Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Breedlove, Soros, Der Spiegel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volunteer Marek, I still don't see any reason why it should be deleted and have to agree with Darouet. "been over this, please stop trying to sneak it in, it's disruptive and dishonest" is not enough, vague WP:IDONTLIKEIT claims don't count. — [1]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the map is not correct

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

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

This has been discussed over and over on articles surrounding the annexation of Crimea to the RF. Per reliable sources, the annexation is not recognised by the majority of the international community, and is consequently represented as being a disputed state. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

map does not mark the border between Crimea and Mainland Russia as disputed. This is POV. EfrinEfrin (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

disruptive tagging

[2]. Come on. Whether you want it as "Russia" or "Russian forces" doesn't matter. But this is what sources say and adding a "who" tag is just disruptive and unnecessary. Sources already are in article.

Even by the usual standards of POV pushing on Ukraine related articles this is scraping the bottom of the barrel.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand!!!

Russian medias say that there isn't any Russian troops in Ukraine, this war is a work of USA and Russia is innocent. European and American medias say that Russia made the full-scale war and even bombed Crimea.

Can someone explain, what is in Ukraine?! 37.204.177.253 (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Russia invaded and annexed Crimea but maintained plausible deniability by using unmarked special forces troops and vehicles (Putin did later admit to it). The same thing is happening in Donbass, with the added wrinkle of Russian special forces cultivating homegrown militias to do much of the frontline fighting, while maintaining a reserve of troops and military assets to support them in key battles and to step in if the "separatists" (who actually want Russian annexation) are in danger of being militarily defeated (which is what happened last summer). Russia doesn't admit to having troops in Ukraine or attacking the Ukrainian military because that would be a violation of international law. However, there's no shortage of evidence that Russian troops are in Ukraine, and it's almost universally acknowledged outside of Russia's state-controlled media that this war is functionally between Ukraine and Russia (along with Russia's "separatist" proxies). -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not correct. Russia never invaded Crimea. Ukrainian soldiers withdrew from Crimea following referendum. 207.35.219.34 (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's funny. But it gets old.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Changing location of or removal casualties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like Neil Young a lot, though... :-) I know, I know, I am dating myself! :-D If I knew how to delete the post, you know, with a line through it, I would do it, maybe you can tell me how or you can do it for me... It's all good, happy end of summer, or end of winter, for you. Peace, --Mondschein English (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mondschein English: The way you put a line through your text is as follows: <s> at the start </s> at the end. This produces an effect like this-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"Other" reactions section

I've gone WP:BRD by removing the "Other" section for reactions as it only features Soros and sticks out like a sore thumb for being WP:UNDUE. As has been discussed on related articles, with consensus reached, only significant international entities and reactions are DUE for such broad scope articles. Edit wars have broken out over this content with various 'other' reactions tossed out, therefore there is no balance in keeping a single individual under a section entitled 'other'... and this looks like a remnant left over after the discussion above. If it isn't intended to be a remnant, it should still be treated as one. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll agree with you.Hilltrot (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. Volunteer Marek  06:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

Either the lead is one paragraphs too long, or the introduction itself is too long for readers to read through. Most readers (per WP:LEAD) read only the introduction, while some readers decide to read the whole article after reading the lead. As the event is ongoing, perhaps no more than four paragraphs should be more appropriate. I am recommending one or two paragraphs; the conflict lasts one year and is still continuing. --George Ho (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You're not familiar with the situation . . . This is not about a conflict. This is about a military intervention. (I don't think anyone wants to name it the Russo-Ukraine war.) For the most part it has wound down. The "rebels" in the east now have more tanks and armaments than any other country in Europe. Russia really doesn't need to send more. They pulled out their army over the summer. And the fighting has finally stopped. This is actually no longer "ongoing". I'm sure most editors like me are waiting for the final reports like the vital MH17 report which will come out in late October.

It seems to me like you just jumped into this article and assigned a random number of paragraphs for the intro to the editors here. This is a contentious and complicated subject. Please read the archives. Changes to the intro are likely going to need BRD on every change. Although I can cross my fingers and hope. I'm mostly waiting for the MH17 report before I try rewriting it. If you want to try to fix it ahead of me - I work slowly - go ahead. Hilltrot (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I'm waiting on further information before any form of clean-up can take place. Of course editors can go WP:BOLD, but as this article (and multiple articles surrounding these events) fall under ARB sanctions, and have been the subject of serious edit warring, blocks and topic bans, I'd suggest that bold is not a wise approach and will end in grief. Articles don't have to follow formulas (MOS offers guidelines, not policies). There are instances where, as desirable as it may appear to be, discretion is the better part of valour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I agree with George Ho that this could be much briefer. Here is shorter version that gets the point across:

In 2014, Russia made several incursions into Ukrainian territory. Starting with the 2014 Crimean crisis, soldiers of ambiguous affiliation began to take control of strategic positions and infrastructure within the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. After Russia annexed Crimea, demonstrations by pro-Russian groups in the Donbass area of Ukraine escalated into an armed conflict between the separatist forces of the self-declared Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics and the Ukrainian government. In August, Russian military vehicles crossed the border in several locations of Donetsk Oblast. The incursion by the Russian military was seen as responsible for the defeat of Ukrainian forces in early September.

