![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Re: [1]. This is NOT "small reduction in lead". It's a straight up attempt at POVing the article's lead under the disguise of doing a "small reduction in lead". In addition to violating WP:NPOV it's also a bad faith attempt at WP:GAME. Volunteer Marek 03:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I removed little green men because it needn't be there, I moved a quote to the body, I removed the Russia distancing itself because the very next sentence had the same idea (i.e. it was redundant), I added containing aid because that is what the article claimed (that it was aid as part of a 12 point plan, hence the silence from the Ukrainian government), I removed the quote about vacations with something that contained the exact same meaning that was shorter. I assure you the only thing I am trying to do is get the lede smaller and more readable. Hollth ( talk) 04:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
One of the russian protestors called it War of Aggression. [2] Altough the requirements in UN Resolution 3314 already define the support of armed bands in another country (Article 3) [3] as an agression, the Security Council would have to approve on this, which it will not. So can the term still be used? Alexpl ( talk) 08:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to move everything in this to more relevant headings. Crimea and responses should cover everything in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollth ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
This article is based on biased sources and operate by allegations. I propose to delete the article - Wikipedia isn't a place for propaganda war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alligas ( talk • contribs) 01:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I suggest to split this article, because the reader is impressed by this article especially part with units involved in this intervention that ukrainian and russian forces were/are involved in both regions, on the other hand for example ukrainian navy was involved only in russian incorporation/annexation of Crimea, and there were no national guard units there, because national guard was created 4 days before russian incorporation/annexation of Crimea, on the other hand there is only one secure source of presenting of russian armed sources donbass/lugansk(Capture by ATO of 2 BMD from Pskov division confirmed in the National Security Council) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.223.63.199 ( talk) 19:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I just copyedited the lead a bit, but it's still too long per
WP:LEAD, and IMO it's also awkwardly structured: it goes back and forth between the
2014 Crimean crisis, the Donbass, more discussion of the Crimean crisis, and then the discussion of the Donbass that takes up most of the lead. (I think it'd make sense to consolidate the info about each region.) I've set up
a sandbox where we can discuss and
trial major changes to the lead. You can compare the lead
before or
after my lite copyediting of it with
my suggested rewriting of it (which is NB still one paragraph too long, per
WP:LEAD).
You can see from the sandbox's edit history that I initially thought about reducing the info on the Crimean crisis to
just a link, because it has its own article (which even this article's section on is just a short summary of and link to) and I read
WP:LEAD as saying this article's lead should summarize the body of this article, not the body of this article plus another article. However, I think the amount of info in my suggested rewriting is a decent middle ground between too much summarizing of that article in this lead and too little coverage of that crisis which was, after all, a Russian military intervention in Ukraine.
Please offer feedback and feel free to make use of the sandbox. Hopefully we can come up with something worthy of implementation in the mainspace. :)
-sche (
talk)
16:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I should like to know if it is permissible to use this source - is interpretermag.com [2] a reliable source? An article therein, the massacre that wasnt has expressed doubts over the authenticity of photos and vids purportedly related to Adra massacre. thanks Sayerslle (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Not reliable enough for this purpose. You can, on the other hand, keep its claims under close consideration when you evaluate other sources. Best to stick to sources of the quality of Reuters and the State Department even if it makes the article shorter. Use all the qualifications that those sources use ("according to reports"...). WP:RECENT applies. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC) o.k thanks - I took out the interpreter material and tried to add 'reported' and 'according to' - these qualifiers wont last long I believe - the Syrian civil war is a propaganda war as well as a military one of course. Sayerslle (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC) ODNB
End of message Wikidgood ( talk) 21:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The list of Russian military divisions secretly dispatched from Russia to Ukraine and used there was published in The investigation by RBC: Where Russian soldiers in Ukraine are from [5] (in Russian). Psychiatrick ( talk) 03:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Some editors try to remove the word alleged I added to the "Russian intervention in Donbass" claim. Do I have to remember that adding "alleged" doesnt judge that the claim is true or false?. Because it seems to me that some try to remove it 'cause they think that means the claim is false. Until someone brings uncontrovertible evidence that Russian Army (of course as a whole, not individuals) intervened or Russia recognizes it, we must add the "alleged", per Wikipedia's NPOV policy and to avoid double standards with other conflicts. Otherwise, we will be passing a claim or allegation as a fact, and that's not WP's purpose...-- HC PUNXKID 15:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
'Maxim Eristavi@MaximEristavi [6] Ahead of the Nov 2nd rebel elections, the Eastern Ukraine ceasefire crumbles: 6 Ukraine soldiers killed in the last 24hrs' Sayerslle ( talk) 15:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete the whole article due to wrong and faked information. For instance, 76th Airbourne division never entered Ukraine, it was proven. The soldiers are alive, they never entered any Ukranian territory. Anybody can speak with them face to face or in vk.com (all link to their pages can be found on google). Also, NAVI never took part in the conflict since no evidence was in any mass media. Also is fake. 18th Mechanized Brigade never entered Ukranian territory, it was proved by Chechen's leader R. Kadirov. The article should be renamed to "Ukranian civil war" or deleted at all due to high amount of mislead information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.93.212 ( talk) 17:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you have reliable sources? Hollth ( talk) 10:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Article is BIASED.
