![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Why was the map changed. The old map was much more detailed. 74.102.166.27 ( talk) 00:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
No editing skills. But could the current leading diagram on the page be replaced with the previous one? The previous diagram showed territorial exchanges and was modified regularly (see link). The current photo shows decisively less information. It doesn't make much sense for an encyclopedia to handicap information distribution, does it? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/East_Ukraine_conflict.svg 109.76.121.65 ( talk) 23:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
At least 1,184 KIA so far. The UN estimate of 1,078 months ago was too high and was not accurate in my opinion.
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/at-least-1184-soldiers-killed-in-russias-war-against-ukraine-373390.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 ( talk) 21:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Quote: If I had enough weapons and specialists in Donetsk, I would launch the mobilization. First thing that minister of defense had to do was the mobilization. But I had no resources at all. So we had to take only the volunteers, but we hand’t got enough equipment even for the all volunteers. By moment I left Donetsk I still had 150 unarmed men, however I had already had several thousand men army. As far as I know 27 or 28 thousands enlisted in May. They were ready to fight in militia. But there was nothing to arm them with.
source Esn ( talk) 04:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The section seems quite messy. I do not think it is appropriate to label defectors as "losses" since this is a civil conflict and it would also imply that the 1,000,000 strong confederate army could also count as a 1,000,000 man loss to US forces who defected to join the confederates. Moreover defectors typically do not count as losses on most Wikipedia articles. American revolution was noted for having many parties defect such as 20,000 slaves defecting to fight for the British, but these are also not listed under US loses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koonter ( talk • contribs) 06:24 UTC
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/over-32000-mercenaries-and-russian-troops-fighting-in-donbas-general-staff-374045.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.117.10 ( talk) 12:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has long since proven itself just another propaganda arm of the NWO. It needs to be shunned, as it is a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.57.114 ( talk) 18:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
So, what's the problem now? That people (from some regions in Donbass) actually elected their rebel leaders? Were they not considered rebels before? The hypocrisy of the Anglo-Saxonic World amazes me! They need enemies like a normal human being needs water! Either they being Russians, pro-Russians, French, Chinese, Muslims, Venezuelans, Bolivians, you name them! And they don't give a shit about Ukrainians (only if they're anti-Russians). A special appreciation to Mr. Richard (let's say, RGloucester), who thinks he has a higher morality over anyone else concerning to global issues, since he thinks he has the highest moral high ground! Again, I recommend: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Systemic_bias, and specially for RGloucester I'd recommend: /info/en/?search=Cultural_humility. And again, a big appreciation for Iryna Harpy, for being so unbiased, and I guess also an appreciation for Herzen, since (though I don't don't agree with him on everything) he has been stubborn and quite polite facing all the anglo-saxonic racist (I dare to say) against Russians! I'm being bold, but that's what I have to do. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 08:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
MH17 was downed on the order of Kolomoisky himself, with the intent of downing Putin's personal jet, which had crossed flight paths with MH17 farther west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.57.114 ( talk) 18:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
About 2/3 of this section doesn't have anything to do with the airliner incident. But, it is well-cited information that perhaps should be moved to another section. RichBryan ( talk) 00:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
About 8 000 killed pro-Russian rebels (not Russian soldiers!!!) from the beginning of the ATO From the official Facebook page of the ATO press centre https://www.facebook.com/ato.news/posts/905346392809501 Please add this to the wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 ( talk) 13:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Who cares? There is information about 27 888 killed and wounded Ukr.soldiers from the separatists. That means that information from government MUST be added too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 ( talk) 12:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Depends: Rebels haven't had no casualties, so they must have some. Problem is knowing them.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 03:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC) OK. Look. Information which is on the page NOW is outdated. It says about rebels: 2,000 killed,[73] 131 missing,[74] 744 captured[75][76] (according to the government)
But TODAY government claims that 8,000 rebels were killed during the conflict. I think that information from government must be updated, with the caption "according to the government" of course. Here is the exact translation from Ukrainian: https://www.facebook.com/ato.news/posts/905346392809501 "Rebels' casualties since the beginning of the ATO are tentatively 8 000 people. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 ( talk) 09:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Reliability in Ukraine is really atrocious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRfXDZs2lPo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 ( talk) 19:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this isn't titled "Ukrainian civil war", because the vast majority of rebels are locals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.32.113.89 ( talk) 09:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Mentioning Russia as a belligerent while adding that Russia denies it doesn't make a lot of sense. Russia is accused by Ukraine, EU the US and NATO of attacking Ukraine. Even if we put a disclaimer that Russia denies its involvement, claiming that Russia is a belligerent means we are picking sides. I suggest we do what the French wikipedia does, simply state that Russia is incriminated and by whom. The reader should decide whether he puts faith in the claims of these nations and organisations, wikipedia should not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elite Peasant ( talk • contribs) 14:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Russia isn't a belligerent, not by dictionary definition, not by UN resolution, hell not even the US has gone as far as to accuse Russia of having troops directly involved--all of these would highly suggest that Russia is not a belligerent nation, by any definition.
