Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Russo-Ukrainian War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Donbass section
This section is very messy and needs to be restructured in some way. Currently there is a lot of overlap and redundancies between the subheadings. The most pragmatic way would be to form a timeline and remove all the other subheadings. Any objections to restructuring in that manner? Hollth (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- We already have timeline articles used specifically for that purpose. Yes, agreed that it needs to be better organised, but not in timeline format. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- I share your concerns, however, given the events are ongoing I would still argue the most pragmatic method of organising would be chronological. If you have any other suggestions how to organise it I can try to direct it towards that? Hollth (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ultimately, the whole article is groaning under its own weight in terms of size, so we'll probably need to think about splitting some of it off with the way things are headed. I think the Allegations of Russian involvement is the largest of the sprawling sections at this point in time, so, yes, as no one else has commented on preferences (or objections) at the moment, I can see it as being useful to set the section up chronologically, so long as it isn't presented in bulleted list form. It would probably benefit by being broken up into sections following the chronology of allegations coinciding with incidents throughout the war. Go ahead. If anyone has objections, you'll find out soon enough. The fact that this section has been here for a few days already demonstrates an initial attempt at discussion so, per WP:BRD, no one can say that you just plunged in boldly. Good luck in sorting through it! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm putting everything in crude month based headings for the time being, but I'll move it towards event based headings for the near future. Hollth (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ultimately, the whole article is groaning under its own weight in terms of size, so we'll probably need to think about splitting some of it off with the way things are headed. I think the Allegations of Russian involvement is the largest of the sprawling sections at this point in time, so, yes, as no one else has commented on preferences (or objections) at the moment, I can see it as being useful to set the section up chronologically, so long as it isn't presented in bulleted list form. It would probably benefit by being broken up into sections following the chronology of allegations coinciding with incidents throughout the war. Go ahead. If anyone has objections, you'll find out soon enough. The fact that this section has been here for a few days already demonstrates an initial attempt at discussion so, per WP:BRD, no one can say that you just plunged in boldly. Good luck in sorting through it! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- I share your concerns, however, given the events are ongoing I would still argue the most pragmatic method of organising would be chronological. If you have any other suggestions how to organise it I can try to direct it towards that? Hollth (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Allegations of Russian involvement section
I believe this now has grown to such a size, and is such a "stream of consciousness" that we should really split it into subsections, or even better, make a separate article on it, where all the currently listed evidence could be described in details. I can do a first draft of the new article but wanted to get the community consensus and suggestions on this idea? Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- As per the above section of the talk page, I'm going to change the entire Donbass section to be chronological which will result in 'allegations of Russian involvement' being removed as a heading (after al, the entire Donbass section is essentially allegations of Russian involvement). Personally I wouldn't want to see a new page of Russian involvement because I think that is pretty much what this page is supposed to be. So in my opinion, I would say we shouldn't make it a new article out of that section. Hollth (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that I'd be comfortable about having a dedicated article, but I haven't chewed over the pros and cons enough as yet. I really don't see how we're justified in trying to contain all of the information in an oversized article, but there are no clear-cut subsections to be developed as separate articles. Going on size of subsections alone isn't necessarily the best selection criterion. I'd be happy to hear from other editors as to their evaluation of where potential splits are warranted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- The article needs a great deal of cleanup, and the lede is especially unclear and overly a stream of consciousness too. The "Allegations of Russian involvement" section contains too much of the historical debate when the Russian involvement might have been legitimately contested with a straight face, and too little of a good section introduction that would summarize the whole "they said"/"the other said" problem, the back and forth debate over nn months, and the current situation where there is incontrovertible and internationally-recognized evidence of direct Russian military intervention in Ukraine, beyond the initial Crimean project. It is time to copyedit both this section, and the lede, in order to get this Wikipedia article improved to a higher level. N2e (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- That's exactly my point - it's complete mix, both in terms of time and topics. I will try to do some fixes then and let's see how it works. The idea of having a separate article was motivated purely by technical convenience, but the point that it's actually the right article to discuss this topic is valid. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- The article needs a great deal of cleanup, and the lede is especially unclear and overly a stream of consciousness too. The "Allegations of Russian involvement" section contains too much of the historical debate when the Russian involvement might have been legitimately contested with a straight face, and too little of a good section introduction that would summarize the whole "they said"/"the other said" problem, the back and forth debate over nn months, and the current situation where there is incontrovertible and internationally-recognized evidence of direct Russian military intervention in Ukraine, beyond the initial Crimean project. It is time to copyedit both this section, and the lede, in order to get this Wikipedia article improved to a higher level. N2e (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that I'd be comfortable about having a dedicated article, but I haven't chewed over the pros and cons enough as yet. I really don't see how we're justified in trying to contain all of the information in an oversized article, but there are no clear-cut subsections to be developed as separate articles. Going on size of subsections alone isn't necessarily the best selection criterion. I'd be happy to hear from other editors as to their evaluation of where potential splits are warranted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit war against User 109.152.156.43
