the DPR and LPR. Don't be fooled by the separatists. They don't represent the majority of Donbass people. It is quite clear that they don't. Regardless of what's wrong with Ukraine, because there is a lot wrong with Ukraine, the Donbass people have always wanted to be a part of a united Ukraine. A small minority of the urban intelligentsia in Donetsk might've wanted otherwise, but these were always a tiny, tiny minority. In other words, the people of Donbass cannot "decide", because the decision has already been made for them by those in Russia, just as it was with the Georgians in Abkhazia. RGloucester — ☎ 13:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that neither the referendum in Crimea was fair and independently verified, nor are the referendums and these elections in Donbass. But would Ukraine (and those who are backing it) actually allow a referendum about these issues?... They should, and they should be fair and independently verified! But until that happens, it's going to be like the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. But in Cyprus there was already a referendum, when surprisingly the Turkish Cypriots agreed to reunify the island and the Greek Cypriots didn't. Without a referendum, these issues won't be decisively solved, neither in Crimea nor in Donbass. And I've writen the background of the unrest with you, though I was then more focused about Odessa where there are no urges to be independent from Ukraine. But I also helped about the Donbass. Yes, historically it's Ukrainian territory, but Kosovo is also historically Serbian territory. The politicians may have double standards. An encyclopedia (in my opinion) shouldn't have! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't understand. There cannot be democracy in such a situation. The circumstances for such a referendum simply don't exist. Democracy requires stability and safety, if it is to work. None of these conditions exist in Donbass. None of the conditions necessary for a free and fair referendum are present. None. It is not going to be like Turkish Cyprus, because there is no ethnic conflict. The situation in Donbass is a fait accompli, and there is no going back. RGloucester — ☎ 13:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I know that very well, that there are not (and there were not) conditons to carry these referemdums, and elections. I think that they should be repeated. If Ukraine and Russia allow, in Crimea (in this case it would need to have a Russian allowance now) and in Donbass, and if Spain allows, in Catalonia (and if necessary in the Basque Country and eventually in Galicia), I'm all for it. But I can't be against it if these 2 countries don't allow (and Kurdistan in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, and Tibet in China, so on), because I have a regard for the self-determination of people. As I had in the case of East Timor... It was being ruled by a dictator, called Suharto, and after that they finally got their independence, but I understood well why they were fighting (if they didn't have the allowance of Indonesia, what could they do?... to fast and do hunger strikes like Ghandi did)? No, That's not how it generally works, though I praise and admire a lot Gandhi, Mandela and the Dalai Lama! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I ask now the opinion of @Iryna Harpy:, since she is Ukrainian, a person with a high integrity, very interested in Eastern Europe matters (probably more than the Secretary of State of USA) and I absolutely trust her, absolutely, concerning to these issues! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The difference, though, is that there is no ongoing war in Catalonia. The government of Spain is not likely to invade Catalonia, even if they've denied a referendum (we'll have to see what happens in the courts). In Catalonia, there exists a genuine desire amongst some segments of the population for a vote on independence, and that vote should take place. In Donbass, however, the current horrible situation was forced on the people of that region from outside. Most people who have any objection to the current situation are either dead or have left. They have no say in the fait accompli that has happened. I'm North British, or a Scot, if you will, as I may have mentioned. I'm well and truly familiar with independence referendums. RGloucester — ☎ 14:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I'm glad that you have the opportunity to choose if Scotland independent or not! The result was, and that is clear. That is different from Catalonia, since in Scotland, people had the opportunitity to choose and in Catalonia they didn't have. If it was here (in Madeira or the Azores), I don't think it would be positive for them to separate frmom Portugal, but we're a homogeneous country and I don't see any valuable stuff that they could get from an independence (or, for now, what could drive them towards indepence), but if they would want a referendum there, sure I'd agree and I'd respect the results. The perception I have is that Ukraine (and the forces that are supporting its government) wouldn't allow these regions to have any referendum, whatever the circumstances would be (not even under the Party of Regions, let alone the Fatherland, so on). So, given the circumstances, what choice do they have... I'd suggest them to pay attention about what there's going to happen in Catalonia. But they took an advance and now it's actually more likely that the Catalonians follow their steps instead of the contrary (I hope not, because that would be disastrous for all the Iberian Peninsula). It's very complicated, but generally I'm for self-determination, given that such referendums are performed in a fair and independently scrutinized way. None of that has happened, but Ukraine (and perhaps USA and the European Commission) wouldn't allow that. Nothing was told, neither to the Crimeans, nor to the Novorussians. So, what choices do they have? And that is the question! (I may be guessing, I'd rather not, but I think my arguments are valuable). And I don't either care about Russia or Ukraine, concerning to this issue, seriously. But I'd be glad to listen to your opinions about it, since I guess it's time to have an open conversation about this. @RGloucester:@Iryna Harpy:@Herzen:@EkoGraf:@Arbutus the tree:, and now I'm well aware that I'm inviting for this conversation 1/2 pro-Ukrainians, 1/2 neutrals and 1 pro-separatists (being myself neutral). Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I remember to you (whoever appears) this is nothing about denial of the information that is available. It's about the choices concerning to which sources have the available information; under what criteria they are dismissed or not; and about the treatment of the information that is available in such sources. Iryna Harpy is quite experienced here, she will certainly be good enough about this issue (at least, as advicing). There are some distinctions at this level between the English Wikipedia and other Wikipedias. I'd be glad if I could uniform this one at least with the Portuguese, Spanish, French and Italian Wikipedias. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2014 (GMT)