There is no Russian intervention in Ukraine as confirmed by the Russian Government.
If you want to elaborate an article with such a BIASED ANTI-Russian title, do so in another website.
Wikipedia is supposed to be an IMPARTIAL source of information and American and Western claims of Military involvement of Russia in the conflict are unfundamented and unconclusive.
They are mere accusations by conspiracy theorists and do not represent the truth as far as we are all concerned. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
187.205.205.163 (
talk)
04:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe the article should be renamed "civil war in Ukraine" to avoid using Wikipedia as a way of spreading American and anti-Russian propaganda. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
187.205.205.163 (
talk)
04:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
In case Wikipedia is about reliable sources, not "the truth", the whole article should be removed and rewritten with links to reliable sources IMHO. Using web-resources of propaganda - not news (as their name would claim) and some resources, that are making a simple translation from the above-mentioned propaganda ones, instead of doing an independent report or investigation (I'm talking about media other than Ukrainian) are the base for all allegations in this article, which are seem like reliable source of information for the unsuspecting reader and being a proof for the article credibility.
As an example: the first website I looked into, which is mentioned in this article as a reference - slon.ru. The reference is this: http://slon.ru/fast/russia/v-pskove-proshli-zakrytye-pokhorony-mestnykh-desantnikov-1147710.xhtml In this article there is a mention of Pskov military servicement, died in Ukraine when their squad came under artillery fre by Ukrainian forces. As an evidence they provide names and VK accounts of those soldiers, and those accounts are reportedly were last accessed and online on around the same date 16-17th of August. The reference for the source of this information on the website is this: http://kado4nikov.livejournal.com/18424.html. I have visited several of those accounts: they are much like accounts on facebook, but in russian. I was not too surprised to see those accounts live and well, one was accessed today, another - 21 minutes ago. For the reference: now I'm writing on October 6th, 21:38 Tokyo time. New photos, status changes and so on suggest that those soldiers alive and well, which completely ruing credibility of the referring article, and in turn - the reference to slon.ru, provided in this article.
Furthermore: translations in the article aim to discredit one side in the eyes of the reader. Russian word "негр" can be translated as Negro or black person, and in only one case out of 100 would mean "nigger" in the context. The reason for that is simple: there was no slavery in Russia, and africans are pretty rare: usually as students or some residents. In school on geography lessons, african people are referred as "негры", asians and europeans as "евразийсы" and so on, and it does not have a tip of racism in the term. Translating words of commander Givi as a racist remark towards captured or faced soldier with a black skin during the airport fighting shows the article's author propagandistic intentions.
This article needs deleted. There never has been any proof of Russian intervention. Every single instance of supposed "active duty Russians" in Ukraine has been debunked many times over. Wikipedia should not be used as a gossip rag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.139.67 ( talk) 20:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Accuracy and bias are two different matters. No doubt there are a lot of inadequacies, that is reason for improvement not deletion. There is an underlying bias, and that is presenting a Russian invasion as something less. "Termed a stealth invasion" Who calls it that? Russian military forces invaded and seized control of the region, and Russia swiftly annexed the land. It may have been relatively bloodless, it was not stealthy. This was an invasion, just as Germany's occupation of Sudetenland in 1938 was an invasion, and the Soviet Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan was an invasion. Only apologists for Hitler and Communism respectively claim these were not invasions. Royalcourtier ( talk) 03:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
In turn one can argue term 'invasion', used in the article. According to wikipedia, "An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity". Because the independance-proclaiming referendum was held and decided the independent status of Crimean Autonomous Republic, further military presence of Russian troops could not be described as invasion, and the prior presence of Russian troops was under a lease agreement between Russia and Ukraine, allowing Russia to keep a military presence in Crimea up to 30,000 men. As there was no exceeding that limit, there was no aggressive entrance, which means there was no invasion. Dmitryukr ( talk) 12:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads up indicating that the article is very unstructured: I find it hard to decide whether the title is justified in this article because of its length and unstructuredness. Where is 'Russian' 'military intervention' justified? I am not trying to start politics here, but how does Wikipedia decide this? 77.175.64.145 ( talk) 22:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record... As posted on User:Lklundin editor's talk page.