This is a war between Ukraine and her breakaway Republics, not Russia. Solntsa90 ( talk) 20:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
None of the sources actually prove that Russia is directly involved as a belligerent in conflict with Ukraine (something Russia has vehemently denied, so you can't merely say that, because news organisations report on the game of 'He-said/She-said' and tend to come up with political opinions, that this is objective, conclusive evidence that Russia is a direct belligerent in the conflict: Nothing points to that, so having Vladimir Putin's name up there as a commander in this war is absolute rubbish. Solntsa90 ( talk) 21:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yesterday, 2 Ukrainian army tanks were destroyed and the crew of one of the tanks were burned alive in the destroyed tank. The Ukrainian ministry of defense only reported 1 soldier wounded in action. facebook.com wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 6 January 2015
Soap/Forum | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
TransliterationWould anyone with a knowledge of Ukrainian/Russian transliteration into English go through this article and ensure consistency with our guidelines? These are WP:UKROM and WP:RUROM. It is getting a bit confusing, with Aleksandrs and Alexanders, Andreis and Andreys, &c. It would be much appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 00:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Russian Armed Forces listed in the info box as a combat unit without proof
Maps need datesThere are two maps, one at the top in the info box of the article and one at the bottom that shows the changes. Thank you to those who made them, it's very interesting to see the changes. It would be very helpful to have dates on the maps to see which map is from when because positions constantly change. The one at the top has as last date some day in August last year. Could anyone update it and add dates to the animated one? And is it possible to have a viewer for the animated one that can be stopped and allows to manually go forward and backward? Galant Khan ( talk) 13:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Kiev Post: "Army drastically undermines real losses"According to Kiev Post, which is pro-Ukrainian newspaper, the army drastically lowers real losses sustained during combat operations. [6]-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 12:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Mentioned it along with the source in the new Casualties of the war in Donbass article. If you could, improve the article as you see fit. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC) August eventsThe August events link to 2014-15 Russian military intervention for more information, however this page is more comprehensive. Would it be preferable if most of that information was transported over the Russian military intervention or if the hat note was removed? One of those two options ought to be done. Hollth ( talk) 05:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Foreign inspiration/support? Fscist/Nazi symbolism and ideology.Many serious independent thinkers (and by that I do not necessary mean Russians) and some politicians (example: from Hungary, Czech Republic) blame EC some countries particularly Germany/UK and others as United States or Israel for organisation of overthrowing elected government and military support for Ukrainian troops in this Civil War (Canada, USA and Poland are sending uniforms, helmets, military food rations and medical packets for soldiers) The article doesn’t point that new goverment installed in Kiev are actively promoting the nationalist and fascist organization OUN-UPA and its “commanders” Bandera and Szuchewycz. That organization was openly cooperating with Germans in occupied territories of Poland and Russia. It has blood of more than 100.000 murdered Poles in Volhynia Massacre. To ad insult to injury there were some “remembrance” marches full of fond memories to Ukrainian SS Galizien unit! Red and Black banner of UPA is currently common, as is the Wolfsangel sign. 83.11.21.152 ( talk) 17:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Nobody ever confirmed that it was separatists who fired Grad rockets. "Allegedly" should be added in the related section, otherwise biased information. Also why such speedy edit when it may happen that separatists fired rockets, while the exact same situation id Donetsk was covered pretty slow, one-sised and with a lot of doubt when there was no proof whatsoever about who fired them? 89.233.128.158 ( talk) 15:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
For use in the Infobox
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv-post-plus/at-least-1427-soldiers-killed-in-russias-war-against-ukraine-378906.html
Soldiers killed 1,427
Soldiers wounded 4,322
200.48.214.19 (
talk)
22:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
abkhazia is supporting the rebels [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.15.242 ( talk) 20:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Don't get me wrong, i don't think the kiev gov is nazi. Nazi was democratic however it was more democratic-socialism, this is an uprising into democracy because its so well organized. It was a puppet gov put into plan since the 1940s. I think maybe this gov is democratic. It goes like this Democracy-socialism-communism. They are fighting against a monarchy that turned into a socialist democracy. Russia I think is more Socialist than Democratic. I think nazi germany turned into national socialism though or some sort of dictatorship. What's ironic is Russia is now democratic-socialism. For instance america may be involved because its a democratic-republic or a democracy with a republic body, and it basically has to be involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.27.70 ( talk) 14:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC) |
https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%85_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80_%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%96%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%83_%282015%29 this list looks good, says 170+ Ukrainians KIA since Jan 1. -- 78.1.90.153 ( talk) 19:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done - Wikipedia - in whatever language - is not a
reliable source -
Arjayay (
talk)
18:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey, as the war sadly has started again it would be prudent to get the old map going again that shows the changes in territory, agreed? 213.100.108.86 ( talk) 15:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Basically just a table with some links and info on casualties, whereas say Casualties of the Syrian Civil War or Casualties of the September 11 attacks, for examples, have much more substantial content. A new section could be created in the War in Donbass article with the contents of Casualties of the war in Donbass. (specifically the Deaths section) Seems like a common sense move to take. Thoughts? ceradon ( talk • contribs) 07:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that in its current form Casualties of the war in Donbass is really short and most of it is an overview table. However the article should probably be given a chance for other editors to try and expand it. So I would hold of on the merger for a month at least to see if others can improve the article. EkoGraf ( talk) 07:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Supplanted by second request below. | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.249.227.146 ( talk) 14:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
List Donetsk and Luhansk separately since the confederation doesnt exist and is just proposed. On the Ukraine side, add Lithuania under "Supported by:" like done for other wars. 199.249.227.146 ( talk) 17:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC) They actually did declare it, on June 24. EkoGraf ( talk) 05:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
As copied from above:
74.101.157.77 ( talk) 23:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
|
WP:NOTFORUM | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Please add the following to the first sentence: "also called the Russo-Ukrainian war of 2014-2015." The majority of international independent bodies, including NATO, OBSE, EU and USA acknowledge the presence and active participation of Russian Military active personnel and equipment in this war. The current article itself states that the Russian Military is involved in the conflict. Therefore, according to the international nomenclature, this war needs to be labelled as "Russo-Ukrainian war of 2014-2015". Not labeling the conflict clearly as it should be labeled creates confusion and misinformation among the readers.
|
W. P. Uzer You are right and you shouldn't take any of the more heated remarks by RGloucester too seriously. The Wikipedia policy on the names has not changed and is still the same. We give titles/names to something based on common names that are the most used in reliable sources. And your point about Google News is a valid one that we regularly use to define the common names. RGloucester simply has a policy that he doesn't accept any titles, no matter how common they are, if he thinks they are grammatically incorrect. And when someone like you, or I or Ceradon above disagree with his POV he becomes aggressive as you say, accuses us of making a mess, being disruptive, says there are no opinions to be heard, or that we simply go away. So you shouldn't get worked up about it or go into deeper discussions. If you want to make a reaqust for a renaming of the article to War in Eastern Ukraine as a common name go ahead and I will support it. War in Donbass is simply not the common name. (nor is Ukrainian Civil War RGloucester) EkoGraf ( talk) 23:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Er, where is "Russian-Ukrainian war" 'implied' to be commonly used? I've just run a thorough check of Google news and 'About 221 results' from bizarre WP:BIASED sources and some evidence for "Russian-Ukrainian hybrid war" (which actually encompasses the overall events in Ukraine over the last year, and ramifications thereof), but not one instance of RS using anything even resembling this suggestion unless you count the article by Andreas Umland in Foreign Policy Journal entitle "The West and the Evolving Russian-Ukrainian Trade War", or a quote taken from the Russian internet and used in an ecfr.eu article. How is this proposed renaming representative of the subject matter of this article? -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 22:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I need consensus according to an editor. Can we list the DPR and LPR as two entities since Novorossiya's existance is disputed? Also, shouldn't we list Lithuania and Bosnia under "Supported by:" for Ukraine since they are provided lethal aid? It only makes sense since we do this for the Syrian Civil War. I made an example infobox. 74.101.157.77 ( talk) 19:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
nato troops launched coup in kiev yet this not say about the nato troops no proof of russian involve CLAIMED BY UKRAINE it is, stop treating as fact remove nato pov and tell TRUTH about nato troops in der UKRAIEN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.113.95 ( talk) 14:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
this article is ukraine-nato pov why id the russia demomized der us troops is in ukraine mariupol, see this nato troops use ukraines as prox and this article paint picture of nato as a saitn!? whys? if der ukraien is to be represented rerpesent it as what it isl nato coup led by us troops who say out of my face when they want that is what obama says out of my face putin out of my face putin, vut but putin will not out of face wehen uou send troops to corrupt brother slavs in der ukraine there is this article must be pov attach pov atag because no russia sources are here this nato crap 138.16.106.238 ( talk) 02:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Just because something is "there" does not mean that you have to react. If in your haste to do something just to do something then maybe leave it be for the one that has some imagination. Start with using the word "miltiary" within the context of a change order? Is that a good start? Hope it is not too complex. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 03:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Please stop wasting our time. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, haste makes waste. Your haste and what to expect? Waste. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 07:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, haste makes waste. Your haste and what to expect? Waste. Volunteer Marek ? Your inability to comprehend is not a justifiable reason to thwart the actions of others. To challenge to your perceived idea of "person-in-charge" (WP is a volunteer activity, but just to remind you that there is more to this than YOU. YOU may not be the solution? YOU may not be the person to get it down? Maybe, YOU should, "Let it go! Let it go! ........" 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 16:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The most recent info is from like a month ago after all Lilahdog568 ( talk) 00:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"miltiary" ?
