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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
@RGloucester: I notice that some of the references apparently are invoked, but never defined, meaning you say <ref name="foo">. Since you appear to be the one who added the references (or I guess you could have segmented certain things from other articles)... In any case, it would be nice if I could just know the URLs, otherwise, it will be necessary to hunt for new sources. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
To get this draft in shape, we need to do the following:
RGloucester — ☎ 16:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this should be moved to 2014 insurgency in East Ukraine? The current title is too long imho. Lunch for Two ( talk) 14:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, Eastern Ukraine is made up of the provinces of Luhansk, Kharkiv, and Donetsk. The insurgency is only taking place in Luhansk and Donetsk, but there have been important incidents in Kharkiv, such as the RSA storming and eviction, and the assassination atempt if Gennady Kernes.— Arbutus the tree ( talk) 16:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Since you claim you want to be precise…the insurgency does not take place in Donetsk and Lugansk...but in Donetsk oblast and Lugansk oblast...so either add this to the title or just rename it as insurgency in Donbas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.220.119 ( talk) 23:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Since you once again claim that there is no 'Donbas' in English...perhaps DW http://www.dw.de/separatists-cause-economic-slump-in-donbas/a-17724764 ,Kyiv Post http://www.kyivpost.com/multimedia/photo/donbas-battalion-trains-for-war-as-newest-members-of-ukrainian-national-guard-351182.html ,ITAR-TASS http://en.itar-tass.com/world/737239 , BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27483719 and several other major or minor media network should hire you to teach them proper English...Also, do not forget to edit this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Donbass_Liberators ...to Donets Basin Liberators...oh my God — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.220.119 ( talk) 12:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC) I had initially posted the above comment in the context of a draft page and I had not intended for it to be a proposal that people intended on voting on, but debate has started and all debate is healthy. The emphasis on Kharkiv's non-involvement in the insurgency is excessive in my opinion and I can't see why this in particular should be a reason not to use something like "East(ern) Ukraine" as a descriptor. I personally think that the title is overly precise and it would appear that many of the sources we have on this topic discuss it in terms of it being an East Ukrainian issue, even if there is no insurgency in Kharkiv oblast. I am however happy to wait for the dust to settle on this one, and as at Federal State of Novorossiya and Lugansk People's Republic, WP:COMMONNAME can be difficult to resolve, especially as many of sources relied upon use inconsistent naming practices themselves. Lunch for Two ( talk) 13:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I have recently created a map that clearly shows cities under DPR, LPR and Ukrainian Control. I used a wikimedia commons image of the donetsk oblast nad labeled the cities in gimp, the file on commons says it is public domain and not copyrighted. Is this okay? Or do we already have stuff about this?-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 00:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Here are some sources Lunch for Two: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27018199 And other ones I used were the Kyiv Post, Al Jazzeria, BBC, CNN, Euronews, Globe and Mail, and CTV. -- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 20:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's the map if you want to see more: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Situation_in_the_Donetsk_Oblast.png
/response to the previous comment/ It's rather hard to illustrate current state of affairs. You'll need to update this map daily, as situation is changing every day, for example the map as of today - it's in Ukrainian, but hopefully understandable: http://www.slovoidilo.ua/uploads/news/ff8969658b1da527c9e50048a5dfea5b.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.172.136.199 ( talk) 12:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I can understand the map. Northern Luhansk, Southern and Eastern Donetsk are under Ukrainian control, while central, most of northern donetsk, and southern luhansk is under separtist control.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 15:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Everything is up to date. Could it be used in the section "Donetsk Oblast" or at the top of the infobox at the beginning of the page. I am also creating one in the Lugansk (Luhansk) Oblast-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 18:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC).
There has been an edit war over use of language in the article. [1] [2] This has left the article with stilted English. It says repeatedly says "Armed Forces of Ukraine", which is a proper name - see the article on the Armed Forces of Ukraine. I think this should be changed to say "military" (a common noun). The latter is more natural English than repeatedly saying the "Armed Forces of Ukraine".-- Toddy1 ( talk) 08:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to 2014 insurgency in Donbass. No prejudice against a further RM to discuss whether "insurgency" or "conflict" should be used. Jenks24 ( talk) 07:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk →
2014 insurgency in Eastern Ukraine – Insurgency not only in
Lugansk and
Donetsk, but in
Luhansk Oblast and
Donetsk Oblast also, generally in
Eastern Ukraine. Confirmed by different reliable sources in the article.