Hi. I have no problem with your editorial style and you are obviously well informed on many topics pertinent to this edit. Rather than put up a citation tag though I thought it would be more diplomatic to ask if you could please cite this interesting material. Thank you! Wikidgood ( talk) 21:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and you can never show what is not in reality Russian President verbally told about the participation of Russian troops in the Crimean crisis (without a fight). No country has been able to give non-verbal confirmation of participation in the war of the Russian army in Ukraine. In several cases, were shown copies of poor quality satellite images in the amount of several pieces. On which there is no date and place where the pictures were made, as well as what to photograph. Independently that you see in these pictures is almost impossible. This situation persists for six months. All NATO reconnaissance system can not show the real evidence. Only a few photocopies of very low definition.
89.105.158.243 (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
no need to demonstrate it, the whole article is written ---. To say (but there is no evidence)
Yes it is a fact. and 2. the fact of NATO intelligence system has ZERO evidence invasion of Russia in Ukraine. 89.105.158.243 (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
you conduct a war changes options. waive any dialogue. here and on the talk page of article. in fact that there are evidence except for word of honor Jen Psak? NOTHING. or just the whole NATO intelligence agents of the Kremlin 89.105.158.243 (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
If RS report on stuff wp can relay that - bbc Russian troops Ukraine according to images etc - its not about 'truth' - the 'truth' - you can hear about that at RT , or PressTV - you can get it pure and undiluted there I believe- something like that. Sayerslle (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 1) The dialogue should be conducted not here, but on the talk page 2) you understand that all your media blatantly lie, and there is no evidence of attack of the Russian Federation to Ukraine 3) But you really want to believe that 2) it is a mistake 4) BUT !!! there is no evidence against 2). try to find clues except that I showed in the source (but not). 5) In this entire article is not at all no evidence. Besides Putin's words (but of Crimea) 6) I do not say in the article that all your media fool around. I write exactly that - all NATO intelligence de facto failed to publish any evidence (confirmation). 89.105.158.243 (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
you are adding too much verbiage imo, in a poorly expressed paragraph, -half a sentence is needed to say Russian regime rubbished the satellite evidence. Sayerslle (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Your satellite images = 1 blank photoshop picture insignificant quality children's drawing is much more accurate.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28972878 In this picture just do that? is Ukrainian or rossisykie? you can even see what is there? tanks and self-propelled guns can be? what model? why only 1 picture ?? you mad? can not prove the war six months of the tens of thousands of soldiers with one paltry image. 6 months is nothing except this picture. you really want to lie, but your imagination is negligible. if pee in the bushes 1 time and then it would be more evidence.
89.105.158.243 (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 ( talk)
http://www.kp.ru/online/news/1891038/ Washington received information from representatives of Ukraine that Russia has deployed heavy artillery and tanks on the territory of Donbass, but confirm these reports from independent sources US authorities can not. So said Friday at a briefing State Department spokesman Jen the United States Psak. 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 12:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Crimea was always militarily invaded by Russian troops under the Kharkiv Pact of 21 April 2010 and now is no longer a part of Ukraine after the 2014 referendum in Crimea. If the Ukrainians want to have Crimea, they have to wage a war against the Russian troops in Crimea. But there are no shellings and explosions in Crimea which is not a belligerent but an absolutely peaceful region kept out of the war. Why the article provides misleading information that Crimea is a belligerent? -- Psychiatrick ( talk) 16:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
'Where did they get the armoured vehicles and the artillery systems? Nowadays people who wage a fight and consider it righteous will always get weapons. This is the first point.
But I would like to stress that this is not the issue. The issue itself is entirely different. The issue is that we can't have a one-sided view of the problem.' Moscow Connection says it is wrong to quote from this segnment of an interview putin gave- the comments follow directly - he says I am taking a completely out of context sentence and cobbling it together. I don't think so. Sayerslle ( talk) 17:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
http://www.rg.ru/2014/06/13/reg-ufo/bmp-anons.html many photos and have a video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHr_azLmcWg inspection on site (video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br-B-5oe0X8 News Release (video) it is in the archives of the channel (you can find) + here you can see the details of how the car tracks traveled across the grass from Ukraine to Russia, leaving a huge footprint, and how this machine then loaded on a truck. but for 6 months and dozens of cars USA have nothing, only 1 photo (but can not see anything)
so much data for 1 case + but only 1 photo (can not see anything) for 6 months and thousands of soldiers (who's the idiot?)
this query will give thousands of photos and videos, and stories of witnesses, and a variety of media were there in person.
why when 1 machine 1 times violated the border so much real evidence? (it would be in reality) Why six months, thousands of soldiers trample the lands of Ukraine but there is no real evidence. (IMHO the US very much want to order to more rudely laughed about US) I once again repeat, there is no evidence of invasion, although the US lied about the thousands of soldiers who are fighting for six months. and try to find a refutation for --- real evidence of the invasion of Ukraine in Russia -- this is impossible, but the evidence invasion of Russia in Ukraine, it's just ridiculous. it = 0 facts.
a little bonus
http://xn--80adikbddgczflvhhagwf.xn--p1ai/novosti/ukrainskaya-bmp-narushila-granitsu-s-rf-v-rostovskoy-oblasti/ here you can read a distance of 150 meters, not 1500 and not 15.