In November 2014 the Ukrainian military reported intensive movement of troops and equipment from Russia into the separatist controlled parts of eastern Ukraine, and OSCE Special Monitoring Mission observed convoys of heavy weapons and tanks in DPR-controlled territory without insignia. As of early August 2015, OSCE observed over 21 such vehicles marked with the Russian military code for soldiers killed in action. Russian soldiers captured in Ukraine, comments made by rebel leaders such as Alexander Zakharchenko, and statements from human rights groups indicated that Russian service personnel were fighting in Ukraine. Several members of the international community and organizations such as Amnesty International have condemned Russia for its actions in post-revolutionary Ukraine, accusing it of breaking international law and violating Ukrainian sovereignty. Many countries implemented economic sanctions against Russia or Russian individuals or companies, to which Russia responded in kind. The Kremlin has tried to intimidate and silence human rights workers who have raised questions about Russian soldiers' deaths in the conflict.

@Iryna Harpy and Hilltrot: the last paragraph strikes me as being written in a non-neutral fashion, e.g., it should probably say, "according to xyz, the Kremlin has tried…" That's an issue that could be considered separately, however, and I think that international reactions are important. -Darouet (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I shortened the lead. I also expanded a little on Russian public opinion - I think Russian opposition to invasion, in the context of Russian troop deployment and Russian casualties, is significant enough to be mentioned in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Darouet: I haven't had time to compare your rewrite with the original version, so I'll defer from commenting until I have. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

K, let me know what you think when you get a chance. -Darouet (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If I don't get back to you in the next couple of days, please ping me to remind me. The traffic on this article has died off, so I don't think there's any great urgency in reviewing and discussing changes immediately. If any other editors have concerns beforehand, I'm sure we'll both be made aware of it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hilltrot, complexity of Russian-Ukrainian relations has split into so many subtopic. The scale of the topic (Russian's 2014-15 intervention in Ukraine) isn't that big, no matter how complicated and violent it is. Also, I'm pleased that the lede has been shortened... Well, it was four, but I merged two paragraphs into one, totaling to just three. --George Ho (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the introduced content regarding Russian public opinion as being WP:UNDUE in the context of a brief summary. The information was dated, and it simply didn't enhance the lead info. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is the latest discussion about ledes in general: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Allow fifth paragraph of lede? --George Ho (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian casualties

This page lists more casualties (killed/captured) for the Ukranian military than the main War in Donbass page, even though the Russian intervention is only part of that conflict, and the bulk of the fighting is apparently being done by Russian-backed separatist groups. What's up with that?--Nihlus1 (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Russian casualties have been classified recently, and they remain state secret.--Lute88 (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

But I wasn't talking about Russian casualties. I was asking why this page, which deals with a subset of the Donbass War, lists 2,423 Ukranian soldiers killed 2,768 as captured, and 378 missing. The main War in Donbass page, which includes all the fighting between the Ukranian armed forces and the separatist rebels (i.e. the majority of the fighting), only lists Ukranian casualties as 2,540 dead and 270 missing.--Nihlus1 (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nihlus1: At the moment, the "War in Donbass" article has been fully protect after edit warring broke out over several areas, not the least of which was the infobox casualties figures (i.e., what reliable sources should be used, and the extent to which WP:CALC applies). The dispute still stands as being unresolved. Hopefully, once consensus has been established there, the decision can be applied here and on other related articles for parity. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

A quote from the article Timeline of the war in Donbass (July–September 2015), 11 August, reads as follows: "According to the Ministry of Defence 7,329 Ukrainian servicemen had received awards during the war, 1,415 of them posthumously. During the same period of time 167 members of the National Guard had been killed in action.". I guess that not all KIAs are/were heroes. And, only some days ago the NGO "Black Tulip" was granted access to DAP, where another bodies of "Kyborgs" were found.—Pietadè 13:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

---

@Pietade: I'm not clear as to what the question you're raised here is. Could you please elaborate? As I'm currently reading your concern, you're making a connection between numbers reported as two separate lots that may or may not already have been included in the original 7,329 count(?), plus the fact that more bodies are now being discovered well after the fact (as was bound to happen, and will continue as previously inaccessible war zones are opened up for investigation). All I can make of it is that we continue to follow confirmed/official reports. Going beyond that would be WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2015

There is a section with a couple of publications about the Russia's participation in the war in Donbass (starts with "On 2 October 2014, RBC published "). Can you please add also a paragraph about another investigation done by our team?

On 1 September 2015 the InformNapalm volunteer community presented the intermediate results of 18 months long project of disclosing and identification of the Russian forces involved in the war in Donbass. The Russian Invasion Into Ukraine. The Presentation of the Evidence of Russia’s Participation in the War in Donbas[3] article lists Russia's regular army units with the details of their disclosing, including photo and video materials found during OSINT investigations. More than 115 incidents were available on day of publication, 50 of which were shown on infographic. 46.175.16.24 (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• It is unclear whether the material about the presentation is notable. Unquestionably notable publications mentioning the InfoNapalm presentation are needed to confirm that the event was notable. Also I doubt very much that the resource with the name InfoNapalm is neutral and reliable, so I suggest to use it for sourcing of the article in moderation (if any) Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd be disinclined to consider the site to be reliable in any sense (including WP:BIASED). Per their "About us" page, any content there is WP:USERGENERATED. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Has any reliable source (NY Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, The Times in Britain, a textbook, etc.) published anything about your investigation? — Ríco 01:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've found nothing on it other than this since the request was made. Ultimately, the information is speculative and not reflected in any RS I've encountered. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure the Centre for Eastern Studies is a reliable source as seen through the lens of RS. — Ríco 18:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)