For the benefit of other contributors to this article who haven't been privy to discussions on various own user talk pages, while this discussion has been beneficial, it has now moved into the realms of being WP:OFFTOPIC. If there is any more to be added to this thread, it's probably best pursued on the relevant user talk pages. Cheers, all! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. And I take it as a given that all the Ukraine-related articles on English Wikipedia are going to have an anti-Russian bias. I might as well mention what I indicated on my Talk page: I can't make any sense out of Mondolkiri1's position, since on the one hand he says that he wants to fight against anti-Russian bias, but on the other, he says that the Crimean referendum about reunification with Russia was illegitimate, whereas it is clear to any objective observer that in that referendum, the people of Crimea authentically expressed their will. Even NATO countries don't say that there was any problem with the referendum: they just don't like that it took place. Yet Mondolkiri1 goes on and on about how the people of Crimea should be allowed to express their will, when they have already done so.

This Talk section should be closed. General claims about an article being biased are not constructive. – Herzen (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

strengths of the two sides

Ukraine claims New Russian forces has a strike force of nearly 30,000. Zakharchenko did a video conference that was uploaded on youtube, which seems to confirm this.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/tymchuk-four-strike-groups-consisting-of-nearly-30000-russians-and-kremlin-backed-proxies-formed-370426.html

Updated Ukrainian strength in the war is said to be 25,000. http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/229932.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC) :

Tymchuk is not a ukrainian official. All of that is his supposition. The size of that strike forces depends only on Putin. The second message is unclear. Structure of ukrainian forces are complicated. Some details are required.

Poroshenko said there are 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers in Donbas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian army casualty update

At least 1,096 KIA and 3,799 WIA.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukraines-heroes-after-losing-leg-in-war-soldier-keeps-up-fight-370929.html

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/at-least-1096-soldiers-killed-in-russias-war-against-ukraine-370935.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

strengths update

20,000 to 25,000 separatist fighters + equipment listed in http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/11/14/at-g20-will-sanctions-or-casualties-deter-russia/

About 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers deployed in Donbas, according to Poroshenko http://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-elections-pro-eu-petro-poroshenko-2014-10— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.124.200 (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Chechens fighting in Ukraine

The article only references chechens fighting for insurgent/russian forces in donbass, however a simple google search turns up multiple articles showing that either the numbers for russia are inflated or that chechens are fighting on both sides. To give a bit of balance for this article i reccomend that we add a section about chechens allied with pro-ukraine forces, as well as a line to the pro-russian side stating that the numbers fighting for russia may be inflated. Here is one such link. There is also some confusion as to who sent them there. At the very least this seems like a very interesting situation to expand upon, as the article currently states tens of thousands of chechens are fighting for pro-russian rebels in the east of ukraine, while a known chechen paramilitary commander states that this isn't true. Seems to be another part of the larger propaganda war connected to the real one on the ground.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.47.78.224 (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess the Chechens will fight anyone that is presented. They clearly have no love for Russia, given the horrible terrorist attacks they've made against Russia (only slightly surpassed in numbers by Al-Qaeda against USA). I'm for all self-determination movements, be it in Donbass, Catalonia, East Timor before, Tibet, Kurdistan, Uygur (Eastern Turkistan), the Karens, the Shan, the Fur ppl in Sudan and surely Palestine (whose main administration is not ruled by Hamas). Mondolkiri1 — hable aqui 9:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"Cities" on map