NickSt (
talk)
17:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Oppose major actions are only taking place In the Lugansk province and Donetsk province.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 18:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Neutral - disadvantage of the current name: "Donetsk and Luhansk" are only the cities; disadvantage of "Donbass": it also includes the Rostov Oblast in Russia; disadvantage of "Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts": it's a bit too long. Nevertheless, this one would be the most correct name, in my opinion. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 19:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 19:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Support The current name is a little too precise - it's not what the average person would say, and it's not an established technical terminology. I would prefer Eastern Ukraine. Gabrielthursday ( talk) 08:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Neutral: Perhaps there could be a section in this article called "spillover into Russia"?-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 00:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Support: Change to "2014 insurgency in Donbas" (or Donbass) IF readers looking for insurgency in "Eastern Ukraine" or "Donetsk" and "Luhansk" can be redirected to that article, since a lot of readers are not familiarized with the term "Donbas" or "Donbass". (though Donbass as I said also includes the Rostov or part of the Rostov Oblast in Russia, but I nevertheless consider it acceptable, following RGloucester argument, following my previous post). Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 16:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Support requested move. Insurgents fired at ukraine forces in Izum (Kharkiv oblast`) scores of times: http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/05/29/7027429/?attempt=1 http://podrobnosti.ua/podrobnosti/2014/06/03/978932.html http://tvi.ua/new/2014/06/08/trasu_izyum_slovyansk_perekryly_cherez_obstrily_boyovykiv__tymchuk (etc, etc) So insurgency cover Kharkiv oblast too. 94.45.129.180 ( talk) 16:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
This is getting really tiresome, it was agreed to change the title to East Ukraine in the lengthy survey above. Can we please change the title to that. If member Gloucester needs Donbass as the title, take a survey on it. Reaper7 ( talk) 10:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC) 10:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Given the events that recently took place, namely the recapture of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, and the vandalism that has been persistent concerning to this conflict, I think it could be a good idea to extend the semi-protection status. Does anyone agree with me? Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 20:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Mondolkiri1: What kind of vandalism in taking place?-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 22:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Those maps take up so much space, would it not be better to transclude them as templates? Dustin (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I mean one where you are just transcluding an individual map to be used on a single page. Random ex., but see this; that's how it would be done here. Dustin (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been updating the infobox with the list of cities that have been recaptured by the Ukrainian Army in the Northern part of the Donetsk Oblast (as now I've also been updating the map). But it's becoming a long list to include in the infobox now, if we mention every city that was recaptured. Should it be changed to "recapture of Northern Donetsk Oblast" or something like that? Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 22:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The cities that have been recaptured are Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka, Kostyantynivka, and Artemivsk.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 16:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/21/fact-sheet-us-crisis-support-package-ukraine
http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/en/148/570250/-- Baba Mica ( talk) 08:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
could i add a info-box military conflict to the battle of yampil section? An fork article was created about that, but it was a good idea it was deleted.— Arbutus the tree ( talk) 19:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The two maps are showing the same conflict (the Ukrainian central government against the " Federal State of Novorossiya", or in any case groups of closely-allied rebels) so it would really make much more sense for them to be combined into one wider map, while keeping the scale the same (yes, this would mean that people would need to scroll sideways).
I ask for anyone who knows how to do this to consider doing it.
By the way, I've made a few changes that I think make it easier to edit and verify the current maps (moving references to the specific place locations, putting place names into alphabetical order). Going forward, I think that there may be some good ideas in Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map and Template:Iraqi insurgency detailed map that we could use here, particularly the conflict symbols, and their policy of only allowing sources from the losing side to verify territorial changes. Esn ( talk) 20:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I think that to write "(opposition claims)" below the number is entirely appropriate, and perfectly in keeping with other current war articles (i.e. Battle of Aleppo (2012–present)). Fog of war is in effect, and it would be silly to completely trust what one side of the conflict says about their own strength. If anyone can find contradictory numbers about what Kiev believes is the real strength of the rebels (whether greater or smaller), that would be perfect, then we can put them both in.
Also, the "strength" of the Kiev government has been rapidly changing as well, with their internal recruitment drives. There are also claims (from the rebels, denied by Kiev) of foreign mercenaries and volunteers. Does anyone know of any source which gives an estimate of the number of Kiev-supporting forces currently fighting in Donbass? Esn ( talk) 00:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
As for "satisfying both sides"... forgive me for waxing idealistic for a bit, but: it is Wikipedia's purpose to bring people together - more specifically to bring everyone's knowledge together in a way that everyone else can understand. All of Wikipedia's other guidelines are merely means to that end, for that is the ultimate purpose of this entire enterprise.
“ | Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. — Jimbo Wales | ” |
And this goal becomes so much more important in times of strife and wartime!
Esn ( talk) 07:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
What is the source for Siversk being taken over by government forces? The latest sources I could find from both Russian and Ukrainian sides ( [3] and [4]) say that it's under the rebels' control, though being attacked. Also, in a recent interview, Strelkov mentions deploying men there (" 13 fighters of that group made it out successfully and redeployed to Seversk").
In general, sources should be provided for all of the cities on the map, so there's no confusion. Esn ( talk) 08:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Siversk came under government control today-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 20:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Why is there sourceless "Russia (alleged)" side as one of the belligerents but no "USA (alleged)" or "EU (alleged)"? This looks like a NPOV violation.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.46.125.190 ( talk) 20:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester, please let me know which particular groups' inclusion you are opposed to (from this edit). I removed the Italians from the Novorossiya side because there were no really good sources and it seemed to be only three people. I kept the "Foreign Neo-Nazi volunteers" on the Kiev side because Al-Jazeera is a reliable mainstream source. I kept various other changes (such as moving Chechens and Cossacks into the Russian bulletin, since they are after all part of Russia). I'm not against making the infobox simpler, but if that's done, I do think that all groups (including small ones) should be either mentioned elsewhere in the article, or in the infobox in a collapsible section.