This editor has provided explanations for their edits. Their edits have been repeatedly reverted with no explanation in a brand new edit war. Would anyone like to address it? USchick (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- This is, again, a waste of time. The changes were tendentious, poorly sourced, and unconstructive, and they were undone properly under the WP:BRD principle. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- And then editors ganged up in an edit war. May I remind people that this article is under sanctions. The editor explained their edits. There has been no discussion since then, only unexplained reverts.USchick (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- The onus is on the editor introducing the change to seek and obtain consensus. Unfortunately for him, he was blocked due to sockpuppetry. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- lol, ok USchick (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- useful user uschick please help eliminate ukraine claims from article. user kudzu is try to push ukraine claims as facts. they are claimed by ukraine!!! russia claims not allowed, but ukraine claims is ok? this is all work of user marek who is agent and who delete my comments. i ask for help from humble user herzen and respectful user molobo, but no one is to come to remove ukraine claims. i cannot edit this it says because some nato admin has blocked page. please help useful user us chick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RossiyaCitizen22 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Our policy at WP:NPA specifically restricts comments to content, not contributors. Although I imagine many boys dream of being an 'agent' (or what about nato admin ?) it seems negative when you write that as opposed to 'useful' or 'respectful' (which I imagine is something all contributors aspire to). Lklundin (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- useful user uschick please help eliminate ukraine claims from article. user kudzu is try to push ukraine claims as facts. they are claimed by ukraine!!! russia claims not allowed, but ukraine claims is ok? this is all work of user marek who is agent and who delete my comments. i ask for help from humble user herzen and respectful user molobo, but no one is to come to remove ukraine claims. i cannot edit this it says because some nato admin has blocked page. please help useful user us chick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RossiyaCitizen22 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- lol, ok USchick (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- The onus is on the editor introducing the change to seek and obtain consensus. Unfortunately for him, he was blocked due to sockpuppetry. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- And then editors ganged up in an edit war. May I remind people that this article is under sanctions. The editor explained their edits. There has been no discussion since then, only unexplained reverts.USchick (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Just because a few experienced editors have managed to block the less experienced editors, doesn't make this article balanced all of a sudden. USchick (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Duly noted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
40K
Note that 40K for the number of Russian troops is unsourced. Indeed, the Ukrainian government was at some point mentioned 50K, but since they only throw random numbers around, without any connection to reality, it the number comes from the Ukrainian government, it should be clearly attributed as such.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Where should we put number of soldiers and police who defected?
According to both Ukrainian and Russian sources several thousand of Ukrainian military and tens of thousands of policemen have joined Russian side. Should this information be put in casualties or results section? I gravitate towards losses section, but would like an opinion first. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- I, for one, would like to see your sources. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Why so little number of protesters killed in "Casualties and losses" section? There were more. Here is some below.
Why so little number of protesters killed in "Casualties and losses" section? There were more. Here is some below.
Рыбак и студент http://argumentua.com/reportazh/ubiistvo-deputata-vladimira-rybaka http://censor.net.ua/video_news/281627/kak_pohischali_gorlovskogo_deputata_vladimira_rybaka_video http://112.ua/video/v-mvd-rasskazali-podrobnosti-ubiystva-i-pytok-deputata-gorlovskogo-gorsoveta-rybaka.html http://www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/63245.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7vmF9IDQWY http://www.ostro.org/general/society/articles/443375/?pagen=7&fb_action_ids=712950995413033&fb_action_types=og.likes
Убийство баптистов и массовые захоронения http://ipress.ua/ru/news/na_donbasse_pohoronyly_vosmerih_protestantov_kotorih_rasstrelyaly_terrorysti_dnr_76204.html
Убитые гражданские на Донбассе http://nv.ua/ukraine/boeviki-zamuchili-do-smerti-spasatelya-gschs-gerashchenko-33547.html https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%87:Tagira/%D0%A6%D0%B8%D0%B2%D1%96%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%96_%D0%B2%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%96%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%83_(2014) http://inforesist.org/v-milicii-nazvali-spisok-prestuplenij-dnr/ https://twitter.com/tweetsNV/status/557106035346112512 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constantinehuk (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Map is inaccurate
The current map is from October and is no longer current. Esn (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've replaced it with a map last updated 25 February. The fact that Crimea is outlined in red makes for a convoluted description, and I'm not certain that I can vouch for the map's veracity. I'd prefer to see the dated map updated, but have made it clear that other editors are invited to respond to it per WP:BRD. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- An imperfect solution, as the map now displays only half of what the article covers (the other half being Crimea). What software do people use for updating these maps, anyway? Esn (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've self-reverted. It was my last bit of editing last night and I didn't realise that the red around Crimea isn't visible in the thumb. SVGs seem to be the order of the day, but I still use photoshop which works with vector graphics, but doesn't recognise the format. I'm assuming that those working with the open source software would have layers/workpaths already set up for separate maps because I can't find any versions with the layers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm really bad with that stuff, or else I'd help. One might ask at the Graphics lab. RGloucester — ☎ 00:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've downloaded both versions of the map (the one currently being used, plus the February one by someone we're not in a good collaborative position to approach, nor would I wish to encourage). In both cases, they've actually been converted to PNGs, meaning they're on those contributor's local computers, so they're of no use because there aren't any XML parameters to work with. This means having to start from scratch (sorry, I truly don't feel like dedicating a couple of weeks to recreating everything available at militarymaps.info). The number of requests at the Graphics lab tagged as 'stale' suggests to me that we'd be hard-pressed to find anyone there willing to do the same. The only thing I can thing of is pinging Niele who would probably have some earlier form and asking him to update it, or send on his uncompressed file (including layers, etc.) to me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm really bad with that stuff, or else I'd help. One might ask at the Graphics lab. RGloucester — ☎ 00:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've self-reverted. It was my last bit of editing last night and I didn't realise that the red around Crimea isn't visible in the thumb. SVGs seem to be the order of the day, but I still use photoshop which works with vector graphics, but doesn't recognise the format. I'm assuming that those working with the open source software would have layers/workpaths already set up for separate maps because I can't find any versions with the layers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- An imperfect solution, as the map now displays only half of what the article covers (the other half being Crimea). What software do people use for updating these maps, anyway? Esn (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Map