66.74.176.59 ( talk) 01:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Someone denoted that the Unites States and the European Union are one of belligerents in the conflict. What is it based on?? In such manner another might state that the United Nations or the Council of Europe are also one of the belligerents. The article omits the fact that the conflict rotates around the Budapest Memorandum, according to which all its signatories are required and obligated unconditionally to respect sovereignty of Ukraine and help it in case of aggression. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 14:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There is indeed American Advisors in Ukraine
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/22/pentagon-team-dispatched-to-ukraine-amid-crisis-wi/?page=all
. I dont know why such a Reactionary conduct being displayed by the curious fascist-edit made to the User Above. There are indeed NATO weaponry being used in Ukraine. Wikipedians should really avoid being Biased, despite the man above posted a POV. The reaction sound more like Censorship to me. Really sad. Maybe in a Future NATO troops could intervere and subsecuently this could be added to the Infobox, why all this fear?. Its there a finth column in the FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA??. Some sources for the Infobox regarding losses.
http://russia-insider.com/en/military_politics_ukraine_opinion_media_watch/2014/11/04/02-06-53pm/kiev_wildly_understating_combat
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/ukrainian-army-death-1/
200.48.214.19 (
talk)
13:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
According to Amnesty International Ukrainian government arrested a journalist for expressing his views and urged to release him [9]. AI also mentions an epidemic of draft dodging-which I have seen covered in other mainstream new sources.This seems notable and should be covered in some way in the main article, and associated ones regarding freedom of Press in Ukraine.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 16:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 16:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 17:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Why have I been reverted three times when it comes to this fact? How can you revert someone for adding information that is true? Three times. Unbelievable, it's as if this is the new Uncyclopedia.
Here are the sources: [1] [2] [3] The only way that this is false is if these people are not people, but magic space lizards that are not real, like RGloucester , NeilN and Knowledgekid87 seem to believe. And if that's the case then, you better cite your sources. -- Ritsaiph ( talk) 03:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
![]() | This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Before the following sentence:
"From the beginning of March 2014, demonstrations by pro-Russian and anti-government groups took place in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, together commonly called the "Donbass", in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and the Euromaidan movement."
I suggest the following:
On February 21st, 2014, an agreement was signed between democratically elected Victor Yanukovich and opposition leaders which was to make some concessions to the Euromaidan movement [1]. However, the next day Right Sector militants began more violent attacks on government buildings and Union halls [2]. The violence and terrorism propagated after February 21st intimidated the Ukrainian Parliament into voting out Victor Yanukovich. Under these violent threats the removal of Yanukovich can be defined as a coup in violation of international law [3]. Qb220 ( talk) 00:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
References
We need a new map for the infobox, are there any free use maps out there that are updated? According to the timeline there has been territory gains and losses and we should reflect that rather than showing an outdated 6 month old map. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's a map. Narayanese ( talk) 22:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
gov figures and ua msm are full of ATO 'anti' terrorist operation
There is no mention that Poroshenko nedgotiated peace with 'terrorists'. And give order to stop fighting at Sunday 00:00. And agree to reform so 'terrorists' will have autonomy. Cann we add a sentence about this continius ua.gov peculiar antisemantism? The string ATO exist in titles of some quoted sources but is gingerly absent in the body of article.
99.90.196.227 ( talk) 09:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The intro of the article says that "Russian paramilitaries are reported to make up from 15% to 80% of the combatants". These estimates are pretty far from another and I wonder if someone should check the references.-- Ezzex ( talk) 14:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The number of 7500+ of Russian soldiers according to the links provided is mentioned in Ukarainian sources. CNN mentions a number of 4000-5000 according to UK estimates and 1000+ according to US estimates but nothing about coordinated NATO position. Can somebody correct this, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.24.2.40 ( talk) 11:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
“…Asked by Rosie Gray of BuzzFeed to how the error [as to how photos, misplacing T72 tanks, were presented as strong evidence of Russian involvement] had come about, Senator Inhofe’s office said that the images were provided during a meeting with a large delegation of Ukrainian commanders and officials who were in Washington last year when he was the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. A list of the participants in the meeting showed that it included three members of Ukraine’s Parliament and a former Pentagon official, Phillip Karber…” New York Times, FEB. 13, 2015
If it might help to clear up certain issues or misuderstandings, is there any reason why a direct quotes–from the New York Times report–might not be used in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.191.142 ( talk) 21:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
From previous discussions I discovered that Russia is involved by benefit of the doubt. Why allow doubt if you could simply state that Russia is incriminated and by whom? This is similar to the Neutral Point of View the BBC employs in their reports about the situation. Instead of claiming that Russia did this or that, they always add "according to NATO/Ukraine". It's correct and it's professional. And that counts double for an encyclopedia which, unlike newspapers, is expected to be unbiased. Elite Peasant ( talk) 14:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
When all claims of something are from one side only, and the other denies it, it becomes a "he said she said" situation. If usually reliable outlets consistently quote one side or the other, that does not make the claims true. There is clearly propaganda going on on both sides; if they didn't have widely divergent points of view THERE WOULD BE NO WAR. Claims that can be traced back to the Ukrainian Government must be treated with suspicion, considering they have claimed Russian invasions by as many as 10,000 troops at a time, and destruction by them of large Russian convoys, without a single item of photographic or satellite evidence. NATO and the USA have not provided any, either, for similar claims they have made. So putting "according to Kiev/NATO(or whoever)" would make the article much more balanced and neutral POV. In fact many of the sites used as sources DO SAY "according to X" or "Y said" and omitting that substantially alters the meaning. The info box about deaths clearly demonstrates the huge difference in "facts" depending on who it's coming from... and thereby the danger of accepting info from just one side as being objectively factual. Please correctly write "according to" where there is no direct evidence. 49.2.28.155 ( talk) 09:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
First sentence of the 2nd paragraph: Between 22 and 25 August, Russian artillery, personnel, and what Russia called a "humanitarian convoy" were reported to have crossed the border into Ukrainian territory without the permission of the Ukrainian government.