Moreover, I object to your manner of your reverts. You reverted the inclusion of many sources for the groups listed in the article, leaving it an infobox without references. You reverted the inclusion of some new groups (i.e. Belarusians).
Tell me, please, which groups are considered significant and which are not, and what the criteria for significance is. Are Uzbeks more significant than Belarusians, since you apparently support the inclusion of the former but not the latter? (excuse me, but I'm getting frustrated) Esn ( talk) 04:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
My main concern, firstly, is that a large infobox isn't helpful to the reader. It is just a pile of information without text to support it, and infoboxes are not meant to be lists, if we take the guidelines into account. Infoboxes show only the most notable participants. The "key facts", if one will, such as the fact that the DPR and LPR are participating, along with various paramilitaries. Minor participants do not belong in the infobox. The participation of ten-or-so Chetniks, for example, doesn't warrant a place in the infobox. They should be described in the prose. The infobox, as I've said, is not a substitute for prose. Furthermore, the idea of including many groups in the infobox that are not mentioned in the prose is abhorrent to the purpose of inboxes, that is, to summarise. We must work in line with policy on WP:DUE weight. What's more, all such claims must be verifiable and cross-referenced, and I saw many that were not verifiable. I'm not justifying whatever is in the infobox at present. I was merely opposed to the addition of numerous other entities, in line with our guidelines on infoboxes. Also, per WP:INFOBOXREF, citations are not needed in infoboxes for content that appears in the body of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 04:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)"summarises key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose".
Why is there a section here on this? The Bild article, does not even mention the mercenaries. As for the other article they cite themselves and a report which they do not link. In fact the entire article has no outside links or mention of sources. The Bild article should not be here, as this article is related to the direct invlovment in the Insurgency and ATO. The Faz article should not be here beacuse it is obvious that they used nothing but heresay in making it. I will not even go into the use of Bild as a Wikipedia:RS. Can someone explain this to me please. Avion365 ( talk) 19:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to create a draft about the clashes in Luhansk city, and i have reliable sources. But there hasn't been any huge fighting, although there reports of shelling. Anyway if things do escalate, would this be okay?-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@ RGloucester:, to start with, I never even created the Battle of Yampil and Seversk article, that was by someone else. I think i'm just going to wait and see-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 21:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@ RGloucester: Okay, thanks for letting me know.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 22:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@ RGloucester: I looked at the news at there has been heavy fighting in Luhansk. Would a draft be appropriatte now?— Arbutus the tree ( talk) 16:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Iryna Harpy: Thank you for letting me know. I'll know that for the future.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 23:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems that we are missing a section on the fighting during the ceasefire or a section about the ceasefire entirely, is there a reason for this or can we add it? Avion365 ( talk) 01:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there a military and material support of the USA Ukrainian government and Ukrainian army? It is very important in this conflict. Is there any reliable information? The political and military U.S. officials make no secret of their support for the Ukrainian government and the military.— Baba Mica ( talk) 17:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I left a lot of references and evidence of international support for the Ukrainian government. No one can convince me that it does not exist. I do not see any violation of the rules of Wikipedia, because I have all the support of the evidence and found the information on the websites of certain state and government. In my opinion Wikipedia is becoming an area of political bickering, and not the free encyclopedia. I suggest to add support for the Ukrainian government and the military in the template. -- Baba Mica ( talk) 12:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
http://rt.com/news/158212-academi-blackwater-ukraine-military/
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/05/19/363309/us-blackwater-mercenaries-in-ukraine/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576490/Are-Blackwater-active-Ukraine-Videos-spark-talk-U-S-mercenary-outfit-deployed-Donetsk.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Would it be okay to add an infobox war faction for the groups within the domestic insurgents?— Arbutus the tree ( talk) 00:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a cascading news about large part of Ukrainian forces being surrounded in the southern area and cut off from the rest of the ATO force, while being pounded by rebel artillery, news is accompanied by numerous videos showing rebel howitzers and newly captured tanks entering villages and fortifications in the area. I believe looking at previous events that this news will filter to the West in 4-5 days, as of now even some pro-Maidan news sources reported huge losses and withdrawal of National Guard and Ukrainian Army. Sample video of newly captured howitzers and tanks(I believe capture of howitzers is new development_ [6] Just to let you know. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
So far BBC reported only heavy fighting in the areas mentioned, like said we will have to wait around 5 days before the news eventually emerges in the West.Although some unreliable pro-Maidan sources like Kyiv Post mentioned encirclement already.— MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
More Info is emerging about Ukranian aircraft destroyed, by alleged Russian missiles. A article about Ukranian Aircraft Destroyed during 2014 Eastern Unrest/Crisis/Whatever its needed, giving a breakdown, and indicating witch aircraft is reported loss by the Insurgents or by Russian fire. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 13:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
New article at Malaysia Airlines MH 17. Bondegezou ( talk) 18:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that the map's july update was reverted, and there has been some important events, such as Ukrainian forces took south eastern luhansk. Just sayin though, in needs to updated to it's current form-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 07:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
In Post-ceasefire government offensive section there is an unnecessary preposition of. "Ahead of a planned government offensive on the insurgent-occupied city of Donetsk, key roads leading into the city of were blocked on 7 July." > "Ahead of a planned government offensive on the insurgent-occupied city of Donetsk, key roads leading into the city were blocked on 7 July." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adûnâi ( talk • contribs) 12:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
There is also a not needed article the before Russia later. "DPR-affiliated insurgents blamed the Ukrainian government for disaster, whereas the government blamed the Russia and the insurgents." > "DPR-affiliated insurgents blamed the Ukrainian government for disaster, whereas the government blamed Russia and the insurgents." Adûnâi ( talk) 12:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
For the map, could we have some type of symbol the repersents border crossings? Ukrainian forces made gains to took some important ones.— Arbutus the tree ( talk) 19:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Besides the Ilushing and the MH17 lost over Donbass, its urgently needed an article about all the aviation incidents in this war, including all those MI shoot down and all those claims made by the rebels, of Su-25 and Antonov cargo planes. More shot donws are reported weekly(2 SU-25 today), and since the battle box now excludes tha number of aircraft destroyed, a table its needed. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 13:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a draft could be made about the russian troops allegedly shelling ukrainian troops? As long as it wouldn't be considered a fork or has nobility, and it has coverage, could it be possible?-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 10:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Petro Poroshenko (President of Ukraine) also describes the conflict as war every week. So do the rebels and various other belligerents. Links are easy to find. Why does one wiki editor concentrate religiously on the use of the word insurgency?
