![]() | 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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
I don't usually edit on Wikipedia any more but I came to read this and was shocked to see claims made using sources from Russia Today. That news source is a well known source of state propaganda and is surely not suitable for Wikipedia? -- lincs_geezer ( talk) 20:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC) http://rt.com/news/175484-hrw-rockets-killed-civilians/ The same thing http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians. and how can you prove that it is unsuitable for propaganda and wikipedia. can have such a source (www.hrw.org)?
http://www.ntv.ru/ + http://rt.com/ + http://lenta.ru/ + http://www.1tv.ru/ and American http://www.hrw.org/ + http://edition.cnn.com/ they all say that the city is destroyed. many cities and a lot of destruction. Why Ukrainian government does not talk about it? Obviously it's their job, this destruction did ukraine. And just because it hides them. Do not complaining anyone and nowhere.
I know it's the wrong English. But I'm sure you understand. Ukraine closes destruction, because it itself caused to them by their. 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 10:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
89.105.158.243 ( talk) 12:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
1) good that you have recognized the BBC and HRW, but your words of several media companies is censorship (+ your personal without any reference to source for censorship. can you tell me that CNN or the BBC do less selective messages? it does not really hard? no no. also selectively). And that means that you have admitted -> error about sources. 2) what's wrong with the Russian Defense Ministry position? The article set accusations Russian Defense Ministry. 3) I'm not going to dispute this http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:89.105.158.243&redirect=no 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 14:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
that is articles and discussion page. 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 15:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I would have to agree that Russia Today cannot be the only reference material for this article. just as Times, the Guardian or Al Jazeera would also be inappropriate as a sole source for their respective state affiliations and funding sources. it is perhaps appropriate to mention varying accounts together from the states involved in this conflict so as to establish the foreign policy of those states and the narrative they wish to purposefully craft around the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.224.140 ( talk) 08:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we need so many articles on events happening in Ukraine. There's already 2014 Crimean crisis which deals with the annexation of Crimea, there's 2014 insurgency in Donbass and also 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.
This article could be easily merged with the Crimean crisis as it was the only Russian military intervention proven so far. If Russian military involvement in Donbass is confirmed, it could go to the proper article.
Actually, I'm wondering why this article exists at all. — Emesik ( talk) 09:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Reads good to me & is well-flowing. All these articles are different, the more variety the better. Dk pdx ( talk) 03:36, 6 August 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? Also, I just read an article in which an Indian professor is cited, who claimed that this conflict has claimed max. 20.000 lives in the past 2-3 months. Does anyone have any idea where he could have gotten that idea? The joke is that he also claims that Indian people know nothing of the conflict... here it is: [1] 77.175.64.145 ( talk) 21:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
oh, heres more 'nonsense' on twitter -
'Leonid Ragozin @leonidragozin · 45m
Russia doesn't supply any military hardware to DNR - Putin's spokesman Peskov responds to DNR's message of gratitude. http://m.kp.ru/online/news/1820609/ … --'
Sayerslle ( talk) 15:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
A new fork of this article, titled Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014), was created. I've nominated it for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014). RGloucester — ☎ 16:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
... maybe split off the "reactions" stuff? It just takes up a whole bunch of space here and most of is very outdated. Instead, in this particular article we'd have a prose paragraph describing the general nature of reactions. For example that paragraph in the lede which lists all the countries could go in it. That way the content here would be more manageable and it'd be easier to focus on the key elements of this article. Thoughts? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Simply a linking error:
should be
Martian is not used for people from mars, but as a synonym of "Little green men". Nicolas.dirisio ( talk) 19:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
If you don't know what you are talking about, don't talk. "Little green men" in Russian is the most common phrase for "extraterrestials" (much like "the Greys" is in US). So both "martians" and "LGM" nicknames there actually do refer to that -- and to their disputed existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.214.16.205 ( talk) 15:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
If 100 Rusian can defeat Ukrainian army what can do 5 milons? ... the article is completly misleding duplicating existing art. The propaganda line is to group Crimeria anexation with current aleged events.
The Z line of prop, known from earlier ops, aparently is this.