Here are two statements intertwined, which is not good itself. 1. "Humanitarian convoy" should not be in quotation marks. Did the russians really send a humanitarian convoy or not? Sources? Basically, bracketing the "humanitarian convoy" in quotation marks is just a FUD, a demagogism. 2. What facts support the statement that Russian artillery and personnel crossed the border? Sources? 37.192.230.67 ( talk) 18:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
NONE of the sources have "humanitarian convoy" in quotes. One quotes a long sentence including these words. To strip out the context and leave these 2 words in quotes is, as the previous user said, "bracketing the "humanitarian convoy" in quotation marks is just a FUD, a demagogism". There have now been 12 or 13 of these convoys. It is ridiculously biased to use the quotes like this. 49.2.28.155 ( talk) 09:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
As reported here. However, the US should not be included as a possible party to the conflict in the infobox, in the same way as Russia currently is (despite the fact that a lot of the recent evidence of direct Russian involvement has been widely reported to be faked), because... (ready, set, GO!) Esn ( talk) 20:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Here is the UN report: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=50017 Over a million are meanwhile displaced internally in Ukraine due to the war and over 600.000 fled to Russia. The numbers in the article are old and draw a false image. Kulmanseidl ( talk) 20:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe it is time to address this issue. In the beginning of the conflict, we had media outlets calling the DPR and LPR affiliated fighters as insurgents and militants. Then from May to now, most outlets are referring to them as separatists and rebels. The only problem is that some editors still use these non-neutral terms "insurgents" or "militants" from 10 months ago! In fact, the only media that still uses these terms are the Ukrainian media. Imagine if in the Syrian Civil War articles some editors that are pro-Assad started labeling the Syrian rebels as anti-government insurgents or Syrian militants in all of the war related articles and nobody did anything about it? The same thing is happening here, I propose that we replace all of the words "insurgents" and "militants" with "separatists" and "rebels" in all of the War in Donbass articles. I would personally be willing to do this task if most people agree. SkoraPobeda ( talk) 19:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "War in Ukraine" to "Civil War in Ukraine" 72.253.121.52 ( talk) 07:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Where did the author of File:East Ukraine conflict.svg get his information from exactly? (User Zombear seems to have worked on several of such maps, but this should not only concern that user). The sources listed for the 'original' map date back 'as far back as' August 2014. Furthermore, I think that the colours of the map are biased too. Why choose blue for Ukraine and red for the separatists when you know these colours have particular meanings in Western symbolism? These words may sound heavy, but right now, the map just reeks of 'right' versus 'wrong', especially if that is what you are looking for in the map. Is it not possible to pick different colours or to make clear in some different way who dominates (...) which area? 82.217.116.224 ( talk) 11:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the status must be changed to low level conflict , only sporadic shelling near Pisky ,Popasna and Shyrokyne near Mariupol the truce is holding for the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.102.43.60 ( talk) 20:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting article from NYT about Ukrainian side presenting fake photographs on at least two occassions to claim evidence Russian involvement in Ukraine [11] Definitely notable and needs to be included.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Propaganda war for public opinion?
"RT: Why don’t facts seem to go anywhere in this Ukraine crisis?
Patrick Heningson: Well the main thing to understand is that most of what’s constructed regarding Ukraine that is going back twelve months or more, is really constructed and it’s focused towards a US audience and European audience. It’s a really a sophisticated war propaganda, it’s a war for public opinion because whatever the case may be on the ground Western leaders, specifically NATO-countries, they really need public opinion to be backing whatever moves they are making around the world. In the case of Ukraine this is quite an aggressive move by NATO allies led by Washington DC. So it requires a lot of very sophisticated media and public opinion forming, and I think that’s what we are seeing. This is an ongoing battle to get into people’s minds to say that Russia is the aggressor, Russia is responsible for this, Russia shot down MH17 and that justifies a sort of escalation, if you will, along the rim of Europe surrounding Russia.” Patrick Heningson on RT, March 06, 2015
To counter the claims that Wikipedia is anti-Russian, would not some of the articles on Russia benefit more of the above information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.244.67 ( talk) 10:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Following its annexation of Crimea, Russia intervened in different ways throughout the war in the Donbass region. Reports and statements by the US State Department repeatedly accused Russia of orchestrating the April unrest across eastern and southern Ukraine.[652][653] Russia denied these reports.[654] As the unrest escalated into a war in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, Russia supplied arms, armoured vehicles, tanks, and other equipment to the forces of the DPR and LPR.[152][655] A significant number of Russian citizens and military men have fought in the war as volunteers, something that the leaders of the DPR and LPR admitted.[9] Recruitment for Donbass insurgent groups was performed openly in Russian cities, using private and military facilities.[656][657] Reports of direct Russian military involvement culminated on 25 August, when the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) said that it captured a group of Russian paratroopers on active service in Ukrainian territory.[658] The SBU released photographs of them, and their names.[659] On the following day, the Russian Defence Ministry said these soldiers crossed the border "by accident".
In the original quote from the Russian Defence Ministry stated this in a matter of fact manner, not sarcastically as the quotes around "by accident" would imply. The quotes need toe be removed or the entire section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.197.151.8 ( talk) 06:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
But the problem is those quotes were added by third party sources. If we look at older sources they are not there. In order to maintain NPOV I suggest we use the exact same quote from one of the thousands that do not quote the final two words in some sort of attempt to hint the reporters doubts. Here is one souce without those quotes ( http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/ukraine-says-video-proves-russian-soldiers-are-in-east-ukraine/505867.html) If need be I can provide 32 other souces that do not add quotation marks in some weird non-neutral attempt to express doubt.
173.197.151.8 ( talk) 06:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The united kingdom has deployed troops to ukraine to train and advise the ukrainian military. I had added them to the infobox as "supporting", but another user reverted. See here [ [12]]. XavierGreen ( talk) 18:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Using quotation marks to describe belligerents' rhetoric seems fine, but we should reduce their use in passages that are primarily intended to describe events.
Probably fine:
demonstrators regathered for a 'people's assembly' outside the building and called for a 'people's government'
Turchynov vowed to launch a major "anti-terror" operation
Needs work:
which prompted the Ukrainian government to launch a "counter-terrorism" operation to retake the city. (just say "an operation")
They said that they would use force if needed to defend the building from "criminals and terrorists" (just say "defend the building")
etc.
The quotation marks aren't technically wrong (they really are quotes), but they often read more like scare quotes. Both sides receive this treatment, but I think it more often slants against the Ukranian government. I don't see any reason to believe there was bad faith, but I think they weaken NPOV nonetheless.
Dmurvihill ( talk) 19:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Russian army is not involved in the war in the Donbass.
Somarzen (
talk)
19:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
At least 2,053 killed and 6,331 wounded.