Support to rename the 'insurgency' to war.
Please note that a formal move request has been established in the section directly below. GeorgeGriffiths ( talk) 21:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see, there are two camps, the pro Russia camp and the pro EU camp. In my opinion, no one side should be called insurgents.-- 192.252.167.133 00:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
And what makes the Ukrainian government the authority? As far as I can tell, Viktor Yanukovych is the legal president of Ukraine, because 1. he has not died 2. he has not resigned 3 he has not being impeached under the Ukrainian Constitution.-- 192.252.167.133 00:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Novorossiya is also authority, is it not? -- 192.252.167.133 00:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Recognized by whom exactly? One should realize the UN hardly has any power these days.-- 192.252.167.133 13:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Currently, only foreign groups from the insurgent side are discussed in the article. Foreign groups from the pro-Ukrainian side have also been reported on in mainstream sources, and while some of these reports have attracted criticism from other journalists (such as the reported Academi involvement), others have been accepted as accurate. In the interest of evenhandedness, these groups and volunteers should be mentioned. The Russian article section on this can be useful here (starting from the third paragraph, if there is a consensus to not mention the Academi reports in the English article). Esn ( talk) 10:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Verbatim article report:
"Neo-fascists train to fight Ukrainian rebels
Volunteers believing in national socialism are joining a battalion raised by the interior ministry.
One special forces group, fighting separatists in Eastern Ukraine, is bringing together many self-declared neo-fascists.
The volunteers joining the so-called Azov battalion, raised by Ukraine's interior ministry, includes men from Russia, Sweden and Italy who believe in national socialism.
Al Jazeera's David Chater reports from Mariupol. Last updated: 09 Jun 2014 17:03" -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that this is hard to dispute, meaning it could just be stated instead of attributed. In this video there is a large amount of Russian kit that is traveling northbound towards Rostov-on-Don, given the sign that goes by for Vodyanaya Balka, which is about 60 km south of Rostov-on-Don, followed by a mileage sign to Rostov and Moscow.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 23:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not a huge issue but per the MOS we should condense the sections as there are way too many or split some of them off to reduce the article's WP:SIZE. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Black Future: Sorry for reverting your edit. Was trying to get rid of the vandal IP's crap. RGloucester — ☎ 21:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Soffredo: I've warned you about discretionary sanctions. Please stop edit warring. "Donetsk" and "Luhansk" are not short-form names for the republics. They can refer to many other things. Multiple editors have told you stop. Please stop. RGloucester — ☎ 00:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to challenge a more experienced editor to examine the following statement found in this section:
" Anton Heraschenko, an advisor to Arsen Avakov, confirmed at a briefing in Kiev that the tanks were once in the possession of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Crimea, and that they had been transferred by sea to Russia before crossing the border into Ukraine."
As neither of these people seemed to have been mentioned previously in the article, I had to search for their identities. Closer examination showed they were both employed or aligned to the Ukrainian government in Kiev. My concern is that neither position's position is outlined except in relation to the other. While Anton might "confirm" the origin of his government's military equipment it seems egregious that he could state, to a fact, that the equipment had traveled through the sovereign territory of another country and then across a border. Examination of the english article cited gives no hard evidence, only a claim from the former. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scout1Treia ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to challenge a more experienced editor to examine the following statement found in this section:
" Anton Heraschenko, an advisor to Arsen Avakov, confirmed at a briefing in Kiev that the tanks were once in the possession of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Crimea, and that they had been transferred by sea to Russia before crossing the border into Ukraine."