Why are all populated areas labelled as "cities" on the map? Only two of these many populated areas are cities; the rest are small towns and villages. Please could the creator of the map change "cities" to "populated areas". There is also no legend for the yellow and pink areas. NFH (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"City" is being used in the general sense of populated areas. Regardless, this is not the place to make a request. Ask the editor who made it. RGloucester — ☎ 14:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe because they're cities... But if you have any objection about it, I can correct it... Not that I'm not tired enough about editing on English WP since a lot of editors seem to just want to have a war with Russia, and whoever sympathizes with it... like in the old days of the Cold War. USA needs conflicts to support its powerful military lobby, no matter if it costs a lot of lifes in Ukraine, Yemen, Pakistan, Sudan, whatsoever... as long as the sacred Israel where the Jewish-genocidal apocalypse keeps in its place, everything is valid, for USA. And this one is the country claiming to have the most independent press on Earth! What a joke! Mondolkiri1 — hable aqui 3:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are referring to Luhansk and Donetsk as the only cities then are you suggesting that Mariupol, Horlivka, Kramatorsk, Sloviansk, Severodonetsk are all not "cities" even though they all have a population of over 100,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koonter (talk • contribs) 19:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Russian tank column

Maybe I'm missing it, but it looks like the article does not have info on the recent invasion of Ukraine by a column of Russian tanks: [3], [4], [5] (and many more, it's all over the place). Volunteer Marek  21:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that this is also being reported by the OSCE [6], [7], [8], in case someone tries to claim that this is just "Ukrainian propaganda". Volunteer Marek  21:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was there [9] and must be included. My very best wishes (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, that's in the article. However, the OSCE did not say they were "Russian" tanks. Only Ukrainian authorities did so. This was not confirmed by anyone else, whether OSCE monitor, NATO, &c. That's what it says at present, because that's what happened. Unmarked vehicles moved. Ukrainians said they were Russian. OSCE didn't speculate. NATO says it could not confirm it. RGloucester — ☎ 22:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is it in the article? I'm not seeing it in the lede or the "Russian involvement" section.  Volunteer Marek  22:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Why in heck would it be in the lead or the Russian involvement section? Firstly, there is absolutely zero confirmation of it being "Russian involvement", and anyway, that section is now only a summary section for the main article on Russian involvement, and doesn't catalog minutiae, which belongs at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Secondly, the lead is a summary, not a compilation of minor events. This bit is in the history section, where it belongs. RGloucester — ☎ 22:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I see, it's in the "November separatist election" section. Well, that doesn't make much sense either, as it has nothing to do with the election. It might not be significant enough for the lede, absent further developments. But it does seem to belong in the Russian Involvement section, even if unconfirmed, as a claim made by the Ukrainian government. Also, NATO says that they're working on trying to confirm it not that they cannot confirm it.

And yes, this also belongs in the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article. I presume the part about the AP report is about this. But that's still missing the OSCE reports and the Ukrainian claims. Volunteer Marek  22:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The section headings are for time frame. This directly followed the election, and is widely viewed as a consequence of it. It does not belong in the "Russian involvement" section because that has been outsourced to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. The "Russian involvement" section here is just a brief summary meant to direct one to that article. The proper thing to do would be to work on the 2014 Russian military intervention article. "Trying to confirm" is the same as "could not confirm", given that they have no confirmation "yet", meaning no confirmation exist. RGloucester — ☎ 23:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

twitter photo e entrance to DonetskSayerslle (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)]

These are rebel tanks supplied by Russia. It's like rebels in Syria use American supplied TOW anti tank missiles, doesn't make FSA part of the American army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