207.35.219.34 ( talk) 20:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The number 2,053 are Ukrainian soldiers only.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 ( talk) 21:52, 13 April 2015
This is what appears in a statement from General Christophe Gomart on the National Assembly's website: "The real difficulty with NATO is that US intelligence is dominant, while the French intelligence is more or less considered - hence the importance for us to supply sufficiently commanders of the NATO French origin information. NATO announced that the Russians would invade Ukraine while according to the information of the DRM, nothing came to support this hypothesis - we had indeed found that the Russians had not deployed command or logistics, including field hospitals, to consider a military invasion and the units of second level had made no movement. Subsequently showed that we were right, because if Russian soldiers were actually seen in Ukraine, it was more of a ploy to put pressure on Ukrainian President Poroshenko as an attempted invasion."
Is this statement enough to add France as being one of the countries that denies a Russian invasion of Ukraine? Esn ( talk) 13:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
They are clearly not doing combat. It is arguable if they train NAF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 ( talk) 21:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
201.103.94.240 ( talk) 06:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Whoever started this thread is doing a horrible job of building consensus. The only argument seems to be that the information is from sources that they considered biased. Unless you can convince enough editors and build consensus in support of your claim, then this thread is a waste. Myopia123 ( talk) 11:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Whether it is proven or not regarding Russian REGULAR soldiers is not up to Kudzu1. It should be up to the international court. Of course there are Russians fighting in Ukraine, but it is REGULAR soldiers that count. For one thing, I have not seen a single Russian air force bombing sortie on Kiev. Do you?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.200.29 ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 3 April 2015
201.103.94.240 ( talk) 05:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
201.103.94.240 ( talk) 05:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
In Western society, proof is everything. If you don't have proof, then don't put something in the infobox. News articles are not proof. It's like some people claim a Russian Buk shot down MH17, well, that's a CLAIM, that's not a PROOF. You cannot say there are Russian REGULAR soldiers fighting in Ukraine sent by the Russian government unless you have PROOF.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.219.200.144 ( talk) 12:37, 4 April 2015
There is ACCUSATION that there are Russian regular soldiers in Ukraine. There is no proof of this. Not a single Russian regular soldier has ever been captured as proof. Accusations should not be put into the infobox. Only things that are proven should be put into the infobox. This is a matter of ethics and morality. Wikipedia has a responsibility to provide true information to its readers, not unproven accusations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.219.200.144 ( talk) 13:18, 4 April 2015
Poroshenko reviewed the Ukrainian army a couple of days ago and what do you know, we have a photo showing an American flag and an M107 Barrett large caliber sniper rifle. This is proof the US is now involved and supplying lethal arms to Ukraine. This needs to be added to the infobox.
photo proof
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=231579&d=1428313367
207.35.219.34 ( talk) 15:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
How do I sign?
It's only proof that they have american flags in Ukraine. And also, the muzzle does not look like the muzzle of an M107 Barrett. And even if it is, here's video of Berkut police officers using one during the maidan protests, which means there's nothing shocking about M107's in Ukraine. Ipso facto, nothing new here. Myopia123 ( talk) 19:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
201.103.94.240 ( talk) 14:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
201.103.94.240 ( talk) 02:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Neither Ukraine nor Russia have ever declared war. This is an Anti Terror Operation, so it should be called Conflict in Donbas rather than War in Donbas. If it is a war, then both sides are liable to war crimes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 ( talk) 21:51, 13 April 2015
There is no war in Yemen, so why should it be a war in Ukraine? No international organization, by it UN or Red Cross, has the authority to declare a conflict as a war. Only the belligerents have that authority. And that has not happened in Ukraine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 ( talk • contribs)
Quote:
"Between 22 and 25 August, Russian artillery, personnel, and what Russia called a "humanitarian convoy" were reported to have crossed the border into Ukrainian territory without the permission of the Ukrainian government. Crossings were reported to have occurred both in areas under the control of pro-Russian forces and areas that were not under their control, such as the south-eastern part of Donetsk Oblast, near Novoazovsk."
Comments: 1. It clearly should be mentioned that in August there already was a humanitarian crises (catastophe) in Donbass. And the crises was caused by social-economic blockade and by goverment shelling living and densely populated areas of Donetsk, Luhansk and other Donbass cities. 2. Also it shoud be clearly mentioned that Donbass filled with russian and russian-speaking majority. Russian Federation feels deep empathize with them and have obligations to save lives of innocent people. 3. Delete quotes "humanitarian convoy". It was a humanitarian convoy and it was inspected by plenty of organisations (including Red Cross) on russian territory and on the border. 4. Firstly Ukraine agreed the convoy and at the moment the convoy was on the border Ukraine rejected and Russian Federation waited few days for an agreement. 5. Finally there is no any evidences and proofs that there were artillery and personnel in the convoy. Maybe Department of States and Ukraine goverment says that there were but Russian goverment says that there were not artillery and personnel. Until there is no facts it should not be in the article.
Result (please correct gremmar cause English is not my native: "In the beginning of August social and economical blockade of Donbass region and constant 4-month shelling of living and densely populated areas of Donetsk, Luhansk and other Donbass cities by Ukraine goverment caused thousand of deaths of civil people and a humanitarian crises (catastrophe) in the region. At the second decade of August Russian Federation decided to send a humanitarian convoy to Donbass as region populated with russian and russian-speaking majority. Russian Federation got Ukraine goverment permission but later it was revoked. The convoy stand on the border between 22 and 25 August waiting for the permission. It was inspected by Red Cross members and other organisations. Russian humanitarian convoy were reported to have crossed the border into Ukrainian territory without the permission of the Ukrainian government."
both are states, so the terms Ukraine and New Russia should replace the terms government and separatists in the article and the infobox
207.35.219.34 ( talk) 15:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone else read that Russia is withdrawing from all copyright treaties? This is big news because in 2010, 34.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) was Intellectual Property.
173.79.49.64 ( talk) 08:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Ukrainian rada passed motion declaring February 20, 2014 as the first day of the Russian Ukrainian war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9jx4LYpmUbQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.58.89.32 ( talk) 23:27, 21 April 2015 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Why was the map changed. The old map was much more detailed. 74.102.166.27 ( talk) 00:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
No editing skills. But could the current leading diagram on the page be replaced with the previous one? The previous diagram showed territorial exchanges and was modified regularly (see link). The current photo shows decisively less information. It doesn't make much sense for an encyclopedia to handicap information distribution, does it? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/East_Ukraine_conflict.svg 109.76.121.65 ( talk) 23:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
At least 1,184 KIA so far. The UN estimate of 1,078 months ago was too high and was not accurate in my opinion.