The map in the information box is long since outdated. Does anyone have a high-quality updated version? Utahwriter14 (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Russian intervention in Ukraine
There are no Russian invading forces in Ukraine. However there are a limited numbers of Russian troops in Crimea since 1997 after the Ukraine-Russian Treaty. Some of the rebels are ethnic russian but they're Ukrainian. There are no proof of Russian soliders fighting in Ukraine. USA will of course accuse Russia of that, but the entire world remember how the secretary of state of USA Colin Powell were waving around "evidence" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, like the ones they have. And then after murdering millions and displacing even more, it appeared to be no WMD, and the American "evidence" were false. Sherzad (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- heres a youtube video the world according to Russia today - and the Volnovakha bus was grad rockets from kiev, and ghouta sarin attacks was Al Qaeda?israelis/cia/Saudis/anybodybutassadregime, and blah blah --sharmine narwanifacts , blah blah paula slier facts blah blah etc my brain hurts - Sayerslle (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- This page isn't for discussing opinions. Please keep on to the topic of the article improvement. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- from ukraineatwar , know your Russian generals in Ukraine article Russian strela in bryanka 'Bryanka is a small town in Lugansk Region located 56 km from Lugansk. The town is currently under control of regular Russian Army units. This “Strela-10″ in the photo is going to its base located on the territory of Bryanka Drilling Equipment Plant'[1]Sayerslle (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're going to get blocked. Don't push your luck. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- its my understanding any and every editor can be blocked, at various times, for various reasons. [2] Sayerslle (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're going to get blocked. Don't push your luck. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- from ukraineatwar , know your Russian generals in Ukraine article Russian strela in bryanka 'Bryanka is a small town in Lugansk Region located 56 km from Lugansk. The town is currently under control of regular Russian Army units. This “Strela-10″ in the photo is going to its base located on the territory of Bryanka Drilling Equipment Plant'[1]Sayerslle (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- This page isn't for discussing opinions. Please keep on to the topic of the article improvement. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
That is funny. "There is no Russians invading Ukraine, but there are Russians invading Ukraine." Whoever started the section has no idea what he or she is talking about. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC) 176.14.228.185 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC) "Please remember that editing of English Wikipedia must be conducted from a neutral point of view"? Is this serious? For references on that see the "beligerants" and the very title of this article. While there are NO concrete evidences, you still keep it for propaganda purposes. Yes, no idea on what you are talking about. What's next? "Pol Pot's contribution to mankind"? That redirects from "Khmer Rouge's humanitarian policy"? I would be more than happy to be blocked from this rubbish; the fact that this page hasn't been deleted is the only evidence provided here.
- wp articles use RS, like this one bbc news - its belligerent s, with an e - twitter latest -RUSSIAN ARMY #Pantsir-S1PANTSIR-S1 / SA-22 #GREYHOUND SEEN IN #SHAKHTARSK,UKRAINE.photo/1
Sayerslle (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Chief of the General Staff – Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine – Viktor Muzhenko said “the Ukrainian army is not engaged in combat operations against Russian units.” Well thats what RT says here [3]. To be honest I do not expect anyone to accept RT as an unbiased source. However, is it possible to verify this statement. Surely if it is a matter of fact that he said this it should be in this article. Perhaps I am entirely wrong about the purpose of the talk page, but it seems to me that this item is suitable for this discussion regarding the appropriate source material for the article. Please correct me if I am wrong. And certainly if the reference is bogus then it would be best for everyone to clear that matter up.
Okay, it's an abuse. I absolutely protest - the name of the article clearly makes guilty only one side, while the real reason is the Ukrainian forces, not Russian ones. Wikipedia must remain neutral until one side is found guilty. Ukrainians are brainwashing the whole western media about so-called Russian Invasion, while really it's a different story. 176.193.238.138 (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- You assert that someone is guilty in this conflict - and that this is not Russia, but rather Ukrainian forces. Would you like to improve the article by pointing to a reliable source that explains how Ukrainan forces are guilty of their own country being the subject of a military intervention from Russia? Lklundin (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Сasualties section
Clearly must be corrected. References are biased and unlikely believable. Such an exaggeration of Russian losses supplemented with fishy refs goes against the neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.181.159 (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The edit to losses section made by user EkoGraf on 11.03.2015 states that: "14,600 Russian soldiers killed". However the provided source does not attribute the losses to Russian military. They use term militants. I suggest that this part should be edited to "14,600 killed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreastr (talk • contribs) 14:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
agreed. SyriaWarLato (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed as well, source is a Ukrainian government source and that source does not attribute that figure to Russian military KIA. A better source would be the Nemtsov report
http://www.putin-itogi.ru/putin-voina/
The current figure is extremely misleading, and I think we can all agree that it needs adjustment. According this report and this RFE article, 220+ Russian soldiers have been killed. This is a much more reliable and specific figure and I think it should be used.