IMO it looks like the Z goal is to kill as m.a.p. 'own' people . Which can have explanation if you follow what do Z. For any usurper their 'own' people are they biggest anemy. 73.50.83.60 ( talk) 19:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Many sources are unreliable, citations are also needed. Tags are ment for checking and adding proper sources. I will focus on providing sources and verifying improper sources. But the tags are legitimate and must stay. I won't add anymore if you please stop deleting notes of work needed to be done. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 22:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
My edit was reverted here with the tag that it was POV. I have added a source which says that President Yanukovych's government which was democratically elected was ousted. It is common knowledge that the government was democratically elected. I dont understand how stating that becomes POV. I have reverted the edit. Please discuss it here. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 13:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Sciophobiaranger, in my opinion the information is necessary in the lead because the fact that the government was constitutionally elected is relevant and very important. The fact that the process adopted in removing the government was unconstitutional is also very important. The fact that a government with the support of the majority of the electorate was toppled is a very important fact. It needs to be mentioned in the body of the article - a short description needs to be there in the lead also. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 03:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The wording is obviously meant to push a POV. Anyway, we're supposed to be trying to shorten the lede and clean up this mess, not over extend it (again!) and make it even more confusing. Save the arguments for the body of the text. Volunteer Marek 04:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: discussion archived, not moved — innotata 17:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine →
2014 Russian military interventions in Ukraine – As the deletion discussion regarding
Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) has been closed with no consensus to nix the page, I propose moving this page to the new title to better convey that it covers both the military intervention in Crimea (in February and March) and the military intervention in Donbass (from August to present), with daughter articles (
2014 Crimean crisis and
Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) specific to both.
Kudzu1 (
talk)
01:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose and Alternative: Since many of the alleged interventions are described as claims in nearly all RS, the best title would be Alleged 2014 Russian military interventions in Ukraine. Haberstr ( talk) 00:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Support It would solve the redundancy problem (both in the content and name) without any deviation from the nature of the events. And as there have been 2 military interventions (in Crimea and in Donbass), it makes sense that "intervention" can be renamed as "interventions". Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 04:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The word "dispute" and the references in support of it are being removed repeatedly ( the last example). The matter has been discussed in the talk page (see the section above). It is a fact that there is a dispute regarding the impeachment. Why would it be POV when a fact is stated? Similar disputes are recorded in the lead itself elsewhere (annexation "of Crimea following a disputed status referendum" for example).
The edit summary of the diff posted above is this "took out sentence that seems not relevant to subject of article and irrelevant bits added for pov only- would article on invasion of Poland begin 'hitler invaded, the winner of a plebiscite in early 1930s '? - rubbish". It is incomprehensible!!! What is the editor trying to say here? That the dispute regarding the impeachment of Yanukovych is similar to a plebiscite which Hitler won (???) before invading poland? Did Yanukovych invade Ukraine? Did he win a plebiscite? The wikipedia article only stated that the impeachment of Yanukovych was disputed!!
It is even possible that there is some sock puppetry going on here. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 10:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
But as wikipedia editors, our concern to write an encyclopedia without POV pushing. You are clearly doing the opposite. I propose that the bold quote above must be completely rewritten. Let me propose a draft.
A vote to remove Yanukovych from office emerged 328-0. The vote was 10 short of three-quarters of the Parliament members, the requirement of the Constitution of Ukraine. Yanukovych claimed that the vote was unconstitutional because of this issue.
Please suggest modifications. I would like to request you to keep the conversation civil. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 12:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Sayerslle, you can include the information in the youtube video in the article if have that in any reliable sources. And I did not leave any bit out. The information was clearly given in a Note. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 12:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
See another removal of "dispute"? I am reinserting the word. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 06:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Sciophobiaranger is systematically removing the word "dispute" first and then removing the inline citations which support the usage of the term "disputed". Please discuss it in the talk page. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 06:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Citation overkill, we need to add inline citations for anything that is challenged or even likely to be challenged. The fact that the impeachment of Yanukovych was disputed is repeatedly being challenged in this article. See this section and the section above. A statement which is challenged NEEDS supporting inline citations. Please dont remove either the word "disputed" or the citations which support it. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 07:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