These are rebel tanks supplied by Russia. It's like rebels in Syria use American supplied... Heh heh. I think you just made the unintentional mistake of being accidentally honest. Volunteer Marek  00:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Either you can't read Russian, or you don't bother seeing what rebels and their supporters are saying. For several weeks now, Russia is not bothering to deny that it is supplying arms to the rebels. So nobody made a mistake, unintentional (and what other kind of mistakes are there? if a mistake is intentional, is it really a mistake?) or otherwise. Your comment is further evidence that you are trapped in an information bubble. – Herzen (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Either that or I'm pointing out what's been obvious to anyone who's not been busy making a fool of themselves. They've been lying for months, and now that it's become obvious they've been lying they - and you - are trying to play this little game of "of course we've always supplied the rebels, what are you talking about?". It was the same thing with Crimea. First weeks of bullshit about no Russian troops being involved in the takeover, then once the world lost interest, it was "of course Russian troops helped Crimea to join Russia". Anyway, at least we're moving forward. So Russia *is* supplying the rebels with heavy equipment. Buks included?  Volunteer Marek  00:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No, they are telling not about sending weapons, but about sending regular Russian army with tanks. But this is nothing new. It was Russian regular army forces (not "volunteers") who encircled Ukrainian army during the Battle of Ilovaisk. And even earlier, special forces of GRU took part in the operations, just as they did in Crimea. My very best wishes (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That article says nothing about the Russian army, "regular" or otherwise. Maybe you should brush up on your English language reading skills. And I'd like you to answer a question: why are you so obsessed with Russia, apparently seeing it as the embodiment of absolute evil? If I knew that, I could better understand your approach to editing Wikipedia, which might make it easier for me to collaborate with you. – Herzen (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are you so obsessed with me? Speaking about Russian intervention, this is all described in 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. It was not me who created and edited this page. I only think that some content from the "military intervention" should be also described here, because the intervention by Russia a significant part of the ongoing "War in Donbass". My very best wishes (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You know these are not Russian army tanks because Russian army would almost surely use T-90A rather than T-72B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.252.168.94 (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This argument assumes knowledge of Russian military objectives in Donbass. Yes, if they wanted to quickly win the war, they probably would use T-90. They have been however seen delivering lower profile arms to Donbass (like T-64 or T-72) for long time which matches statements by Kurginyan and others made in June that their objective is long, low-profile conflict without ultimate win on either side. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Marek: If the Russian Federation does not screw their support up, by sending T-72BM tanks, or other equipment that Ukraine never possessed, like they did a few month ago, we cant write those new troops are Russian Federation troops. But since the President and Lt. Gen. Kartopolov have already been caught not telling the truth, there is no need to repeat that claim over and over again. Just use the OSCE report on the sightings, thats fine. Alexpl (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

All these reports from OSCE about military vehicle convoys are already being added to Timeline of the war in Donbass (October 2014–present) for long time. Just look at November 9 for example. In my opinnion the only reason why they should be mentioned in the main articles (2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine or War in Donbass) is to document the Russian military presence there, but as correctly noted about the OSCE reports cannot be directly used to source this type of claim, because they do not say these were Russian tanks, even if this can be easily implied from their location and direction. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the OSCE report cannot be used as an RS in this instance. Any conclusions to be drawn are by inference alone. Regardless of whether it's as plain as the nose on your face, the addition of such content would require a solid RS stating it to be a fact. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

However, this report by France Press, for example, tells: "columns of Russian ... combat troops". Same and more here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Nato confirms, UN convened for a special session [10]. This needs to be split off into a separate sub-section as it's not really about November elections (of course at some level, everything has to do with everything else). Volunteer Marek  16:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

We need to be sparing with section headers, lest the ToC get huge. I've expanded the heading instead, and added the new information. RGloucester — ☎ 17:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's really turning into very much a separate event. Here's New York Times [11]. I'd wait a day or two though. Volunteer Marek  04:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Despite attempts to minimise byte consumption, it has now gone over the 300 kB mark. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That's only if one includes references, templates, and pictures. One should only measure prose size. RGloucester — ☎ 05:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've just run a quick estimate sans the above. The templates and pictures don't amount to very much, actually (well under 100 kB), so the refs would constitute the largest component of the bytes. Nevertheless, it's still running over the 100 kB. It'll hold for the moment, but the seams are ready to split. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll work on more spin-offs, when I've got time. RGloucester — ☎ 05:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are looking for English sources on Russian convoys I believe the article Timeline of the War in Donbass mentions The Guardian reporter Shaun Walker and a UK Telegraph reporter recording Russian columns crossing into Ukraine back in August.Koonter (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin should not be listed as a leader in the infobox