http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-nemtsov-report-ukraine-war/27011532.html Melting Pot of Friendship (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Novaya Gazeta story
According to the only independent Russian newspaper, Novaya Gazeta, Putin approved the invasion of Crimea and a plan to break up Ukraine by fomenting unrest in the Donbass in Feb of last year, before Yanukovych fell from power. Source [4]. This should definitely be added (and not just to this article).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems like extreme fringe conspiracy theory and should be treated as such. Also "only independent Russian newspaper"? What does it mean.Is it the Russian version of National Enquirer? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- "Seems like extreme fringe conspiracy theory..." = "I just don't like what this reliable source is saying so I'm gonna call it names!". Novaya Gazeta is not "Russian version of National Enquirer" (on the other hand, NE is probably hella more reliable than RT), it's a reliable and respected source. I'm pretty sure you know that. Please make constructive comments or stop wasting talk page space.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Didn't you advocate disregarding Russian sources as unreliable? Are you know claiming they are reliable? Sorry, but stating that National Enquirer is more reliable than Russian state news agency and that Putin has been plotted for years to annex Ukraine doesn't seem too convincing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Nope. Never advocated that. Show me the diff or strike the statement. Novaya Gazeta is reliable. If you don't know what Novaya Gazeta is - and your comparison of it to National Enquirer suggests either profound ignorance and lack of background competence in this subject, or intentional misrepresentation, take your pick - then you shouldn't be editing this topic area. And I'm not going to argue about whether RT TV is more reliable than the National Enquirer. Let's just call it a close tie (NE writes mostly about stupid crap but they tend to fact check their info, RT writes about important crap, but they make stuff up and are in business of purposeful disinformation). And your statement that something "doesn't seem too convincing" is just personal OR which contradicts what a reliable source says. That's your problem, not the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oh and while we're on the subject of reversing one self and holding mutually contradictory opinions when it comes to reliable sources. Remember when you argued that Gazeta Wyborcza was a reliable source and told me to take it up at WP:RSN, when they wrote something you liked? Then a few days later you turned around and argued that the same source was not reliable because it was "pro-Ukrainian", when they wrote something you didn't like? Diffs can be provided. I think you're projecting your own foibles onto others. Just because you do this kind of thing, doesn't mean other editors do the same.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- You've been following the RSN and a multitude of consensus discussions for the duration of the crisis in Ukraine, therefore you are fully aware of which state-owned and yellow press news outlets are deemed to be unreliable, and that there is no blanket 'all Russian outlets are unreliable' position. You've also been asked time and time again to stop using all of the related article talk pages for your POINTy advocacy. Enough. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, several editors including myself have been to ANI with VM where the discussions revolve about cherry picking sources to advance a POV. It's not clear in this case what the proposed changes are and why this particular source is so important. If this is a real development, it will be reported by other sources, not just this one. USchick (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes and the only thing that has happened was that some of these "several editors" got BOOMERANG blocked and you yourself have been repeatedly warned about making false accusations, some of which were extremely offensive and untrue. So actually, you're mostly lying again. The discussions at ANI did NOT "revolve about cherry picking sources to advance a POV". Maybe that's what you wanted these discussions to be about, but they always turned into discussions of disruptive behavior by yourself or others. Need I bring up the examples again? Like the time you falsely and maliciously accused another editor of racism? Then retracted when threatened with a block, then made the accusation again as soon as no admins were looking? Or how about the time where you - and this was a disgusting piece of work there USchick and I'm not going to let you forget it - accused me of threatening an admin's children?
- And anyway, this is a reliable sources. You got a problem with it, go to RSN. And yes, there are other sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a proposed change to this article? Or is this a personal attack? USchick (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's a response to your personal attack and renewed provocation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is an article talk page. Personal uncontrolled outbursts are inappropriate. USchick (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to ask you nicely. Please stop making provocations. Don't accuse me of stuff which isn't true. Don't refer to my responses to your false accusations as "personal attacks". Don't refer to my comments as "uncontrolled outbursts". Don't lecture me on the purpose of the talk page, when you are the one who hijacked this thread with off topic stuff about ANI and your own personal axe-grinding. Then I won't have to bring up all the nasty things you've done to others. Deal? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:No personal attacks USchick (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Again, is there a proposed change to this article? USchick (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:No personal attacks USchick (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to ask you nicely. Please stop making provocations. Don't accuse me of stuff which isn't true. Don't refer to my responses to your false accusations as "personal attacks". Don't refer to my comments as "uncontrolled outbursts". Don't lecture me on the purpose of the talk page, when you are the one who hijacked this thread with off topic stuff about ANI and your own personal axe-grinding. Then I won't have to bring up all the nasty things you've done to others. Deal? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is an article talk page. Personal uncontrolled outbursts are inappropriate. USchick (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's a response to your personal attack and renewed provocation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a proposed change to this article? Or is this a personal attack? USchick (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, several editors including myself have been to ANI with VM where the discussions revolve about cherry picking sources to advance a POV. It's not clear in this case what the proposed changes are and why this particular source is so important. If this is a real development, it will be reported by other sources, not just this one. USchick (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- The actual source is not Novaya Gazeta, but another RS, however even Novaya Gazeta itself certainly qualifies as RS. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
In case one of you appreciates the opinion of somebody not involved in these personal feuds, I think that Marek could be on to something (whether that 'something' may be "true" is an altogether different issue), but he should write about it on some personal page, in his own name. Here on wikipedia, a reference to a single source (reliable or not) does not justify a section (and in my opinion, other newspapers writing about this newspaper article are not really worth mentioning either). Marek tries his best to prove that Novaja Gazeta is reliable, which is not wrong, but it makes his contributions to the actual wikipedia article seem like 'own research' or whatever wikipedia calls it. Again, explore the topic, Marek, but I think that wikipedia should not be some kind of news website or blog (or an academic journal in itself). So, Marek, I am not trying to destroy you, but you have to realize that you are behaving like an independent researcher and you should ask yourself whether wikipedia is the best forum for your ideas. 77.175.64.145 (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I have made some edits to the paragraph in question, described and justified over here. RGloucester, Iryna Harpy and Kudzu1 support the changes. Esn (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- MyMoloboaccount, your accusation of Novaya Gazeta in pulp fiction only shows your understanding in politics of today's Russia. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions
This article is under discretionary sanctions. This edit [5] has been made in an attempted edit war. It was reinstated against consensus. One source does not make something newswothry. USchick (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, this edit undid your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removal of well sourced text. The edit that has been made in an attempted edit war is your baseless removal of well sourced text. I still have no idea what WP:NOTNEWS has to do with any of this. It seems you're just trying to throw around random acronyms and irrelevant policies to bully through your POV. Likewise the claim that "one source does not make something newsworthy" is... well, either you didn't actually bother to look at what you were reverting (there's two sources there), or it's just more obfuscation. There are actually more sources out there about this, it's just I'm not a believer in putting in [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]...[104343533] citations after a piece of text. One or two solid sources - which is what we have here, are sufficient. The info has nothing to prove, it is what it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- The sources used all refer to the same ONE source. I have not addressed anyone in particular and I don't appreciate the personal attack against me. USchick (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well of course they refer to the same one source because it is the source that obtained the documents. This is like saying that we shouldn't have an article on Snowden because all sources "refer to one source" (Snowden). And there were no personal attacks. Stop it. Making baseless accusations of personal attacks is itself a personal attack. Read WP:NPA. Here it is: " Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. " Which you've done repeatedly. Still unclear on how you managed to drag WP:NOTNEWS into this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is an unverified claim reported by one source that may be considered reliable, that hardly qualifies as "news". However, the edit war is real and needs to be considered under sanctions. USchick (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- No, it's not one source. It's multiple sources. Is it "news"? I have no idea what you're going on about. If the edit war is real, then don't start it (a single revert of a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT pov edit is not an "edit war" and has nothing to do with discretionary sanctions. Removing well sourced text for POV reasons, as well as harassing other users as you are doing however does fall under DS).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is an unverified claim reported by one source that may be considered reliable, that hardly qualifies as "news". However, the edit war is real and needs to be considered under sanctions. USchick (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well of course they refer to the same one source because it is the source that obtained the documents. This is like saying that we shouldn't have an article on Snowden because all sources "refer to one source" (Snowden). And there were no personal attacks. Stop it. Making baseless accusations of personal attacks is itself a personal attack. Read WP:NPA. Here it is: " Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. " Which you've done repeatedly. Still unclear on how you managed to drag WP:NOTNEWS into this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- The sources used all refer to the same ONE source. I have not addressed anyone in particular and I don't appreciate the personal attack against me. USchick (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is tendentious time-wasting in the extreme. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." USchick (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think you're missing Kudzu1's point. Kudzu1, feel free to correct me, but it looks like your comment about tendentious time wasting is referring to USchick's little games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- The existence of a plan to take over the Crimea and other parts of the Ukraine (it was created years ago) was discussed/described in a large number of publications; this is nothing exceptional. However, according to these newer publications, editor in chef of Novaya Gazeta Dmitry Muratov has a copy of an actual (still unpublished) document describing this plan in all detail (see here, for example) and he said about some details in his interview at Echo of Moscow. This all was published in multiple RS. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- If it was discussed in other RS, please provide them. This is a conspiracy theory and needs to be sourced according to policy. USchick (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- As already noted - and your response to me pointing this out was only some personal attacks and false accusations - there is more than one source for this. That this is a "conspiracy theory" is your own original research. The reliable sources reporting on this do NOT in anyway, anywhere, in no sense, not at all, refer to this as "conspiracy theory". So please keep your own opinions to yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- If it's not a conspiracy why is it a secret? The invasion already happened, if they planned it in advance, that would make it a conspiracy. USchick (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- We're not interested in your original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Putin had several "contingency plans" about Ukraine, starting from 2003, according to his own former economic adviser [6]. Speaking about conspiracies, yes, one could certainly classify this war as a crime against peace by Russia, but this must be sourced.My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Who is "we"? I am challenging this edit and I'm asking for additional sources. USchick (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- The non-disruptive, non-tendentious, editors of Wikipedia. There's already three sources there, and since the main one is a major press agency, this has also been picked up by numerous other outlets, which are trivial to find.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- If it's trivial, please find reliable sources and include them. USchick (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Reliable sources have been found and are already included. Please read the actual article rather than making empty statements that don't make any sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- USchick, you're wasting everyone's time here. Please do what you know it's up to you to do: go through all of the talk on this article, articles that have been merged and split to form this article, plus the multitude of articles surrounding the crisis in Ukraine. All of the numerous editors involved in this article are well aware of the sources as they've been picked over, analysed, edit warred over and, most importantly, discussed thoroughly over the many, many months they've evolved over. Asking that we go over them from the beginning because you demand it is POINTy. Do your homework, then come back if you have a genuine problem with the content. No one is under any obligation to indulge you if you haven't kept up. There is page consensus regarding the content of the article based on RS. It doesn't cease to be based on RS just because you want a précis. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with the consensus, thank you. I'm not asking for clarification, I'm challenging the edit. A conspiracy theory backed by news reports from one questionable source is not consistent with policy for RS. I have asked for additional opinions at the RS Notice board. USchick (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's not a conspiracy theory. None of the sources call it that. It is not "one source", it's three sources (plus more can be easily found). It's not a "questionable source", it's a highly respected reliable source. Please stop misrepresenting the nature of the sources. Basically all you got here is your own WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you're making stuff up to push it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- All of the sources so far are based on one questionable source that hasn't been confirmed. Even that source only claims to have only a report, that no one has seen, and they have no idea where it came from, and they may or may not publish it later. Maybe. USchick (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion and original research. Unfortunately at this time Wikipedia is not based on individual editor's opinions and original research but on verifiable information in reliable secondary sources. If, at some point in the future, Wikipedia chooses to alter its policies and stop being an encyclopedia, it might wish to have your input in regards to this issue. For the time being, while we appreciate your desire to contribute, your suggestions are not constructive and are not in spirit of our policies. Thank you and best of luck in making your personal opinions known in other online forums.