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/at-least-1184-soldiers-killed-in-russias-war-against-ukraine-373390.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 ( talk) 21:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Quote: If I had enough weapons and specialists in Donetsk, I would launch the mobilization. First thing that minister of defense had to do was the mobilization. But I had no resources at all. So we had to take only the volunteers, but we hand’t got enough equipment even for the all volunteers. By moment I left Donetsk I still had 150 unarmed men, however I had already had several thousand men army. As far as I know 27 or 28 thousands enlisted in May. They were ready to fight in militia. But there was nothing to arm them with.
source Esn ( talk) 04:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The section seems quite messy. I do not think it is appropriate to label defectors as "losses" since this is a civil conflict and it would also imply that the 1,000,000 strong confederate army could also count as a 1,000,000 man loss to US forces who defected to join the confederates. Moreover defectors typically do not count as losses on most Wikipedia articles. American revolution was noted for having many parties defect such as 20,000 slaves defecting to fight for the British, but these are also not listed under US loses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koonter ( talk • contribs) 06:24 UTC
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/over-32000-mercenaries-and-russian-troops-fighting-in-donbas-general-staff-374045.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.117.10 ( talk) 12:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has long since proven itself just another propaganda arm of the NWO. It needs to be shunned, as it is a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.57.114 ( talk) 18:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
So, what's the problem now? That people (from some regions in Donbass) actually elected their rebel leaders? Were they not considered rebels before? The hypocrisy of the Anglo-Saxonic World amazes me! They need enemies like a normal human being needs water! Either they being Russians, pro-Russians, French, Chinese, Muslims, Venezuelans, Bolivians, you name them! And they don't give a shit about Ukrainians (only if they're anti-Russians). A special appreciation to Mr. Richard (let's say, RGloucester), who thinks he has a higher morality over anyone else concerning to global issues, since he thinks he has the highest moral high ground! Again, I recommend: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Systemic_bias, and specially for RGloucester I'd recommend: /info/en/?search=Cultural_humility. And again, a big appreciation for Iryna Harpy, for being so unbiased, and I guess also an appreciation for Herzen, since (though I don't don't agree with him on everything) he has been stubborn and quite polite facing all the anglo-saxonic racist (I dare to say) against Russians! I'm being bold, but that's what I have to do. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 08:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
MH17 was downed on the order of Kolomoisky himself, with the intent of downing Putin's personal jet, which had crossed flight paths with MH17 farther west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.57.114 ( talk) 18:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
About 2/3 of this section doesn't have anything to do with the airliner incident. But, it is well-cited information that perhaps should be moved to another section. RichBryan ( talk) 00:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
About 8 000 killed pro-Russian rebels (not Russian soldiers!!!) from the beginning of the ATO From the official Facebook page of the ATO press centre https://www.facebook.com/ato.news/posts/905346392809501 Please add this to the wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 ( talk) 13:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Who cares? There is information about 27 888 killed and wounded Ukr.soldiers from the separatists. That means that information from government MUST be added too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 ( talk) 12:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Depends: Rebels haven't had no casualties, so they must have some. Problem is knowing them.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 03:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC) OK. Look. Information which is on the page NOW is outdated. It says about rebels: 2,000 killed,[73] 131 missing,[74] 744 captured[75][76] (according to the government)
But TODAY government claims that 8,000 rebels were killed during the conflict. I think that information from government must be updated, with the caption "according to the government" of course. Here is the exact translation from Ukrainian: https://www.facebook.com/ato.news/posts/905346392809501 "Rebels' casualties since the beginning of the ATO are tentatively 8 000 people. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 ( talk) 09:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Reliability in Ukraine is really atrocious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRfXDZs2lPo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 ( talk) 19:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this isn't titled "Ukrainian civil war", because the vast majority of rebels are locals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.32.113.89 ( talk) 09:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Mentioning Russia as a belligerent while adding that Russia denies it doesn't make a lot of sense. Russia is accused by Ukraine, EU the US and NATO of attacking Ukraine. Even if we put a disclaimer that Russia denies its involvement, claiming that Russia is a belligerent means we are picking sides. I suggest we do what the French wikipedia does, simply state that Russia is incriminated and by whom. The reader should decide whether he puts faith in the claims of these nations and organisations, wikipedia should not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elite Peasant ( talk • contribs) 14:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Russia isn't a belligerent, not by dictionary definition, not by UN resolution, hell not even the US has gone as far as to accuse Russia of having troops directly involved--all of these would highly suggest that Russia is not a belligerent nation, by any definition.
This is a war between Ukraine and her breakaway Republics, not Russia. Solntsa90 ( talk) 20:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
None of the sources actually prove that Russia is directly involved as a belligerent in conflict with Ukraine (something Russia has vehemently denied, so you can't merely say that, because news organisations report on the game of 'He-said/She-said' and tend to come up with political opinions, that this is objective, conclusive evidence that Russia is a direct belligerent in the conflict: Nothing points to that, so having Vladimir Putin's name up there as a commander in this war is absolute rubbish. Solntsa90 ( talk) 21:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yesterday, 2 Ukrainian army tanks were destroyed and the crew of one of the tanks were burned alive in the destroyed tank. The Ukrainian ministry of defense only reported 1 soldier wounded in action. facebook.com wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 6 January 2015
Soap/Forum | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
TransliterationWould anyone with a knowledge of Ukrainian/Russian transliteration into English go through this article and ensure consistency with our guidelines? These are WP:UKROM and WP:RUROM. It is getting a bit confusing, with Aleksandrs and Alexanders, Andreis and Andreys, &c. It would be much appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 00:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Russian Armed Forces listed in the info box as a combat unit without proof
Maps need datesThere are two maps, one at the top in the info box of the article and one at the bottom that shows the changes. Thank you to those who made them, it's very interesting to see the changes. It would be very helpful to have dates on the maps to see which map is from when because positions constantly change. The one at the top has as last date some day in August last year. Could anyone update it and add dates to the animated one? And is it possible to have a viewer for the animated one that can be stopped and allows to manually go forward and backward? Galant Khan ( talk) 13:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Kiev Post: "Army drastically undermines real losses"According to Kiev Post, which is pro-Ukrainian newspaper, the army drastically lowers real losses sustained during combat operations. [6]-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 12:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Mentioned it along with the source in the new Casualties of the war in Donbass article. If you could, improve the article as you see fit. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC) August eventsThe August events link to 2014-15 Russian military intervention for more information, however this page is more comprehensive. Would it be preferable if most of that information was transported over the Russian military intervention or if the hat note was removed? One of those two options ought to be done. Hollth ( talk) 05:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Foreign inspiration/support? Fscist/Nazi symbolism and ideology.Many serious independent thinkers (and by that I do not necessary mean Russians) and some politicians (example: from Hungary, Czech Republic) blame EC some countries particularly Germany/UK and others as United States or Israel for organisation of overthrowing elected government and military support for Ukrainian troops in this Civil War (Canada, USA and Poland are sending uniforms, helmets, military food rations and medical packets for soldiers) The article doesn’t point that new goverment installed in Kiev are actively promoting the nationalist and fascist organization OUN-UPA and its “commanders” Bandera and Szuchewycz. That organization was openly cooperating with Germans in occupied territories of Poland and Russia. It has blood of more than 100.000 murdered Poles in Volhynia Massacre. To ad insult to injury there were some “remembrance” marches full of fond memories to Ukrainian SS Galizien unit! Red and Black banner of UPA is currently common, as is the Wolfsangel sign. 83.11.21.152 ( talk) 17:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Nobody ever confirmed that it was separatists who fired Grad rockets. "Allegedly" should be added in the related section, otherwise biased information. Also why such speedy edit when it may happen that separatists fired rockets, while the exact same situation id Donetsk was covered pretty slow, one-sised and with a lot of doubt when there was no proof whatsoever about who fired them? 89.233.128.158 ( talk) 15:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