This article is the anti-Russian perspective on recent events in Ukraine. From paragraph one the article decides that, apparently, Russian "special forces" (who? what? weren't they the mostly naval personnel already on the peninsula?) "took over" Crimea. That's the Western perspective, and it is an allegation or claim. Russia also makes a claim, that its personnel already there supported and backed up local security and defense personnel inside Crimea. An NPOV entry on a topic with two radically opposed perspectives MUST balance between the two perspectives, except where it is relaying facts. A couple sentences later "unmarked troops and military vehicles from Russia" acted in eastern Ukraine. Yes, but this article is about the Russian government's intervention, not actions by Russian private citizens, and it is a _claim_ that those "unmarked" troops are Russian government troops. That distinction and the fact that we don't know what the real story is would be upfront and clear in an NPOV entry on this topic, but instead it is unstated. Then there is this: "Russia sought to distance itself from allegations of military involvement in Ukraine, despite evidence presented by Western governments and media outlets." But no, Russia didn't 'seek to distance itself', it rejected ... and not 'despite' the evidence. It attacked the evidence is weak or non-existent. Why isn't Russia's perspective allowed in? Next sentence: "During the Crimean crisis, the Russian government insisted ..." No, it didn't INSIST, you need to use NPOV language: It SAID. Next sentence: "Despite this, ..." is unnecessary prosecutorial language. Why not just write, "Later Russia admitted..." Then there's this:
Many of the separatist insurgents are Russian citizens,[66] and American and Ukrainian officials said they had evidence of Russian interference in Ukraine, including intercepted communications between Russian officials and Donbass insurgents.[67] The SBU claims key commanders of the rebel movement during this time, including Igor Strelkov and Igor Bezler are Russian agents.[68][69]
"Many"? What does that mean? The NYTimes article used as a source doesn't include the word "many," but it does include this: "almost all the original Russian leaders of the rebellion have resigned and gone home, replaced by Ukrainians of dubious qualifications." Doesn't that translate into 'few' or, charitably, 'some'? And where is the Russian response to the US/Ukraine allegations in sentence one of the blockquote? Non-existent in this Wikipedia entry even though RS sources allow Russia to respond and vociferously attack the other side's 'evidence'. And the concluding sentence, should bald assertions without any evidence always be allowed into a Wikipedia article? Doesn't this at some point become 'piling on' (yes, it does)? Anyway, the POV goes on and on and on as anyone neutral knows. Haberstr ( talk) 12:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC) Other evidence provided for POV bias here: [4]. Haberstr ( talk) 12:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
One more time. You are simply complaining that reliable sources do not say what you want them to say. That is not a valid complaint and not a reason to tag the article. That's a straight-up WP:IDONTLIKEIT and insisting on the tag is disruptive.
It is also NOT true that a neutral article must present "balanced" view of the subject. We don't "balance" the article on the shape of the earth by including stuff about how it could be flat. A neutral article is one which reflects reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 12:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
And of course this has already been discussed above so you are just being tendentious. Volunteer Marek 12:54, 6 September 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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
I don't usually edit on Wikipedia any more but I came to read this and was shocked to see claims made using sources from Russia Today. That news source is a well known source of state propaganda and is surely not suitable for Wikipedia? -- lincs_geezer ( talk) 20:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC) http://rt.com/news/175484-hrw-rockets-killed-civilians/ The same thing http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians. and how can you prove that it is unsuitable for propaganda and wikipedia. can have such a source (www.hrw.org)?
http://www.ntv.ru/ + http://rt.com/ + http://lenta.ru/ + http://www.1tv.ru/ and American http://www.hrw.org/ + http://edition.cnn.com/ they all say that the city is destroyed. many cities and a lot of destruction. Why Ukrainian government does not talk about it? Obviously it's their job, this destruction did ukraine. And just because it hides them. Do not complaining anyone and nowhere.
I know it's the wrong English. But I'm sure you understand. Ukraine closes destruction, because it itself caused to them by their. 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 10:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
89.105.158.243 ( talk) 12:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
1) good that you have recognized the BBC and HRW, but your words of several media companies is censorship (+ your personal without any reference to source for censorship. can you tell me that CNN or the BBC do less selective messages? it does not really hard? no no. also selectively). And that means that you have admitted -> error about sources. 2) what's wrong with the Russian Defense Ministry position? The article set accusations Russian Defense Ministry. 3) I'm not going to dispute this http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:89.105.158.243&redirect=no 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 14:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
that is articles and discussion page. 89.105.158.243 ( talk) 15:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I would have to agree that Russia Today cannot be the only reference material for this article. just as Times, the Guardian or Al Jazeera would also be inappropriate as a sole source for their respective state affiliations and funding sources. it is perhaps appropriate to mention varying accounts together from the states involved in this conflict so as to establish the foreign policy of those states and the narrative they wish to purposefully craft around the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.224.140 ( talk) 08:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we need so many articles on events happening in Ukraine. There's already 2014 Crimean crisis which deals with the annexation of Crimea, there's 2014 insurgency in Donbass and also 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.
This article could be easily merged with the Crimean crisis as it was the only Russian military intervention proven so far. If Russian military involvement in Donbass is confirmed, it could go to the proper article.