That would be like saying king Louis XVI of France was a leader of the American revolutionary war prior to France going to war with Britain in 1778.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.124.200 (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the article Russo-Georgian War which deals with a similar regional conflict they list Dmitry Medvedev as the leader, I think its standard practice to list the commander-in-chief of a nation that is involved in a conflict.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Koonter (talk • contribs) 19:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Russia Georgia war was a direct war between Russia and Georgia. A similar example is France and Britain at war with each other during the American revolutionary war. Russia and Ukraine are not at war, so Putin does not belong in the infobox.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Russia and Ukraine may not have declared war but they are de-facto at war with overwhelming evidence of Russian involvement (even the article itself implicated Russian involvement). The US did not declare many conflicts wars, such as Somalia, current Afghanistan occupation, Libya etc, so what you are suggesting their commanders can simply be removed as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Koonter (talk • contribs) 21:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You think Ukraine can withstand Russia in a war? Ukraine doesn't dare fight Russian troops in Crimea, doesn't dare shoot at a single Russian humanitarian truck. What makes you think Ukraine dares to fight Russia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You're pushing your own opinion, the article itself has an entire section on Russian involvement in the conflict. You would have to delete the entire section in the article that talks about Russian involvement then delete articles such as 2014 Russian intervention in Ukraine that also discuss Russian involvement in Donbass. Basically you are saying because Ukraine is small they can not be invaded, that is akin to saying that USSR never invaded Afghanistan because they also had no chance in fighting the Soviet superpower.Koonter (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin is listed in the leader section of the infobox of the article 2014 Crimean Crisis, when he also denied Russian troop involvement for months until finally admitting it. Ukraine was unable to fight back in Crimea and was not effective in fighting back in Donbass until the summer because it effectively had no government, most of their leaders fled to Russia leaving no command and control structure, and it was only in June-July after Poroshenko was elected and set up some sort of normalcy that they started recapturing cities and reorganizing. Putin is also listed in the leader section of the article 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine which is a broader article covering Russian involvement in both Crimea and Donbass, so not including him in this article would be in conflict with several other Wikipedia articles that cover this subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.57.100.192 (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

There are no Russian troops in Donbas. Russian troops wear Ratnik combat gear. Separatists are not seen wearing Ratnik.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean they couldn't change clothes?Kobe's jaw (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Why would Russian troops not wear Ratnik? Ratnik is practically impervious to small arms fire.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

US also claims it has no troops in Pakistan, you must believe them too.Koonter (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as impervious body armor, no matter how well its made. Besides you are a big fan boy of Russia and clearly have no intention of keeping neutrality of any article that has Russia mentioned in it, best thing to do is to recuse yourself.Kobe's jaw (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Folks, can you sign your comments? Use four tildas. Volunteer Marek  22:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Right Sector