- Or, as Iryna points out above no one is under any obligation to indulge you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- I see, it's nonsensical to discuss here, you've all already made your POV-conclusions as per "consensus". This is a waste of time, I'll leave now. Bye --87.63.114.210 (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- All of the sources so far are based on one questionable source that hasn't been confirmed. Even that source only claims to have only a report, that no one has seen, and they have no idea where it came from, and they may or may not publish it later. Maybe. USchick (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's not a conspiracy theory. None of the sources call it that. It is not "one source", it's three sources (plus more can be easily found). It's not a "questionable source", it's a highly respected reliable source. Please stop misrepresenting the nature of the sources. Basically all you got here is your own WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you're making stuff up to push it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with the consensus, thank you. I'm not asking for clarification, I'm challenging the edit. A conspiracy theory backed by news reports from one questionable source is not consistent with policy for RS. I have asked for additional opinions at the RS Notice board. USchick (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- USchick, you're wasting everyone's time here. Please do what you know it's up to you to do: go through all of the talk on this article, articles that have been merged and split to form this article, plus the multitude of articles surrounding the crisis in Ukraine. All of the numerous editors involved in this article are well aware of the sources as they've been picked over, analysed, edit warred over and, most importantly, discussed thoroughly over the many, many months they've evolved over. Asking that we go over them from the beginning because you demand it is POINTy. Do your homework, then come back if you have a genuine problem with the content. No one is under any obligation to indulge you if you haven't kept up. There is page consensus regarding the content of the article based on RS. It doesn't cease to be based on RS just because you want a précis. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Reliable sources have been found and are already included. Please read the actual article rather than making empty statements that don't make any sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- If it's trivial, please find reliable sources and include them. USchick (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- The non-disruptive, non-tendentious, editors of Wikipedia. There's already three sources there, and since the main one is a major press agency, this has also been picked up by numerous other outlets, which are trivial to find.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Who is "we"? I am challenging this edit and I'm asking for additional sources. USchick (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- If it's not a conspiracy why is it a secret? The invasion already happened, if they planned it in advance, that would make it a conspiracy. USchick (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- As already noted - and your response to me pointing this out was only some personal attacks and false accusations - there is more than one source for this. That this is a "conspiracy theory" is your own original research. The reliable sources reporting on this do NOT in anyway, anywhere, in no sense, not at all, refer to this as "conspiracy theory". So please keep your own opinions to yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- If it was discussed in other RS, please provide them. This is a conspiracy theory and needs to be sourced according to policy. USchick (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." USchick (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
RS Notice Board result from uninvolved editors Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Questionable sources, asking for opinion. Please fix it. Thanks. USchick (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- 1. That's not a consensus. 2. Only one of those editors is even quasi-uninvolved, and the opinion given was basically inconclusive. 3. This high bar per WP:CONSPIRACY seems to be something you have decided to apply with no basis for doing so. Russia having territorial ambitions isn't exactly Mossad doing 9/11 or the Apollo 11 landing being filmed on a Hollywood sound stage, as WP:FRINGE theories go. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- What makes it inconclusive? USchick (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- New comments approve the sources. USchick (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- What makes it inconclusive? USchick (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Kudzu1: this is waste of time. Next time, when someone starts an entirely inappropriate thread about "discretionary sanctions" or behavior by other users on article talk pages (instead of rising such questions on appropriate administrative noticeboards), I suggest that everyone should ignore it and do not respond. My very best wishes (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I've retained my google alert search strings and haven't seen any more on this subject since the first couple of days when the alleged memo was reported (in the Anglophone press, at least). Is anyone else aware of any follow-ups as to the veracity of the memo? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the memo was published and widely covered in everything from the New York Times to CBS news, the Telegraph, Irish Times etc. Basically every major media outlet. Outlets like RT have kept mum about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Putin Himself has admitted to it. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31796226 The memo is just frosting on the cake. There is unlikely to be another primary source for the memo.Hilltrot (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Revert
@Darkness Shines: I must say I disagree with this edit of yours and its rationale.
First, it was added randomly with no elaboration whatsoever by @Aleksandr Grigoryev about the documentary later in the article. As such, the burden for getting consensus falls on Aleksandr Grigoryev, which, please correct me if I'm wrong, he did not elicit from other editors. On the other hand, @Hollth provided a reasonable summary for his edit, which I entirely agree with.
Secondly, the fact that Putin admitted to his involvement is already mentioned in the second paragraph, which not only contains context surrounding the events of 2014 and but also contrasts sharply with the sudden nature of the opening sentence.
Thirdly, the current opening paragraph comes across as one-sided and the writer seems like he has a point to prove.
So not only is the opening paragraph unnecessary and written in an unbalanced manner without context, the burden of attaining consensus, which you called for, fell on the person who added it in the first place, who failed to do so. In addition, could you shed some light on why you reverted this change by Hollth, or have I overlooked something? Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 12:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hollth, the fact of Putin admitting the invasion of Ukraine on April 17 means absolutely nothing. There is no way one may really trust the official Kremlin today. The documentary film however is a real benchmark of how the Russian propaganda was effective in shaping a worldview towards Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Aleksandr Grigoryev, it means everything. When you no longer have to write dueling narratives for Crimea, you can simply write what happened. You don't have to allow some stupid writing claiming the troops in Crimea were actually from Zambia to enforce a treaty with Alpha Centauri because it was printed by the German Media who will print all the news, whether it is fit to be printed or not. His comments have actually been used by those opposing him to finally put this baby to bed. It also cements the title for this article which I supported. There were those at the time who argued that the Russian Military weren't really involved in the annexation of Crimea and shouldn't be included in this article and hence the article should be deleted.