Actually, I'm wondering why this article exists at all. — Emesik ( talk) 09:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Reads good to me & is well-flowing. All these articles are different, the more variety the better. Dk pdx ( talk) 03:36, 6 August 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? Also, I just read an article in which an Indian professor is cited, who claimed that this conflict has claimed max. 20.000 lives in the past 2-3 months. Does anyone have any idea where he could have gotten that idea? The joke is that he also claims that Indian people know nothing of the conflict... here it is: [1] 77.175.64.145 ( talk) 21:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
oh, heres more 'nonsense' on twitter -
'Leonid Ragozin @leonidragozin · 45m
Russia doesn't supply any military hardware to DNR - Putin's spokesman Peskov responds to DNR's message of gratitude. http://m.kp.ru/online/news/1820609/ … --'
Sayerslle ( talk) 15:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
A new fork of this article, titled Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014), was created. I've nominated it for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014). RGloucester — ☎ 16:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
... maybe split off the "reactions" stuff? It just takes up a whole bunch of space here and most of is very outdated. Instead, in this particular article we'd have a prose paragraph describing the general nature of reactions. For example that paragraph in the lede which lists all the countries could go in it. That way the content here would be more manageable and it'd be easier to focus on the key elements of this article. Thoughts? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Simply a linking error:
should be
Martian is not used for people from mars, but as a synonym of "Little green men". Nicolas.dirisio ( talk) 19:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
If you don't know what you are talking about, don't talk. "Little green men" in Russian is the most common phrase for "extraterrestials" (much like "the Greys" is in US). So both "martians" and "LGM" nicknames there actually do refer to that -- and to their disputed existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.214.16.205 ( talk) 15:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
If 100 Rusian can defeat Ukrainian army what can do 5 milons? ... the article is completly misleding duplicating existing art. The propaganda line is to group Crimeria anexation with current aleged events.
The Z line of prop, known from earlier ops, aparently is this.
IMO it looks like the Z goal is to kill as m.a.p. 'own' people . Which can have explanation if you follow what do Z. For any usurper their 'own' people are they biggest anemy. 73.50.83.60 ( talk) 19:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Many sources are unreliable, citations are also needed. Tags are ment for checking and adding proper sources. I will focus on providing sources and verifying improper sources. But the tags are legitimate and must stay. I won't add anymore if you please stop deleting notes of work needed to be done. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 22:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
My edit was reverted here with the tag that it was POV. I have added a source which says that President Yanukovych's government which was democratically elected was ousted. It is common knowledge that the government was democratically elected. I dont understand how stating that becomes POV. I have reverted the edit. Please discuss it here. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 13:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Sciophobiaranger, in my opinion the information is necessary in the lead because the fact that the government was constitutionally elected is relevant and very important. The fact that the process adopted in removing the government was unconstitutional is also very important. The fact that a government with the support of the majority of the electorate was toppled is a very important fact. It needs to be mentioned in the body of the article - a short description needs to be there in the lead also. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 03:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The wording is obviously meant to push a POV. Anyway, we're supposed to be trying to shorten the lede and clean up this mess, not over extend it (again!) and make it even more confusing. Save the arguments for the body of the text. Volunteer Marek 04:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: discussion archived, not moved — innotata 17:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine →
2014 Russian military interventions in Ukraine – As the deletion discussion regarding
Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) has been closed with no consensus to nix the page, I propose moving this page to the new title to better convey that it covers both the military intervention in Crimea (in February and March) and the military intervention in Donbass (from August to present), with daughter articles (
2014 Crimean crisis and
Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) specific to both.
Kudzu1 (
talk)
01:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose and Alternative: Since many of the alleged interventions are described as claims in nearly all RS, the best title would be Alleged 2014 Russian military interventions in Ukraine. Haberstr ( talk) 00:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Support It would solve the redundancy problem (both in the content and name) without any deviation from the nature of the events. And as there have been 2 military interventions (in Crimea and in Donbass), it makes sense that "intervention" can be renamed as "interventions". Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 04:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The word "dispute" and the references in support of it are being removed repeatedly ( the last example). The matter has been discussed in the talk page (see the section above). It is a fact that there is a dispute regarding the impeachment. Why would it be POV when a fact is stated? Similar disputes are recorded in the lead itself elsewhere (annexation "of Crimea following a disputed status referendum" for example).