As neither of these people seemed to have been mentioned previously in the article, I had to search for their identities. Closer examination showed they were both employed or aligned to the Ukrainian government in Kiev. My concern is that neither position's position is outlined except in relation to the other. While Anton might "confirm" the origin of his government's military equipment it seems egregious that he could state, to a fact, that the equipment had traveled through the sovereign territory of another country and then across a border. Examination of the english article cited gives no hard evidence, only a claim from the former. Scout1Treia ( talk) 15:56, 28 July 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
@RGloucester: I notice that some of the references apparently are invoked, but never defined, meaning you say <ref name="foo">. Since you appear to be the one who added the references (or I guess you could have segmented certain things from other articles)... In any case, it would be nice if I could just know the URLs, otherwise, it will be necessary to hunt for new sources. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
To get this draft in shape, we need to do the following:
RGloucester — ☎ 16:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this should be moved to 2014 insurgency in East Ukraine? The current title is too long imho. Lunch for Two ( talk) 14:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, Eastern Ukraine is made up of the provinces of Luhansk, Kharkiv, and Donetsk. The insurgency is only taking place in Luhansk and Donetsk, but there have been important incidents in Kharkiv, such as the RSA storming and eviction, and the assassination atempt if Gennady Kernes.— Arbutus the tree ( talk) 16:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Since you claim you want to be precise…the insurgency does not take place in Donetsk and Lugansk...but in Donetsk oblast and Lugansk oblast...so either add this to the title or just rename it as insurgency in Donbas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.220.119 ( talk) 23:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Since you once again claim that there is no 'Donbas' in English...perhaps DW http://www.dw.de/separatists-cause-economic-slump-in-donbas/a-17724764 ,Kyiv Post http://www.kyivpost.com/multimedia/photo/donbas-battalion-trains-for-war-as-newest-members-of-ukrainian-national-guard-351182.html ,ITAR-TASS http://en.itar-tass.com/world/737239 , BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27483719 and several other major or minor media network should hire you to teach them proper English...Also, do not forget to edit this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Donbass_Liberators ...to Donets Basin Liberators...oh my God — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.220.119 ( talk) 12:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC) I had initially posted the above comment in the context of a draft page and I had not intended for it to be a proposal that people intended on voting on, but debate has started and all debate is healthy. The emphasis on Kharkiv's non-involvement in the insurgency is excessive in my opinion and I can't see why this in particular should be a reason not to use something like "East(ern) Ukraine" as a descriptor. I personally think that the title is overly precise and it would appear that many of the sources we have on this topic discuss it in terms of it being an East Ukrainian issue, even if there is no insurgency in Kharkiv oblast. I am however happy to wait for the dust to settle on this one, and as at Federal State of Novorossiya and Lugansk People's Republic, WP:COMMONNAME can be difficult to resolve, especially as many of sources relied upon use inconsistent naming practices themselves. Lunch for Two ( talk) 13:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I have recently created a map that clearly shows cities under DPR, LPR and Ukrainian Control. I used a wikimedia commons image of the donetsk oblast nad labeled the cities in gimp, the file on commons says it is public domain and not copyrighted. Is this okay? Or do we already have stuff about this?-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 00:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Here are some sources Lunch for Two: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27018199 And other ones I used were the Kyiv Post, Al Jazzeria, BBC, CNN, Euronews, Globe and Mail, and CTV. -- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 20:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's the map if you want to see more: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Situation_in_the_Donetsk_Oblast.png
/response to the previous comment/ It's rather hard to illustrate current state of affairs. You'll need to update this map daily, as situation is changing every day, for example the map as of today - it's in Ukrainian, but hopefully understandable: http://www.slovoidilo.ua/uploads/news/ff8969658b1da527c9e50048a5dfea5b.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.172.136.199 ( talk) 12:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I can understand the map. Northern Luhansk, Southern and Eastern Donetsk are under Ukrainian control, while central, most of northern donetsk, and southern luhansk is under separtist control.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 15:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Everything is up to date. Could it be used in the section "Donetsk Oblast" or at the top of the infobox at the beginning of the page. I am also creating one in the Lugansk (Luhansk) Oblast-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 18:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC).
There has been an edit war over use of language in the article. [1] [2] This has left the article with stilted English. It says repeatedly says "Armed Forces of Ukraine", which is a proper name - see the article on the Armed Forces of Ukraine. I think this should be changed to say "military" (a common noun). The latter is more natural English than repeatedly saying the "Armed Forces of Ukraine".-- Toddy1 ( talk) 08:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to 2014 insurgency in Donbass. No prejudice against a further RM to discuss whether "insurgency" or "conflict" should be used. Jenks24 ( talk) 07:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk →
2014 insurgency in Eastern Ukraine – Insurgency not only in
Lugansk and
Donetsk, but in
Luhansk Oblast and
Donetsk Oblast also, generally in
Eastern Ukraine. Confirmed by different reliable sources in the article.