- There is no arguing anymore that Putin used Russian troops to annex Crimea. Not having to waste time with stupidity anymore is nice. Do you disagree that Putin used Russian troops to annex Crimea? I'm not necessarily fond of this edit. However, the importance of Putin's 2hr victory lap documentary in a Wikipedia editing environment where constant stupidity had to be allowed in to keep things "NPOV" about Crimea is substantial. Hilltrot (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ignoring that the onus was on you, not me, I still don't follow with why you would revert. I moved the documentary to where it was more relevant and not completely undue, as it was in the opening sentence. I didn't change any information regarding it. Putin admitting on the 17th has nothing to do with this change. I didn't touch that bit. Reverting didn't alter that either, so I find it difficult to understand that reasoning. Nor do I understand why you reverted the other two edits, neither of which were contentious. It makes no sense to have two international responses sections. We also have a main page for international reactions and, with a page this large, it makes sense to the Estonian comments to the main page. I'll be re-introducing those if you have no qualms?
- If you wish to include the documentary information, I have no issue with that. The first sentence, however, is not where it belongs.
- Hollth (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think this would be fine to notice, but very briefly and in the end of 1st paragraph. Done: [7]. 15:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. I didn't think it appropriate for the first sentence in the lead. I don't have a problem with a brief allusion at the bottom. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hollth, just for clarification as to why I reverted your conflation of international reactions: the first deals with reactions to Russian intervention in Crimea, whereas the second deals specifically with reactions to military intervention in Donbass. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Commanders and leaders
I dont know, but when i see this , its looks funny. --spacemonks (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Philip Karber, former Pentagon strategy adviser
Hi all, in this edit I just replaced the term "independent assessment" with the Daily Beast's description of it's source, who is Philip Karber. I think this information is fine in the article (perhaps better in the body than in the lead, given the source), but should be attributed properly. -Darouet (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed that qualifying/attributing the assessment is desirable. Also, considering the length of the lead, detailed content of this calibre is best left for the body. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Ukraine Army and British troops
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31610026 is that right if it is we must change the infobox --Kumanhan (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
No, per the discussion at Talk:War in Donbass. The UK and U.S. are not providing combat support to Ukraine and do not qualify as combatants. I am aware that the Kremlin has an acute interest in portraying this conflict as a good old-fashioned proxy war with the West, rather than yet another in a long line of instances of the Bear beating up on a less powerful neighbor, but I'm not inclined to feed its propaganda with the false equivalency of pretending non-lethal training by Western advisers far from the combat zone is somehow akin to Russia supplying tanks, artillery, and SAMs to a rebel militancy. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
How are you aware of the Kremlins intentions ? provide your source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.2.248 (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's known as using WP:RS, and this page is not a forum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
So please provide your reliable sources - I dont see then here. The editor states that he is aware "Kremlin has an acute interest in portraying this conflict as a good old-fashioned proxy war with the West". Provide your source please. ( Iryna Harpy please dont use any more intimidation tactics, I am only asking for your reliable source. ) Have a wonderful day Irina :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.2.248 (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- What intimidation tactics? And what RS are you talking about months after the fact, and no further information on British troops? Please desist from using this talk page as a forum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia harasment includes spurious posting on peoples user space, so dont do it ! As for the RS - your the one with the onus of proof, not me. Irina, remember that you cant just go posting on peoples user spaces because you would reather they not participate or hold editeor like you to procude their sources. You claim that this there is a RS - so prove it. RE: " Please desist from using this talk page as a forum." well all there is to say about this is "as to thine own self Irina". So - thats dont intimidate editors, show your sources and dont use this place as a forum, or as a soapbox. But then you spend all day every deay editing this page. Have an even better day than the last one Irina Harpy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.0.0 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, interesting. According to your edit history, I've never had any interaction with you whatsoever... or could it be that you're IP hopping? Take care about bandying 'harassment' around lest it comes back to hit you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have no idea what motivates the guy who signed 94.118.0.0 but I agree with what he/she is saying to Irina: using other people's talk page as a forum and his/her personal soapbox is just wrong and seems to violate WP policies. Anybody can come to my talk page and see what ridiculously long soliloquy Irina wrote there. Totally uninvited. Irina even answered some other user's post on my talk page. Kaum zu glauben!!! --Mondschein English (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Putin declares russian troop deaths in peacetime a secret
is this story pertinent to the topic at all I wonder [8] 92.3.15.0 (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it should be added.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed that this is WP:DUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- There are many comments in Russian-speaking press about this: It is hard to fight the hybrid war by the Kremlin when every "holidaymaker" [soldier] has to be buried as if you personally killed him [9], Now nobody will ask about Nemtsov's report because this will put you to jail.[10]. Some speculate that the new law was signed because death rate in Russia suddenly increased by a few percent [11], [12]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, this is relevant, and should be in the article. In other regimes, such measures are typically used to try and minimise the appearance of casualties - do sources say anything about that in this case? bobrayner (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- At this stage, analysis appears to have gone quiet since the initial reports. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- I was told that yesterday NBC reported that about 20,000 Russian troops have entered Ukraine and are killing Ukrainians by the thousands. Should we put it in the article? Let's stop the Russian perpetrated genocide of Ukrainians and Poles, now!!! --Mondschein English (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've missed this particular account, ey? (note to the uninitiated - Mondschein English is a sockpuppet of a banned user being obnoxious/sarcastic).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Dude, this is the second time you accuse me of being a troll and a "sockpuppet" (you wrote on my talk page first, by the way). Do you want to bet $ 50,000 (50 thou USD) that I am not a sockpuppet of anybody especially this Lokomotiv guy? It is probably a small fortune in Poland, but if you are so sure, why don't you take me up on it, Marek? Like we say in my neck of the woods: put your money where mouth is, or shush. :-) --Mondschein English (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Strong accusation... Any proof, Marek? --Mondschein English (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- They're/it's back! I'm ascared... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- You, Irina, have written a long monologue on my talk page... Why? Who are you and what do you want from me? --Mondschein English (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sky news reported - did not withold their report Russian soldiers deaths Ukraine sky news, and vice news report coming soon on Russian soldiers in Ukraine [13]92.3.5.4 (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, 92.3.5.4. This looks potentially interesting. Let's wait for the comprehensive report to come out. It's too early to add content at this stage as Wikipedia is not journalism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- no ,but its possible that some of the reportage has a place in the article - the vice news report Russia denies, but92.3.2.173 (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, 92.3.5.4. This looks potentially interesting. Let's wait for the comprehensive report to come out. It's too early to add content at this stage as Wikipedia is not journalism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- I was told that yesterday NBC reported that about 20,000 Russian troops have entered Ukraine and are killing Ukrainians by the thousands. Should we put it in the article? Let's stop the Russian perpetrated genocide of Ukrainians and Poles, now!!! --Mondschein English (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- At this stage, analysis appears to have gone quiet since the initial reports. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, this is relevant, and should be in the article. In other regimes, such measures are typically used to try and minimise the appearance of casualties - do sources say anything about that in this case? bobrayner (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- There are many comments in Russian-speaking press about this: It is hard to fight the hybrid war by the Kremlin when every "holidaymaker" [soldier] has to be buried as if you personally killed him [9], Now nobody will ask about Nemtsov's report because this will put you to jail.[10]. Some speculate that the new law was signed because death rate in Russia suddenly increased by a few percent [11], [12]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed that this is WP:DUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Abuse of sources
In many cases the claims made on this page are not or only partially supported by the content in the sources cited. Reports that clearly attribute claims to the Kiev government are misrepresented as if they reported the claims as truth. I'm working on fixing this but help would be appreciated from honest writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.104.117 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with the above remark of SineBot. THIS ENTRY STANDS FAR AWAY FROM THE 'ENCYCLOPAEDIC CRITERIA OF WIKIPEDIA'. A big part of the content is based just in rumours and impressions of witnesses, and even if they quote the original source, it is by itself a speculations. THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE RADICALLY CHANGED AND REDUCED. I imagine that the irrational behaviour of some of the contribuiors would make impossible to do it in near time, but it will be an indispensable task. The authors are just discrediting themselves. --GabEuro (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Give specific examples. The text you changed or removed where straight up non-neutral edits with some WP:WEASELing and "alleged" thrown in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- The edits I made are the examples. You won't find the text here supported by the source material at all. Most frequently you see something reported by the source as a position of one side being presented as a fact here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.104.117 (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, "Russian president Vladimir Putin remarked in April that the presence of Russian troops authorized under the naval base leases had been instrumental in making possible the Crimean status referendum" (in edit by IP) is Wikipedia:Weasel and not in quoted sources. To the contrary, these sources literary say that Putin lied. My very best wishes (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- If you strip away the editorial elements for which there is no factual basis in the two media sources, and look at the statements of fact made, what remains is the quote of Putin which says the troops "backed" the Crimean self-defense forces. The statements in the text here that they were 'active' or 'laid the ground' for the referendum is unsupported. I did err, however -- I thought Putin referenced the naval base agreements in that speech, but on review it seems not. Presumably when I track down a citation including the information will be unobjectionable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.104.117 (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
So, barring some reason not to, I'm going to continue fixing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.104.117 (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
First, please drop the all caps. One or two words for emphasis is fine, but typing whole sentences in all caps means you're screaming. Second, sinebot is not a user. It's a bot that signs unsigned comments. Finally, any edits need consensus and removal of well sourced material is unwarranted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The sources don't actually say what the article says they say. This is fraud on wiki's readership. 50.100.29.3 (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Specific examples please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- First paragraph states " when president Viktor Yanukovych was evacuated to Crimea by Russian helicopters.[62][63]" first link is the home page for a 15-part video, second link is quotes from trailers for same video. Neither mentions helicopters at all. By some unverified accounts he left his residence in a helicopter leased to the Ukrainian Government for his use.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26315477 Calling this a Russian military operation in Ukraine" is fraudulent in the extreme. KoolerStill (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that this should not be in the article, definitely not in the lead. It keeps getting removed then put back in, then removed again. But that's just ye ol' regular disruption that plagues this topic area - mostly anon ips putting in all kinds of nonsense - not any kind of systemic bias.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- First paragraph states " when president Viktor Yanukovych was evacuated to Crimea by Russian helicopters.[62][63]" first link is the home page for a 15-part video, second link is quotes from trailers for same video. Neither mentions helicopters at all. By some unverified accounts he left his residence in a helicopter leased to the Ukrainian Government for his use.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26315477 Calling this a Russian military operation in Ukraine" is fraudulent in the extreme. KoolerStill (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
1994 Budapest Memorandum
The 1994 Budapest Memorandum guarantees the territorial integrity of Ukraine, but Crimea is disputed as a violation due to the change to territorial integrity caused by the referendum vote (Kosovo precedent), and as far as I know, Ukraine has not actually claimed infringement on its territorial integrity in Donbass: no martial law, etc.; in addition, it could be argued that neither government of Ukraine is politically independent, which would nullify the Memorandum until political independence is restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWizard (talk • contribs) 05:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- This argument is bunk for any number of reasons, but I do think the mention of the Budapest Memorandum should be removed from the lede, or at the very least moved further down in the text. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Primarily, the user's reading contravenes WP:NOR. "I think" is not a reliable source. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)