The edit summary of the diff posted above is this "took out sentence that seems not relevant to subject of article and irrelevant bits added for pov only- would article on invasion of Poland begin 'hitler invaded, the winner of a plebiscite in early 1930s '? - rubbish". It is incomprehensible!!! What is the editor trying to say here? That the dispute regarding the impeachment of Yanukovych is similar to a plebiscite which Hitler won (???) before invading poland? Did Yanukovych invade Ukraine? Did he win a plebiscite? The wikipedia article only stated that the impeachment of Yanukovych was disputed!!
It is even possible that there is some sock puppetry going on here. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 10:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
But as wikipedia editors, our concern to write an encyclopedia without POV pushing. You are clearly doing the opposite. I propose that the bold quote above must be completely rewritten. Let me propose a draft.
A vote to remove Yanukovych from office emerged 328-0. The vote was 10 short of three-quarters of the Parliament members, the requirement of the Constitution of Ukraine. Yanukovych claimed that the vote was unconstitutional because of this issue.
Please suggest modifications. I would like to request you to keep the conversation civil. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 12:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Sayerslle, you can include the information in the youtube video in the article if have that in any reliable sources. And I did not leave any bit out. The information was clearly given in a Note. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 12:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
See another removal of "dispute"? I am reinserting the word. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 06:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Sciophobiaranger is systematically removing the word "dispute" first and then removing the inline citations which support the usage of the term "disputed". Please discuss it in the talk page. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 06:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Citation overkill, we need to add inline citations for anything that is challenged or even likely to be challenged. The fact that the impeachment of Yanukovych was disputed is repeatedly being challenged in this article. See this section and the section above. A statement which is challenged NEEDS supporting inline citations. Please dont remove either the word "disputed" or the citations which support it. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 07:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
This article is the anti-Russian perspective on recent events in Ukraine. From paragraph one the article decides that, apparently, Russian "special forces" (who? what? weren't they the mostly naval personnel already on the peninsula?) "took over" Crimea. That's the Western perspective, and it is an allegation or claim. Russia also makes a claim, that its personnel already there supported and backed up local security and defense personnel inside Crimea. An NPOV entry on a topic with two radically opposed perspectives MUST balance between the two perspectives, except where it is relaying facts. A couple sentences later "unmarked troops and military vehicles from Russia" acted in eastern Ukraine. Yes, but this article is about the Russian government's intervention, not actions by Russian private citizens, and it is a _claim_ that those "unmarked" troops are Russian government troops. That distinction and the fact that we don't know what the real story is would be upfront and clear in an NPOV entry on this topic, but instead it is unstated. Then there is this: "Russia sought to distance itself from allegations of military involvement in Ukraine, despite evidence presented by Western governments and media outlets." But no, Russia didn't 'seek to distance itself', it rejected ... and not 'despite' the evidence. It attacked the evidence is weak or non-existent. Why isn't Russia's perspective allowed in? Next sentence: "During the Crimean crisis, the Russian government insisted ..." No, it didn't INSIST, you need to use NPOV language: It SAID. Next sentence: "Despite this, ..." is unnecessary prosecutorial language. Why not just write, "Later Russia admitted..." Then there's this:
Many of the separatist insurgents are Russian citizens,[66] and American and Ukrainian officials said they had evidence of Russian interference in Ukraine, including intercepted communications between Russian officials and Donbass insurgents.[67] The SBU claims key commanders of the rebel movement during this time, including Igor Strelkov and Igor Bezler are Russian agents.[68][69]
"Many"? What does that mean? The NYTimes article used as a source doesn't include the word "many," but it does include this: "almost all the original Russian leaders of the rebellion have resigned and gone home, replaced by Ukrainians of dubious qualifications." Doesn't that translate into 'few' or, charitably, 'some'? And where is the Russian response to the US/Ukraine allegations in sentence one of the blockquote? Non-existent in this Wikipedia entry even though RS sources allow Russia to respond and vociferously attack the other side's 'evidence'. And the concluding sentence, should bald assertions without any evidence always be allowed into a Wikipedia article? Doesn't this at some point become 'piling on' (yes, it does)? Anyway, the POV goes on and on and on as anyone neutral knows. Haberstr ( talk) 12:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC) Other evidence provided for POV bias here: [4]. Haberstr ( talk) 12:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
One more time. You are simply complaining that reliable sources do not say what you want them to say. That is not a valid complaint and not a reason to tag the article. That's a straight-up WP:IDONTLIKEIT and insisting on the tag is disruptive.
It is also NOT true that a neutral article must present "balanced" view of the subject. We don't "balance" the article on the shape of the earth by including stuff about how it could be flat. A neutral article is one which reflects reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 12:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
And of course this has already been discussed above so you are just being tendentious. Volunteer Marek 12:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)