89.105.158.243 ( talk) 19:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
delete article as no proofs
as it is written in Russian there is 2000 t-64 tank, but Ukraine has 4000 T-64 tank, which is why he should be photographed from Russia? also in the photo is a lie that looks like the T-64, they are all the same, but the T-64 MBT, what's this? how many of them are there? they just do not! posomtrite least Wikipedia article T-64 tank I propose to remove this article because the article does not contain the proofs, the article consists of the words of politicians. many other politicians say the opposite. but it's not in the article, the article only 1 point of view absolutely. http://deita.ru/news/politics/03.09.2014/4740461-dzhen-psaki-ne-smogla-dokazat-rossiyskoe-voennoe-vtorzhenie-v-ukrainu/
third day of September, that is six months from the start of the war, Psak still has no evidence. so why should we believe Psak ??? pskai speaks yes but no. it is a disease of the brain?
September 3, 2014, 12:15 pm Data. US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psak stated that the United States authorities do not have independent confirmation that the Russian troops crossed the border of Ukraine. Psak also noted that it did not have nothing new to confirm this information on behalf of the United States, reported IA "Date" with reference to ITAR-TASS.
it is not evidence, there is generally not seen that coming, or worth, and where and when. You can watch half an hour and did not understand it a truck or a bus or a tank.
US politicians are lying about the thousands of soldiers, but where are they? Crimea seen them all (although there were hundreds) and then thousands, many months have passed, but no prisoner or PHOTO. I propose to remove this article because the article does not contain the proofs, the article consists of the words of politicians. many other politicians say the opposite. but it's not in the article, the article only 1 point of view absolutely.
http://gordonua.com/news/war/Sputnikovye-snimki-NATO-podtverzhdayut-prisustvie-rossiyskih-voysk-na-territorii-Ukrainy-38633.html even say that this gun (but can not see anything), but it is said that they are in Russia (not in Ukraine!) and that if the gun is worth in Canada? attack Canada? (hahaha). from the Ukrainian sidealso worth a gun, why not lie about an attack from the Ukraine? (hahha), you just do not have any evidence, although it took six months, you are ridiculous if you believe. can you believe Obama that he is a good president? in fact there are 2 pictures .... (hahha) no matter what it took many years, it is important that there are 2 photos :)
http://www.janes.com/article/40139/ukraine-captures-russian-t-64-mbt-near-donetsk
Is this proof? Why, why this tank should be of tanks home guard? why not from the tanks of Ukraine? why he is from Russia? it is written in the text? and why not a photo and vidio? Why not show these numbers are referenced. why NATO says that the F-16 was not shot down over Yugoslavia when his tail and cockpit for 15 years are in the museum in Yugoslavia on public display. and this is not one photo of the tail something.
why in the US say that the aircraft radar E-2 was not shot down by the Taliban in Afghanistan and fell into the sea, for technical reasons? because it was possible to make the photo)))))))))) 1 photo.may be necessary to make a photo of that Alaska was not sold in the US? you are ready to believe so strongly in 1 photo? if you have proof something show them, and do not talk nonsense! (89.105.158.243 , это WP: РАЗГОВОР страницы, не не мыльница . - Ирина Гарпия ( разговор ) 1:01, 9 ноября 2014 (UTC)) there is no evidence that means there is no evidence, you can even in the arms of Psak tell me that - I'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 18:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek you are not clear what I'm saying? 2 words it can be very difficult for you? No proof! No evidence means as is known in the English language - there is no evidence. you are are no longer the most important shot in the world order to lie and to wash any questions, just because there you a have no proof. 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 18:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Volunteer Marek As the old lawyer’s line says, if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law; if neither are on your side, pound the table. I’d add: and demand “civility.” - Paul Krugman, NY Times column [1]. (your page on the website) That's exactly what the US is trying to do is to lie about the invasion of Russia in Ukraine. For God's sake give at least one fact, and I myself will add it to this article. 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 18:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
http://www.mk.ru/social/2014/06/20/opolchency-donbassa-obyavili-nabor-dobrovolcev-v-tankovuyu-diviziyu.html If you are in doubt. easy to check, look at Google. base for storage + weapon + Ukrainian army. 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 18:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Re: [1]. This is NOT "small reduction in lead". It's a straight up attempt at POVing the article's lead under the disguise of doing a "small reduction in lead". In addition to violating WP:NPOV it's also a bad faith attempt at WP:GAME. Volunteer Marek 03:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I removed little green men because it needn't be there, I moved a quote to the body, I removed the Russia distancing itself because the very next sentence had the same idea (i.e. it was redundant), I added containing aid because that is what the article claimed (that it was aid as part of a 12 point plan, hence the silence from the Ukrainian government), I removed the quote about vacations with something that contained the exact same meaning that was shorter. I assure you the only thing I am trying to do is get the lede smaller and more readable. Hollth ( talk) 04:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