For use in the Infobox
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv-post-plus/at-least-1427-soldiers-killed-in-russias-war-against-ukraine-378906.html
Soldiers killed 1,427
Soldiers wounded 4,322
200.48.214.19 (
talk)
22:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
abkhazia is supporting the rebels [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.15.242 ( talk) 20:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Don't get me wrong, i don't think the kiev gov is nazi. Nazi was democratic however it was more democratic-socialism, this is an uprising into democracy because its so well organized. It was a puppet gov put into plan since the 1940s. I think maybe this gov is democratic. It goes like this Democracy-socialism-communism. They are fighting against a monarchy that turned into a socialist democracy. Russia I think is more Socialist than Democratic. I think nazi germany turned into national socialism though or some sort of dictatorship. What's ironic is Russia is now democratic-socialism. For instance america may be involved because its a democratic-republic or a democracy with a republic body, and it basically has to be involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.27.70 ( talk) 14:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC) |
https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8_%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%85_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80_%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%96%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%83_%282015%29 this list looks good, says 170+ Ukrainians KIA since Jan 1. -- 78.1.90.153 ( talk) 19:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done - Wikipedia - in whatever language - is not a
reliable source -
Arjayay (
talk)
18:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey, as the war sadly has started again it would be prudent to get the old map going again that shows the changes in territory, agreed? 213.100.108.86 ( talk) 15:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Basically just a table with some links and info on casualties, whereas say Casualties of the Syrian Civil War or Casualties of the September 11 attacks, for examples, have much more substantial content. A new section could be created in the War in Donbass article with the contents of Casualties of the war in Donbass. (specifically the Deaths section) Seems like a common sense move to take. Thoughts? ceradon ( talk • contribs) 07:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that in its current form Casualties of the war in Donbass is really short and most of it is an overview table. However the article should probably be given a chance for other editors to try and expand it. So I would hold of on the merger for a month at least to see if others can improve the article. EkoGraf ( talk) 07:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Supplanted by second request below. | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.249.227.146 ( talk) 14:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
List Donetsk and Luhansk separately since the confederation doesnt exist and is just proposed. On the Ukraine side, add Lithuania under "Supported by:" like done for other wars. 199.249.227.146 ( talk) 17:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC) They actually did declare it, on June 24. EkoGraf ( talk) 05:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
As copied from above:
74.101.157.77 ( talk) 23:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
|
WP:NOTFORUM | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Please add the following to the first sentence: "also called the Russo-Ukrainian war of 2014-2015." The majority of international independent bodies, including NATO, OBSE, EU and USA acknowledge the presence and active participation of Russian Military active personnel and equipment in this war. The current article itself states that the Russian Military is involved in the conflict. Therefore, according to the international nomenclature, this war needs to be labelled as "Russo-Ukrainian war of 2014-2015". Not labeling the conflict clearly as it should be labeled creates confusion and misinformation among the readers.
|
W. P. Uzer You are right and you shouldn't take any of the more heated remarks by RGloucester too seriously. The Wikipedia policy on the names has not changed and is still the same. We give titles/names to something based on common names that are the most used in reliable sources. And your point about Google News is a valid one that we regularly use to define the common names. RGloucester simply has a policy that he doesn't accept any titles, no matter how common they are, if he thinks they are grammatically incorrect. And when someone like you, or I or Ceradon above disagree with his POV he becomes aggressive as you say, accuses us of making a mess, being disruptive, says there are no opinions to be heard, or that we simply go away. So you shouldn't get worked up about it or go into deeper discussions. If you want to make a reaqust for a renaming of the article to War in Eastern Ukraine as a common name go ahead and I will support it. War in Donbass is simply not the common name. (nor is Ukrainian Civil War RGloucester) EkoGraf ( talk) 23:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Er, where is "Russian-Ukrainian war" 'implied' to be commonly used? I've just run a thorough check of Google news and 'About 221 results' from bizarre WP:BIASED sources and some evidence for "Russian-Ukrainian hybrid war" (which actually encompasses the overall events in Ukraine over the last year, and ramifications thereof), but not one instance of RS using anything even resembling this suggestion unless you count the article by Andreas Umland in Foreign Policy Journal entitle "The West and the Evolving Russian-Ukrainian Trade War", or a quote taken from the Russian internet and used in an ecfr.eu article. How is this proposed renaming representative of the subject matter of this article? -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 22:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I need consensus according to an editor. Can we list the DPR and LPR as two entities since Novorossiya's existance is disputed? Also, shouldn't we list Lithuania and Bosnia under "Supported by:" for Ukraine since they are provided lethal aid? It only makes sense since we do this for the Syrian Civil War. I made an example infobox. 74.101.157.77 ( talk) 19:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
nato troops launched coup in kiev yet this not say about the nato troops no proof of russian involve CLAIMED BY UKRAINE it is, stop treating as fact remove nato pov and tell TRUTH about nato troops in der UKRAIEN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.113.95 ( talk) 14:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
this article is ukraine-nato pov why id the russia demomized der us troops is in ukraine mariupol, see this nato troops use ukraines as prox and this article paint picture of nato as a saitn!? whys? if der ukraien is to be represented rerpesent it as what it isl nato coup led by us troops who say out of my face when they want that is what obama says out of my face putin out of my face putin, vut but putin will not out of face wehen uou send troops to corrupt brother slavs in der ukraine there is this article must be pov attach pov atag because no russia sources are here this nato crap 138.16.106.238 ( talk) 02:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Just because something is "there" does not mean that you have to react. If in your haste to do something just to do something then maybe leave it be for the one that has some imagination. Start with using the word "miltiary" within the context of a change order? Is that a good start? Hope it is not too complex. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 03:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Please stop wasting our time. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, haste makes waste. Your haste and what to expect? Waste. 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 07:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, haste makes waste. Your haste and what to expect? Waste. Volunteer Marek ? Your inability to comprehend is not a justifiable reason to thwart the actions of others. To challenge to your perceived idea of "person-in-charge" (WP is a volunteer activity, but just to remind you that there is more to this than YOU. YOU may not be the solution? YOU may not be the person to get it down? Maybe, YOU should, "Let it go! Let it go! ........" 66.74.176.59 ( talk) 16:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The most recent info is from like a month ago after all Lilahdog568 ( talk) 00:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"miltiary" ?