NickSt (
talk)
17:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Oppose major actions are only taking place In the Lugansk province and Donetsk province.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 18:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Neutral - disadvantage of the current name: "Donetsk and Luhansk" are only the cities; disadvantage of "Donbass": it also includes the Rostov Oblast in Russia; disadvantage of "Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts": it's a bit too long. Nevertheless, this one would be the most correct name, in my opinion. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 19:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 19:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Support The current name is a little too precise - it's not what the average person would say, and it's not an established technical terminology. I would prefer Eastern Ukraine. Gabrielthursday ( talk) 08:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Neutral: Perhaps there could be a section in this article called "spillover into Russia"?-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 00:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Support: Change to "2014 insurgency in Donbas" (or Donbass) IF readers looking for insurgency in "Eastern Ukraine" or "Donetsk" and "Luhansk" can be redirected to that article, since a lot of readers are not familiarized with the term "Donbas" or "Donbass". (though Donbass as I said also includes the Rostov or part of the Rostov Oblast in Russia, but I nevertheless consider it acceptable, following RGloucester argument, following my previous post). Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 16:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Support requested move. Insurgents fired at ukraine forces in Izum (Kharkiv oblast`) scores of times: http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/05/29/7027429/?attempt=1 http://podrobnosti.ua/podrobnosti/2014/06/03/978932.html http://tvi.ua/new/2014/06/08/trasu_izyum_slovyansk_perekryly_cherez_obstrily_boyovykiv__tymchuk (etc, etc) So insurgency cover Kharkiv oblast too. 94.45.129.180 ( talk) 16:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
This is getting really tiresome, it was agreed to change the title to East Ukraine in the lengthy survey above. Can we please change the title to that. If member Gloucester needs Donbass as the title, take a survey on it. Reaper7 ( talk) 10:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC) 10:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Given the events that recently took place, namely the recapture of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, and the vandalism that has been persistent concerning to this conflict, I think it could be a good idea to extend the semi-protection status. Does anyone agree with me? Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 20:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Mondolkiri1: What kind of vandalism in taking place?-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 22:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Those maps take up so much space, would it not be better to transclude them as templates? Dustin (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I mean one where you are just transcluding an individual map to be used on a single page. Random ex., but see this; that's how it would be done here. Dustin (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been updating the infobox with the list of cities that have been recaptured by the Ukrainian Army in the Northern part of the Donetsk Oblast (as now I've also been updating the map). But it's becoming a long list to include in the infobox now, if we mention every city that was recaptured. Should it be changed to "recapture of Northern Donetsk Oblast" or something like that? Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 22:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The cities that have been recaptured are Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka, Kostyantynivka, and Artemivsk.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 16:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/21/fact-sheet-us-crisis-support-package-ukraine
http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/en/148/570250/-- Baba Mica ( talk) 08:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
could i add a info-box military conflict to the battle of yampil section? An fork article was created about that, but it was a good idea it was deleted.— Arbutus the tree ( talk) 19:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The two maps are showing the same conflict (the Ukrainian central government against the " Federal State of Novorossiya", or in any case groups of closely-allied rebels) so it would really make much more sense for them to be combined into one wider map, while keeping the scale the same (yes, this would mean that people would need to scroll sideways).
I ask for anyone who knows how to do this to consider doing it.
By the way, I've made a few changes that I think make it easier to edit and verify the current maps (moving references to the specific place locations, putting place names into alphabetical order). Going forward, I think that there may be some good ideas in Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map and Template:Iraqi insurgency detailed map that we could use here, particularly the conflict symbols, and their policy of only allowing sources from the losing side to verify territorial changes. Esn ( talk) 20:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I think that to write "(opposition claims)" below the number is entirely appropriate, and perfectly in keeping with other current war articles (i.e. Battle of Aleppo (2012–present)). Fog of war is in effect, and it would be silly to completely trust what one side of the conflict says about their own strength. If anyone can find contradictory numbers about what Kiev believes is the real strength of the rebels (whether greater or smaller), that would be perfect, then we can put them both in.
Also, the "strength" of the Kiev government has been rapidly changing as well, with their internal recruitment drives. There are also claims (from the rebels, denied by Kiev) of foreign mercenaries and volunteers. Does anyone know of any source which gives an estimate of the number of Kiev-supporting forces currently fighting in Donbass? Esn ( talk) 00:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
As for "satisfying both sides"... forgive me for waxing idealistic for a bit, but: it is Wikipedia's purpose to bring people together - more specifically to bring everyone's knowledge together in a way that everyone else can understand. All of Wikipedia's other guidelines are merely means to that end, for that is the ultimate purpose of this entire enterprise.
“ | Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. — Jimbo Wales | ” |
And this goal becomes so much more important in times of strife and wartime!
Esn ( talk) 07:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
What is the source for Siversk being taken over by government forces? The latest sources I could find from both Russian and Ukrainian sides ( [3] and [4]) say that it's under the rebels' control, though being attacked. Also, in a recent interview, Strelkov mentions deploying men there (" 13 fighters of that group made it out successfully and redeployed to Seversk").
In general, sources should be provided for all of the cities on the map, so there's no confusion. Esn ( talk) 08:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Siversk came under government control today-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 20:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Why is there sourceless "Russia (alleged)" side as one of the belligerents but no "USA (alleged)" or "EU (alleged)"? This looks like a NPOV violation.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.46.125.190 ( talk) 20:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester, please let me know which particular groups' inclusion you are opposed to (from this edit). I removed the Italians from the Novorossiya side because there were no really good sources and it seemed to be only three people. I kept the "Foreign Neo-Nazi volunteers" on the Kiev side because Al-Jazeera is a reliable mainstream source. I kept various other changes (such as moving Chechens and Cossacks into the Russian bulletin, since they are after all part of Russia). I'm not against making the infobox simpler, but if that's done, I do think that all groups (including small ones) should be either mentioned elsewhere in the article, or in the infobox in a collapsible section.