One of the russian protestors called it War of Aggression. [2] Altough the requirements in UN Resolution 3314 already define the support of armed bands in another country (Article 3) [3] as an agression, the Security Council would have to approve on this, which it will not. So can the term still be used? Alexpl ( talk) 08:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to move everything in this to more relevant headings. Crimea and responses should cover everything in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollth ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
This article is based on biased sources and operate by allegations. I propose to delete the article - Wikipedia isn't a place for propaganda war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alligas ( talk • contribs) 01:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I suggest to split this article, because the reader is impressed by this article especially part with units involved in this intervention that ukrainian and russian forces were/are involved in both regions, on the other hand for example ukrainian navy was involved only in russian incorporation/annexation of Crimea, and there were no national guard units there, because national guard was created 4 days before russian incorporation/annexation of Crimea, on the other hand there is only one secure source of presenting of russian armed sources donbass/lugansk(Capture by ATO of 2 BMD from Pskov division confirmed in the National Security Council) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.223.63.199 ( talk) 19:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I just copyedited the lead a bit, but it's still too long per
WP:LEAD, and IMO it's also awkwardly structured: it goes back and forth between the
2014 Crimean crisis, the Donbass, more discussion of the Crimean crisis, and then the discussion of the Donbass that takes up most of the lead. (I think it'd make sense to consolidate the info about each region.) I've set up
a sandbox where we can discuss and
trial major changes to the lead. You can compare the lead
before or
after my lite copyediting of it with
my suggested rewriting of it (which is NB still one paragraph too long, per
WP:LEAD).
You can see from the sandbox's edit history that I initially thought about reducing the info on the Crimean crisis to
just a link, because it has its own article (which even this article's section on is just a short summary of and link to) and I read
WP:LEAD as saying this article's lead should summarize the body of this article, not the body of this article plus another article. However, I think the amount of info in my suggested rewriting is a decent middle ground between too much summarizing of that article in this lead and too little coverage of that crisis which was, after all, a Russian military intervention in Ukraine.
Please offer feedback and feel free to make use of the sandbox. Hopefully we can come up with something worthy of implementation in the mainspace. :)
-sche (
talk)
16:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I should like to know if it is permissible to use this source - is interpretermag.com [2] a reliable source? An article therein, the massacre that wasnt has expressed doubts over the authenticity of photos and vids purportedly related to Adra massacre. thanks Sayerslle (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Not reliable enough for this purpose. You can, on the other hand, keep its claims under close consideration when you evaluate other sources. Best to stick to sources of the quality of Reuters and the State Department even if it makes the article shorter. Use all the qualifications that those sources use ("according to reports"...). WP:RECENT applies. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC) o.k thanks - I took out the interpreter material and tried to add 'reported' and 'according to' - these qualifiers wont last long I believe - the Syrian civil war is a propaganda war as well as a military one of course. Sayerslle (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC) ODNB
End of message Wikidgood ( talk) 21:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The list of Russian military divisions secretly dispatched from Russia to Ukraine and used there was published in The investigation by RBC: Where Russian soldiers in Ukraine are from [5] (in Russian). Psychiatrick ( talk) 03:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Some editors try to remove the word alleged I added to the "Russian intervention in Donbass" claim. Do I have to remember that adding "alleged" doesnt judge that the claim is true or false?. Because it seems to me that some try to remove it 'cause they think that means the claim is false. Until someone brings uncontrovertible evidence that Russian Army (of course as a whole, not individuals) intervened or Russia recognizes it, we must add the "alleged", per Wikipedia's NPOV policy and to avoid double standards with other conflicts. Otherwise, we will be passing a claim or allegation as a fact, and that's not WP's purpose...-- HC PUNXKID 15:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
'Maxim Eristavi@MaximEristavi [6] Ahead of the Nov 2nd rebel elections, the Eastern Ukraine ceasefire crumbles: 6 Ukraine soldiers killed in the last 24hrs' Sayerslle ( talk) 15:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete the whole article due to wrong and faked information. For instance, 76th Airbourne division never entered Ukraine, it was proven. The soldiers are alive, they never entered any Ukranian territory. Anybody can speak with them face to face or in vk.com (all link to their pages can be found on google). Also, NAVI never took part in the conflict since no evidence was in any mass media. Also is fake. 18th Mechanized Brigade never entered Ukranian territory, it was proved by Chechen's leader R. Kadirov. The article should be renamed to "Ukranian civil war" or deleted at all due to high amount of mislead information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.93.212 ( talk) 17:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you have reliable sources? Hollth ( talk) 10:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Article is BIASED.