It is well known that the Right Sector has been involved in the conflict, but they are not listed under the combatants. They are not part of Ukraine's military and are not subordinate to any Ukrainian leader so assume Dmytro Yarosh should also be listed as a separate commander in the conflict.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Koonter (talk • contribs) 22:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Right Sector is sort of like Shabiha in Syria. They are irregulars. Separatists do not take Right Sector prisoner. Every Right Sector fighter captured by separatists is killed right away. Right Sector fighters are not servicemen, and as such their losses are not reported by NSDC. Right Sector is not part of army and does not receive pay, supplies, arms from the government. When Right Sector fighters die, their families are not compensated by the government. This article explains very well. It is not known how many Right Sector fighters have been killed. KyivPost death count is consistently higher than NSDC death count, the latter only include servicemen and does not include Right Sector fighters killed, while the former includes Right Sector fighters killed. http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/11/09/the-first-breath-of-war-right-sector-base/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildas. Volunteer Marek  22:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm now in ISIS but both the Right Sector and Svoboda have been a cancer for Ukraine. At least Viktor Yushchenko never (by what I know) tried to divide Western and Estern Ukraine, though he was corrupt (as Tymoshenko or Yanukovitch). As thought for a quite long time now that as more the parties are right wing, more they may be responsible for the shrinking of their country, as it happened with Crimea, and as almost more certainly as a large part of Donbass (the most rich part of Donbass). This was not caused by in the 1st place. This was caused by EU not accepting a trade union with Russia by Ukraine. For God sake, even Chile as an association agreement with EU but it also belongs to OAE and Iberoamerican Community of Nations. Brazil, Russia, China, India and South Africa belongs to BRICS and all of them to the G20. Brazil to Mercosur, along with others. Turkey to the Turkic Council and to the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation. Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand to ASEAN. And unlike the EU countries, they've all been successful countries (the ones in EU, being the Nordic... I tried to paint them as blue, insteas as simply EU countries, since neither the Faroe Islands or Greenland belong to EU, but they belong to the Nordic Council... well, it's just Wikipedia, paint Taiwan or Senegal as a members of EU if you wish). I've said enough, now, Eurocrats or American supremacists (I'm not mentioning anyone in particular). But when the Ibero-American unity, the Turkic Unity are recognized and ASEAN is recognized as the same level of EU (it it will still exists in 20 years, given what you've done to all Southern EU countries+Ireland) I'll be very glad then to edit ASEAN, Mercosur, AU, Andean Community, as I'd wish to edit about EU. And I'm glad that Turkey is more likely to belong to an Eurasian community (given the responsed I've been given both from ASK, CHP and MHP sympathizers) than to any EU! An I wish Portugal and Spain (and I wished Italy, Greece, Cyprus and Malta) would also rather wish to belong to Mercosur than to EU! Maybe it was to long, but the content coundn't be more summarized than this. The only countries I care in Europe are Portugal, Spain, Italy, Malta, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Ireland, and maybe England, Wales and Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondolkiri1 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Og, Volunteer Marek do you think that we in Southern Europe have now any love fore EU? No, no, no| I appreciate a lot the Romanian, Moldovan and Ukrainian population here, as well as our Brazilian, Capeverdian, Mozambican, Chinese and Mozambican population here, but not EU. "Fuck" the EU! (as any regular Spanish, Italian, Greek, Cypriots ... and also Turkish, though not belonging to EU, but Southern Europeans as well). Well, make sex now with with Jüncker, since since may be you were not be able to make with Barroso (our wonderful PM that started the recession here and exported from here not only for Southern European countries, but also to Ireland and Hungary)... I'm in ISIS now, don't worry that I'll disturb you beween the Russian vs EU+US geopolitical positions about Ukraine. UKRAINE IS NOT A GAME! Neither from Russia nor from the West: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondolkiri1 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not editing anything else abou the Ukrainian situation (I'm now working on ISIL vs Kurds, Shiites, Yazidis and non-jihadist Sunnis). But I think this video about Ukraine is very interesting, and I've agreed with everything on it. See it all, abd choose the parts that are more convenient to you (and I also expect that that from you RGloucester, you've done a great job, but you've been somehow partita, unlike me as you may know)): about new issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6i3bM3I9hE (Erbil (Hevler, capital of the new country of Kurdistan - I really hope), Diyarbakir (Amed, the capital of Northern Kurdistan, in Turkey), Kermanshah (Kirmaşan, the capital of Eastern Kurdistan, in Iran) and in Syria (Qamişlo). I hope they'll all be independent fro Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran. I don't fucking care about your geopolitical interests! They've deserved a country for a vey long time. And most of them are Muslims but they're not crazy Muslims (like the Poles are very catholic, but not crazy catholics).Mondolkiri1 (talk) , 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2014

The Internnational Republican Institute is not "of the Republican Party" or "neo-conservative". Its membership is predominantly Republican Party, but it claims to be non-partisan, and cannot be considered "neo-conservative" by any measure. This seems to be a POV attempt to discredit the poll. 129.97.124.37 (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done – I don't know who added those little annotations, but they were entirely inappropriate. I've removed them. RGloucester — ☎ 17:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

paratroopers

There's an obvious POV problem with the current text which I tried to remedy: [12]. In the relevant paragraph, the first couple sentences discuss Russian "volunteers", quote: " significant number of Russian citizens and military men have fought in the war as volunteers, something that the leaders of the DPR and LPR admitted.". It then follows up with: "This culminated on 25 August, when the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) said that it captured a group of Russian paratroopers in Ukrainian territory."

The implication made by this kind of paragraph structure is obviously that these captured paratroopers were "volunteers". But no reliable source makes that claim. In fact, quite the opposite - these weren't volunteers but regular Russian army troops ordered into Ukraine by the Russian government and military.