Moreover, I object to your manner of your reverts. You reverted the inclusion of many sources for the groups listed in the article, leaving it an infobox without references. You reverted the inclusion of some new groups (i.e. Belarusians).
Tell me, please, which groups are considered significant and which are not, and what the criteria for significance is. Are Uzbeks more significant than Belarusians, since you apparently support the inclusion of the former but not the latter? (excuse me, but I'm getting frustrated) Esn ( talk) 04:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
My main concern, firstly, is that a large infobox isn't helpful to the reader. It is just a pile of information without text to support it, and infoboxes are not meant to be lists, if we take the guidelines into account. Infoboxes show only the most notable participants. The "key facts", if one will, such as the fact that the DPR and LPR are participating, along with various paramilitaries. Minor participants do not belong in the infobox. The participation of ten-or-so Chetniks, for example, doesn't warrant a place in the infobox. They should be described in the prose. The infobox, as I've said, is not a substitute for prose. Furthermore, the idea of including many groups in the infobox that are not mentioned in the prose is abhorrent to the purpose of inboxes, that is, to summarise. We must work in line with policy on WP:DUE weight. What's more, all such claims must be verifiable and cross-referenced, and I saw many that were not verifiable. I'm not justifying whatever is in the infobox at present. I was merely opposed to the addition of numerous other entities, in line with our guidelines on infoboxes. Also, per WP:INFOBOXREF, citations are not needed in infoboxes for content that appears in the body of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 04:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)"summarises key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose".
Why is there a section here on this? The Bild article, does not even mention the mercenaries. As for the other article they cite themselves and a report which they do not link. In fact the entire article has no outside links or mention of sources. The Bild article should not be here, as this article is related to the direct invlovment in the Insurgency and ATO. The Faz article should not be here beacuse it is obvious that they used nothing but heresay in making it. I will not even go into the use of Bild as a Wikipedia:RS. Can someone explain this to me please. Avion365 ( talk) 19:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to create a draft about the clashes in Luhansk city, and i have reliable sources. But there hasn't been any huge fighting, although there reports of shelling. Anyway if things do escalate, would this be okay?-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@ RGloucester:, to start with, I never even created the Battle of Yampil and Seversk article, that was by someone else. I think i'm just going to wait and see-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 21:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@ RGloucester: Okay, thanks for letting me know.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 22:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@ RGloucester: I looked at the news at there has been heavy fighting in Luhansk. Would a draft be appropriatte now?— Arbutus the tree ( talk) 16:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Iryna Harpy: Thank you for letting me know. I'll know that for the future.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 23:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems that we are missing a section on the fighting during the ceasefire or a section about the ceasefire entirely, is there a reason for this or can we add it? Avion365 ( talk) 01:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there a military and material support of the USA Ukrainian government and Ukrainian army? It is very important in this conflict. Is there any reliable information? The political and military U.S. officials make no secret of their support for the Ukrainian government and the military.— Baba Mica ( talk) 17:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I left a lot of references and evidence of international support for the Ukrainian government. No one can convince me that it does not exist. I do not see any violation of the rules of Wikipedia, because I have all the support of the evidence and found the information on the websites of certain state and government. In my opinion Wikipedia is becoming an area of political bickering, and not the free encyclopedia. I suggest to add support for the Ukrainian government and the military in the template. -- Baba Mica ( talk) 12:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
http://rt.com/news/158212-academi-blackwater-ukraine-military/
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/05/19/363309/us-blackwater-mercenaries-in-ukraine/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576490/Are-Blackwater-active-Ukraine-Videos-spark-talk-U-S-mercenary-outfit-deployed-Donetsk.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Would it be okay to add an infobox war faction for the groups within the domestic insurgents?— Arbutus the tree ( talk) 00:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a cascading news about large part of Ukrainian forces being surrounded in the southern area and cut off from the rest of the ATO force, while being pounded by rebel artillery, news is accompanied by numerous videos showing rebel howitzers and newly captured tanks entering villages and fortifications in the area. I believe looking at previous events that this news will filter to the West in 4-5 days, as of now even some pro-Maidan news sources reported huge losses and withdrawal of National Guard and Ukrainian Army. Sample video of newly captured howitzers and tanks(I believe capture of howitzers is new development_ [6] Just to let you know. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
So far BBC reported only heavy fighting in the areas mentioned, like said we will have to wait around 5 days before the news eventually emerges in the West.Although some unreliable pro-Maidan sources like Kyiv Post mentioned encirclement already.— MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
More Info is emerging about Ukranian aircraft destroyed, by alleged Russian missiles. A article about Ukranian Aircraft Destroyed during 2014 Eastern Unrest/Crisis/Whatever its needed, giving a breakdown, and indicating witch aircraft is reported loss by the Insurgents or by Russian fire. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 13:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
New article at Malaysia Airlines MH 17. Bondegezou ( talk) 18:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that the map's july update was reverted, and there has been some important events, such as Ukrainian forces took south eastern luhansk. Just sayin though, in needs to updated to it's current form-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 07:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
In Post-ceasefire government offensive section there is an unnecessary preposition of. "Ahead of a planned government offensive on the insurgent-occupied city of Donetsk, key roads leading into the city of were blocked on 7 July." > "Ahead of a planned government offensive on the insurgent-occupied city of Donetsk, key roads leading into the city were blocked on 7 July." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adûnâi ( talk • contribs) 12:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
There is also a not needed article the before Russia later. "DPR-affiliated insurgents blamed the Ukrainian government for disaster, whereas the government blamed the Russia and the insurgents." > "DPR-affiliated insurgents blamed the Ukrainian government for disaster, whereas the government blamed Russia and the insurgents." Adûnâi ( talk) 12:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
For the map, could we have some type of symbol the repersents border crossings? Ukrainian forces made gains to took some important ones.— Arbutus the tree ( talk) 19:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Besides the Ilushing and the MH17 lost over Donbass, its urgently needed an article about all the aviation incidents in this war, including all those MI shoot down and all those claims made by the rebels, of Su-25 and Antonov cargo planes. More shot donws are reported weekly(2 SU-25 today), and since the battle box now excludes tha number of aircraft destroyed, a table its needed. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 13:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a draft could be made about the russian troops allegedly shelling ukrainian troops? As long as it wouldn't be considered a fork or has nobility, and it has coverage, could it be possible?-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 10:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Petro Poroshenko (President of Ukraine) also describes the conflict as war every week. So do the rebels and various other belligerents. Links are easy to find. Why does one wiki editor concentrate religiously on the use of the word insurgency?