There is no Russian intervention in Ukraine as confirmed by the Russian Government.
If you want to elaborate an article with such a BIASED ANTI-Russian title, do so in another website.
Wikipedia is supposed to be an IMPARTIAL source of information and American and Western claims of Military involvement of Russia in the conflict are unfundamented and unconclusive.
They are mere accusations by conspiracy theorists and do not represent the truth as far as we are all concerned. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
187.205.205.163 (
talk)
04:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe the article should be renamed "civil war in Ukraine" to avoid using Wikipedia as a way of spreading American and anti-Russian propaganda. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
187.205.205.163 (
talk)
04:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
In case Wikipedia is about reliable sources, not "the truth", the whole article should be removed and rewritten with links to reliable sources IMHO. Using web-resources of propaganda - not news (as their name would claim) and some resources, that are making a simple translation from the above-mentioned propaganda ones, instead of doing an independent report or investigation (I'm talking about media other than Ukrainian) are the base for all allegations in this article, which are seem like reliable source of information for the unsuspecting reader and being a proof for the article credibility.
As an example: the first website I looked into, which is mentioned in this article as a reference - slon.ru. The reference is this: http://slon.ru/fast/russia/v-pskove-proshli-zakrytye-pokhorony-mestnykh-desantnikov-1147710.xhtml In this article there is a mention of Pskov military servicement, died in Ukraine when their squad came under artillery fre by Ukrainian forces. As an evidence they provide names and VK accounts of those soldiers, and those accounts are reportedly were last accessed and online on around the same date 16-17th of August. The reference for the source of this information on the website is this: http://kado4nikov.livejournal.com/18424.html. I have visited several of those accounts: they are much like accounts on facebook, but in russian. I was not too surprised to see those accounts live and well, one was accessed today, another - 21 minutes ago. For the reference: now I'm writing on October 6th, 21:38 Tokyo time. New photos, status changes and so on suggest that those soldiers alive and well, which completely ruing credibility of the referring article, and in turn - the reference to slon.ru, provided in this article.
Furthermore: translations in the article aim to discredit one side in the eyes of the reader. Russian word "негр" can be translated as Negro or black person, and in only one case out of 100 would mean "nigger" in the context. The reason for that is simple: there was no slavery in Russia, and africans are pretty rare: usually as students or some residents. In school on geography lessons, african people are referred as "негры", asians and europeans as "евразийсы" and so on, and it does not have a tip of racism in the term. Translating words of commander Givi as a racist remark towards captured or faced soldier with a black skin during the airport fighting shows the article's author propagandistic intentions.
This article needs deleted. There never has been any proof of Russian intervention. Every single instance of supposed "active duty Russians" in Ukraine has been debunked many times over. Wikipedia should not be used as a gossip rag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.139.67 ( talk) 20:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Accuracy and bias are two different matters. No doubt there are a lot of inadequacies, that is reason for improvement not deletion. There is an underlying bias, and that is presenting a Russian invasion as something less. "Termed a stealth invasion" Who calls it that? Russian military forces invaded and seized control of the region, and Russia swiftly annexed the land. It may have been relatively bloodless, it was not stealthy. This was an invasion, just as Germany's occupation of Sudetenland in 1938 was an invasion, and the Soviet Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan was an invasion. Only apologists for Hitler and Communism respectively claim these were not invasions. Royalcourtier ( talk) 03:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
In turn one can argue term 'invasion', used in the article. According to wikipedia, "An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity". Because the independance-proclaiming referendum was held and decided the independent status of Crimean Autonomous Republic, further military presence of Russian troops could not be described as invasion, and the prior presence of Russian troops was under a lease agreement between Russia and Ukraine, allowing Russia to keep a military presence in Crimea up to 30,000 men. As there was no exceeding that limit, there was no aggressive entrance, which means there was no invasion. Dmitryukr ( talk) 12:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads up indicating that the article is very unstructured: I find it hard to decide whether the title is justified in this article because of its length and unstructuredness. Where is 'Russian' 'military intervention' justified? I am not trying to start politics here, but how does Wikipedia decide this? 77.175.64.145 ( talk) 22:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record... As posted on User:Lklundin editor's talk page.