The current wording violates WP:SYNTH as it combines different sources to make an unsupported - and false - implication. One way or another this should be fixed. If splitting the text up into two separate paragraphs is not the way to go, please suggest a different way to fix it. Volunteer Marek  03:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That implication simply doesn't exist in the wording at present, and I vehemently oppose any premature paragraph splitting. However, I've added a clarification that they were on active service, which should satisfy any such concerns. RGloucester — ☎ 03:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "This culminated" still implies that these were volunteers. Adding "on active service" just makes it self contradictory. The "this culminated" references "Recruitment for Donbass insurgent groups ... in Russian cities". But these guys weren't "recruited", they were sent, ordered, there. If a clarification is added in between the sentence talking about volunteers and the paratrooper one - something about regular Russian troops, not volunteers, participating in the conflict (which can be easily sourced), then it would make sense. Volunteer Marek  04:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Marek (the paratroopers were regular Russian army troops) and the text is currently misleading, however I also see a problems with term "volunteers" (who where not paratroopers) from the beginning. Yes, this term is frequently used, however these "volunteers" receive significant payments for their services. Given that Russia officially is not a side of the conflict, this makes them mercenary. My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No, "this culminated" references the start of paragraph, which says "Russia intervened...&c." No one is saying that they were not Russian soldiers on active service. The present text says as much. Also note the following sentence about the "Russian Defence Ministry". That phrase is an acknowledgement by Russia that they were on active service. There is no implication otherwise. As far as concerns about "volunteers", we must follow RS. RGloucester — ☎ 04:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the phrasing implies they were not Russian soldiers. I fixed it. My very best wishes (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The phrasing implies no such thing, and you fixed nothing. You made it laden with PoV, added unsourced commentary about "mercenaries", added scare quotes in contempt of WP:ALLEGED, and implemented an un-natural paragraph split. RGloucester — ☎ 05:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Between the beginning of the paragraph which says "Russia intervened..." and the "This culminated..." there are five sentences. Grammatically "this" refers to adjacent nouns. The "Russia intervened" is not adjacent. Just a plain straight forward reading of the paragraph suggests that "this" refers to "Recruitment for Donbass insurgent groups", but that's obviously not what we're trying to say. Next plausible conclusion is that "this" refers to the "Russian citizens ... who volunteered". But that's also incorrect and it is a misleading implication. One solution would be to explicitly state "Russian intervention culminated..."

In regard to mercenaries and OR, "mercenaries" is easy to source, for example [13]. On the other hand the very phrasing "This culminated..." appears to be a bit OR-ish (though mild, as far as these things go). Do the sources - current sources - say this was the culmination of Russian intervention? One could just as easily say that the culmination of the Russian intervention was the incursion of Russian troops in August which allowed the rebels to retake previously lost territory.

I'll leave the question of the scare quotes on the ... "humanitarian convoy", alone for now, but just note that most sources do qualify this phrasing. Volunteer Marek  05:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I see you pretty much implemented what I was suggesting above as I was typing this. Thanks. Volunteer Marek  05:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've instituted Operation Absolute Clarity. There is no room mistaking, now, if there ever was. The "culmination" is of the "reports", because that was the first time that hard evidence was provided (as it says in sources, which note this as a turning point). Scare quotes are inappropriate for a variety of reasons, but any concerns about the nature of the convoy are resolved by the prose, which details those concerns. Use prose to explain and provide sources, do not use "scare quotes" to inject PoV. RGloucester — ☎ 05:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the wording's good now. As to the "humanitarian convoy" and scare quotes, the concerns can be addressed with prose within the body of the article. But that can't be done with the lede, which is supposed to be succinct. So the concerns are not mentioned in the lede but the humanitarianess of the convoy is. Volunteer Marek  05:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe that that is a reasonable way of thinking, and have hence provided attribution to the phrase "humanitarian convoy" at first mention in the lead, which should be adequate. RGloucester — ☎ 06:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's good, thanks. Volunteer Marek  06:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. If you both agree about this, I would not interfere. After reading this page, I have some suggestions for improvement, but this requires too much time. Best, My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Number of Pro-Russian forces according to the Ukrainian government

15-25 000 rebels 5-10 000 Russian soldiers According to the Ukrainian government (ATO speaker Seleznev) http://society.lb.ua/war/2014/11/25/287144_shtab_ato_naschitivaet_donbasse_10.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, yes, and there are maps with exact locations. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)