Support to rename the 'insurgency' to war.
Please note that a formal move request has been established in the section directly below. GeorgeGriffiths ( talk) 21:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see, there are two camps, the pro Russia camp and the pro EU camp. In my opinion, no one side should be called insurgents.-- 192.252.167.133 00:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
And what makes the Ukrainian government the authority? As far as I can tell, Viktor Yanukovych is the legal president of Ukraine, because 1. he has not died 2. he has not resigned 3 he has not being impeached under the Ukrainian Constitution.-- 192.252.167.133 00:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Novorossiya is also authority, is it not? -- 192.252.167.133 00:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Recognized by whom exactly? One should realize the UN hardly has any power these days.-- 192.252.167.133 13:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Currently, only foreign groups from the insurgent side are discussed in the article. Foreign groups from the pro-Ukrainian side have also been reported on in mainstream sources, and while some of these reports have attracted criticism from other journalists (such as the reported Academi involvement), others have been accepted as accurate. In the interest of evenhandedness, these groups and volunteers should be mentioned. The Russian article section on this can be useful here (starting from the third paragraph, if there is a consensus to not mention the Academi reports in the English article). Esn ( talk) 10:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Verbatim article report:
"Neo-fascists train to fight Ukrainian rebels
Volunteers believing in national socialism are joining a battalion raised by the interior ministry.
One special forces group, fighting separatists in Eastern Ukraine, is bringing together many self-declared neo-fascists.
The volunteers joining the so-called Azov battalion, raised by Ukraine's interior ministry, includes men from Russia, Sweden and Italy who believe in national socialism.
Al Jazeera's David Chater reports from Mariupol. Last updated: 09 Jun 2014 17:03" -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that this is hard to dispute, meaning it could just be stated instead of attributed. In this video there is a large amount of Russian kit that is traveling northbound towards Rostov-on-Don, given the sign that goes by for Vodyanaya Balka, which is about 60 km south of Rostov-on-Don, followed by a mileage sign to Rostov and Moscow.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 23:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not a huge issue but per the MOS we should condense the sections as there are way too many or split some of them off to reduce the article's WP:SIZE. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Black Future: Sorry for reverting your edit. Was trying to get rid of the vandal IP's crap. RGloucester — ☎ 21:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Soffredo: I've warned you about discretionary sanctions. Please stop edit warring. "Donetsk" and "Luhansk" are not short-form names for the republics. They can refer to many other things. Multiple editors have told you stop. Please stop. RGloucester — ☎ 00:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to challenge a more experienced editor to examine the following statement found in this section:
" Anton Heraschenko, an advisor to Arsen Avakov, confirmed at a briefing in Kiev that the tanks were once in the possession of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Crimea, and that they had been transferred by sea to Russia before crossing the border into Ukraine."
As neither of these people seemed to have been mentioned previously in the article, I had to search for their identities. Closer examination showed they were both employed or aligned to the Ukrainian government in Kiev. My concern is that neither position's position is outlined except in relation to the other. While Anton might "confirm" the origin of his government's military equipment it seems egregious that he could state, to a fact, that the equipment had traveled through the sovereign territory of another country and then across a border. Examination of the english article cited gives no hard evidence, only a claim from the former. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scout1Treia ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to challenge a more experienced editor to examine the following statement found in this section:
" Anton Heraschenko, an advisor to Arsen Avakov, confirmed at a briefing in Kiev that the tanks were once in the possession of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Crimea, and that they had been transferred by sea to Russia before crossing the border into Ukraine."
As neither of these people seemed to have been mentioned previously in the article, I had to search for their identities. Closer examination showed they were both employed or aligned to the Ukrainian government in Kiev. My concern is that neither position's position is outlined except in relation to the other. While Anton might "confirm" the origin of his government's military equipment it seems egregious that he could state, to a fact, that the equipment had traveled through the sovereign territory of another country and then across a border. Examination of the english article cited gives no hard evidence, only a claim from the former. Scout1Treia ( talk) 15:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)