Hi. I have no problem with your editorial style and you are obviously well informed on many topics pertinent to this edit. Rather than put up a citation tag though I thought it would be more diplomatic to ask if you could please cite this interesting material. Thank you! Wikidgood ( talk) 21:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and you can never show what is not in reality Russian President verbally told about the participation of Russian troops in the Crimean crisis (without a fight). No country has been able to give non-verbal confirmation of participation in the war of the Russian army in Ukraine. In several cases, were shown copies of poor quality satellite images in the amount of several pieces. On which there is no date and place where the pictures were made, as well as what to photograph. Independently that you see in these pictures is almost impossible. This situation persists for six months. All NATO reconnaissance system can not show the real evidence. Only a few photocopies of very low definition.
89.105.158.243 (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
no need to demonstrate it, the whole article is written ---. To say (but there is no evidence)
Yes it is a fact. and 2. the fact of NATO intelligence system has ZERO evidence invasion of Russia in Ukraine. 89.105.158.243 (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
you conduct a war changes options. waive any dialogue. here and on the talk page of article. in fact that there are evidence except for word of honor Jen Psak? NOTHING. or just the whole NATO intelligence agents of the Kremlin 89.105.158.243 (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
If RS report on stuff wp can relay that - bbc Russian troops Ukraine according to images etc - its not about 'truth' - the 'truth' - you can hear about that at RT , or PressTV - you can get it pure and undiluted there I believe- something like that. Sayerslle (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 1) The dialogue should be conducted not here, but on the talk page 2) you understand that all your media blatantly lie, and there is no evidence of attack of the Russian Federation to Ukraine 3) But you really want to believe that 2) it is a mistake 4) BUT !!! there is no evidence against 2). try to find clues except that I showed in the source (but not). 5) In this entire article is not at all no evidence. Besides Putin's words (but of Crimea) 6) I do not say in the article that all your media fool around. I write exactly that - all NATO intelligence de facto failed to publish any evidence (confirmation). 89.105.158.243 (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
you are adding too much verbiage imo, in a poorly expressed paragraph, -half a sentence is needed to say Russian regime rubbished the satellite evidence. Sayerslle (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Your satellite images = 1 blank photoshop picture insignificant quality children's drawing is much more accurate.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28972878 In this picture just do that? is Ukrainian or rossisykie? you can even see what is there? tanks and self-propelled guns can be? what model? why only 1 picture ?? you mad? can not prove the war six months of the tens of thousands of soldiers with one paltry image. 6 months is nothing except this picture. you really want to lie, but your imagination is negligible. if pee in the bushes 1 time and then it would be more evidence.
89.105.158.243 (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 ( talk)
http://www.kp.ru/online/news/1891038/ Washington received information from representatives of Ukraine that Russia has deployed heavy artillery and tanks on the territory of Donbass, but confirm these reports from independent sources US authorities can not. So said Friday at a briefing State Department spokesman Jen the United States Psak. 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 12:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Crimea was always militarily invaded by Russian troops under the Kharkiv Pact of 21 April 2010 and now is no longer a part of Ukraine after the 2014 referendum in Crimea. If the Ukrainians want to have Crimea, they have to wage a war against the Russian troops in Crimea. But there are no shellings and explosions in Crimea which is not a belligerent but an absolutely peaceful region kept out of the war. Why the article provides misleading information that Crimea is a belligerent? -- Psychiatrick ( talk) 16:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
'Where did they get the armoured vehicles and the artillery systems? Nowadays people who wage a fight and consider it righteous will always get weapons. This is the first point.
But I would like to stress that this is not the issue. The issue itself is entirely different. The issue is that we can't have a one-sided view of the problem.' Moscow Connection says it is wrong to quote from this segnment of an interview putin gave- the comments follow directly - he says I am taking a completely out of context sentence and cobbling it together. I don't think so. Sayerslle ( talk) 17:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
http://www.rg.ru/2014/06/13/reg-ufo/bmp-anons.html many photos and have a video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHr_azLmcWg inspection on site (video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br-B-5oe0X8 News Release (video) it is in the archives of the channel (you can find) + here you can see the details of how the car tracks traveled across the grass from Ukraine to Russia, leaving a huge footprint, and how this machine then loaded on a truck. but for 6 months and dozens of cars USA have nothing, only 1 photo (but can not see anything)
so much data for 1 case + but only 1 photo (can not see anything) for 6 months and thousands of soldiers (who's the idiot?)
this query will give thousands of photos and videos, and stories of witnesses, and a variety of media were there in person.
why when 1 machine 1 times violated the border so much real evidence? (it would be in reality) Why six months, thousands of soldiers trample the lands of Ukraine but there is no real evidence. (IMHO the US very much want to order to more rudely laughed about US) I once again repeat, there is no evidence of invasion, although the US lied about the thousands of soldiers who are fighting for six months. and try to find a refutation for --- real evidence of the invasion of Ukraine in Russia -- this is impossible, but the evidence invasion of Russia in Ukraine, it's just ridiculous. it = 0 facts.
a little bonus
http://xn--80adikbddgczflvhhagwf.xn--p1ai/novosti/ukrainskaya-bmp-narushila-granitsu-s-rf-v-rostovskoy-oblasti/ here you can read a distance of 150 meters, not 1500 and not 15.
89.105.158.243 ( talk) 19:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
delete article as no proofs
as it is written in Russian there is 2000 t-64 tank, but Ukraine has 4000 T-64 tank, which is why he should be photographed from Russia? also in the photo is a lie that looks like the T-64, they are all the same, but the T-64 MBT, what's this? how many of them are there? they just do not! posomtrite least Wikipedia article T-64 tank I propose to remove this article because the article does not contain the proofs, the article consists of the words of politicians. many other politicians say the opposite. but it's not in the article, the article only 1 point of view absolutely. http://deita.ru/news/politics/03.09.2014/4740461-dzhen-psaki-ne-smogla-dokazat-rossiyskoe-voennoe-vtorzhenie-v-ukrainu/
third day of September, that is six months from the start of the war, Psak still has no evidence. so why should we believe Psak ??? pskai speaks yes but no. it is a disease of the brain?
September 3, 2014, 12:15 pm Data. US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psak stated that the United States authorities do not have independent confirmation that the Russian troops crossed the border of Ukraine. Psak also noted that it did not have nothing new to confirm this information on behalf of the United States, reported IA "Date" with reference to ITAR-TASS.
it is not evidence, there is generally not seen that coming, or worth, and where and when. You can watch half an hour and did not understand it a truck or a bus or a tank.
US politicians are lying about the thousands of soldiers, but where are they? Crimea seen them all (although there were hundreds) and then thousands, many months have passed, but no prisoner or PHOTO. I propose to remove this article because the article does not contain the proofs, the article consists of the words of politicians. many other politicians say the opposite. but it's not in the article, the article only 1 point of view absolutely.
http://gordonua.com/news/war/Sputnikovye-snimki-NATO-podtverzhdayut-prisustvie-rossiyskih-voysk-na-territorii-Ukrainy-38633.html even say that this gun (but can not see anything), but it is said that they are in Russia (not in Ukraine!) and that if the gun is worth in Canada? attack Canada? (hahaha). from the Ukrainian sidealso worth a gun, why not lie about an attack from the Ukraine? (hahha), you just do not have any evidence, although it took six months, you are ridiculous if you believe. can you believe Obama that he is a good president? in fact there are 2 pictures .... (hahha) no matter what it took many years, it is important that there are 2 photos :)
http://www.janes.com/article/40139/ukraine-captures-russian-t-64-mbt-near-donetsk
Is this proof? Why, why this tank should be of tanks home guard? why not from the tanks of Ukraine? why he is from Russia? it is written in the text? and why not a photo and vidio? Why not show these numbers are referenced. why NATO says that the F-16 was not shot down over Yugoslavia when his tail and cockpit for 15 years are in the museum in Yugoslavia on public display. and this is not one photo of the tail something.
why in the US say that the aircraft radar E-2 was not shot down by the Taliban in Afghanistan and fell into the sea, for technical reasons? because it was possible to make the photo)))))))))) 1 photo.may be necessary to make a photo of that Alaska was not sold in the US? you are ready to believe so strongly in 1 photo? if you have proof something show them, and do not talk nonsense! (89.105.158.243 , это WP: РАЗГОВОР страницы, не не мыльница . - Ирина Гарпия ( разговор ) 1:01, 9 ноября 2014 (UTC)) there is no evidence that means there is no evidence, you can even in the arms of Psak tell me that - I'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 18:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek you are not clear what I'm saying? 2 words it can be very difficult for you? No proof! No evidence means as is known in the English language - there is no evidence. you are are no longer the most important shot in the world order to lie and to wash any questions, just because there you a have no proof. 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 18:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Volunteer Marek As the old lawyer’s line says, if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law; if neither are on your side, pound the table. I’d add: and demand “civility.” - Paul Krugman, NY Times column [1]. (your page on the website) That's exactly what the US is trying to do is to lie about the invasion of Russia in Ukraine. For God's sake give at least one fact, and I myself will add it to this article. 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 18:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
http://www.mk.ru/social/2014/06/20/opolchency-donbassa-obyavili-nabor-dobrovolcev-v-tankovuyu-diviziyu.html If you are in doubt. easy to check, look at Google. base for storage + weapon + Ukrainian army. 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 18:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)