66.74.176.59 ( talk) 01:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Someone denoted that the Unites States and the European Union are one of belligerents in the conflict. What is it based on?? In such manner another might state that the United Nations or the Council of Europe are also one of the belligerents. The article omits the fact that the conflict rotates around the Budapest Memorandum, according to which all its signatories are required and obligated unconditionally to respect sovereignty of Ukraine and help it in case of aggression. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 14:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There is indeed American Advisors in Ukraine
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/22/pentagon-team-dispatched-to-ukraine-amid-crisis-wi/?page=all
. I dont know why such a Reactionary conduct being displayed by the curious fascist-edit made to the User Above. There are indeed NATO weaponry being used in Ukraine. Wikipedians should really avoid being Biased, despite the man above posted a POV. The reaction sound more like Censorship to me. Really sad. Maybe in a Future NATO troops could intervere and subsecuently this could be added to the Infobox, why all this fear?. Its there a finth column in the FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA??. Some sources for the Infobox regarding losses.
http://russia-insider.com/en/military_politics_ukraine_opinion_media_watch/2014/11/04/02-06-53pm/kiev_wildly_understating_combat
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/ukrainian-army-death-1/
200.48.214.19 (
talk)
13:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
According to Amnesty International Ukrainian government arrested a journalist for expressing his views and urged to release him [9]. AI also mentions an epidemic of draft dodging-which I have seen covered in other mainstream new sources.This seems notable and should be covered in some way in the main article, and associated ones regarding freedom of Press in Ukraine.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 16:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 16:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 17:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Why have I been reverted three times when it comes to this fact? How can you revert someone for adding information that is true? Three times. Unbelievable, it's as if this is the new Uncyclopedia.
Here are the sources: [1] [2] [3] The only way that this is false is if these people are not people, but magic space lizards that are not real, like RGloucester , NeilN and Knowledgekid87 seem to believe. And if that's the case then, you better cite your sources. -- Ritsaiph ( talk) 03:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
![]() | This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Before the following sentence:
"From the beginning of March 2014, demonstrations by pro-Russian and anti-government groups took place in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, together commonly called the "Donbass", in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and the Euromaidan movement."
I suggest the following:
On February 21st, 2014, an agreement was signed between democratically elected Victor Yanukovich and opposition leaders which was to make some concessions to the Euromaidan movement [1]. However, the next day Right Sector militants began more violent attacks on government buildings and Union halls [2]. The violence and terrorism propagated after February 21st intimidated the Ukrainian Parliament into voting out Victor Yanukovich. Under these violent threats the removal of Yanukovich can be defined as a coup in violation of international law [3]. Qb220 ( talk) 00:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
References
We need a new map for the infobox, are there any free use maps out there that are updated? According to the timeline there has been territory gains and losses and we should reflect that rather than showing an outdated 6 month old map. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's a map. Narayanese ( talk) 22:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
gov figures and ua msm are full of ATO 'anti' terrorist operation
There is no mention that Poroshenko nedgotiated peace with 'terrorists'. And give order to stop fighting at Sunday 00:00. And agree to reform so 'terrorists' will have autonomy. Cann we add a sentence about this continius ua.gov peculiar antisemantism? The string ATO exist in titles of some quoted sources but is gingerly absent in the body of article.
99.90.196.227 ( talk) 09:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The intro of the article says that "Russian paramilitaries are reported to make up from 15% to 80% of the combatants". These estimates are pretty far from another and I wonder if someone should check the references.-- Ezzex ( talk) 14:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The number of 7500+ of Russian soldiers according to the links provided is mentioned in Ukarainian sources. CNN mentions a number of 4000-5000 according to UK estimates and 1000+ according to US estimates but nothing about coordinated NATO position. Can somebody correct this, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.24.2.40 ( talk) 11:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
“…Asked by Rosie Gray of BuzzFeed to how the error [as to how photos, misplacing T72 tanks, were presented as strong evidence of Russian involvement] had come about, Senator Inhofe’s office said that the images were provided during a meeting with a large delegation of Ukrainian commanders and officials who were in Washington last year when he was the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. A list of the participants in the meeting showed that it included three members of Ukraine’s Parliament and a former Pentagon official, Phillip Karber…” New York Times, FEB. 13, 2015
If it might help to clear up certain issues or misuderstandings, is there any reason why a direct quotes–from the New York Times report–might not be used in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.191.142 ( talk) 21:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
From previous discussions I discovered that Russia is involved by benefit of the doubt. Why allow doubt if you could simply state that Russia is incriminated and by whom? This is similar to the Neutral Point of View the BBC employs in their reports about the situation. Instead of claiming that Russia did this or that, they always add "according to NATO/Ukraine". It's correct and it's professional. And that counts double for an encyclopedia which, unlike newspapers, is expected to be unbiased. Elite Peasant ( talk) 14:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
When all claims of something are from one side only, and the other denies it, it becomes a "he said she said" situation. If usually reliable outlets consistently quote one side or the other, that does not make the claims true. There is clearly propaganda going on on both sides; if they didn't have widely divergent points of view THERE WOULD BE NO WAR. Claims that can be traced back to the Ukrainian Government must be treated with suspicion, considering they have claimed Russian invasions by as many as 10,000 troops at a time, and destruction by them of large Russian convoys, without a single item of photographic or satellite evidence. NATO and the USA have not provided any, either, for similar claims they have made. So putting "according to Kiev/NATO(or whoever)" would make the article much more balanced and neutral POV. In fact many of the sites used as sources DO SAY "according to X" or "Y said" and omitting that substantially alters the meaning. The info box about deaths clearly demonstrates the huge difference in "facts" depending on who it's coming from... and thereby the danger of accepting info from just one side as being objectively factual. Please correctly write "according to" where there is no direct evidence. 49.2.28.155 ( talk) 09:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
First sentence of the 2nd paragraph: Between 22 and 25 August, Russian artillery, personnel, and what Russia called a "humanitarian convoy" were reported to have crossed the border into Ukrainian territory without the permission of the Ukrainian government.
Here are two statements intertwined, which is not good itself. 1. "Humanitarian convoy" should not be in quotation marks. Did the russians really send a humanitarian convoy or not? Sources? Basically, bracketing the "humanitarian convoy" in quotation marks is just a FUD, a demagogism. 2. What facts support the statement that Russian artillery and personnel crossed the border? Sources? 37.192.230.67 ( talk) 18:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
NONE of the sources have "humanitarian convoy" in quotes. One quotes a long sentence including these words. To strip out the context and leave these 2 words in quotes is, as the previous user said, "bracketing the "humanitarian convoy" in quotation marks is just a FUD, a demagogism". There have now been 12 or 13 of these convoys. It is ridiculously biased to use the quotes like this. 49.2.28.155 ( talk) 09:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
As reported here. However, the US should not be included as a possible party to the conflict in the infobox, in the same way as Russia currently is (despite the fact that a lot of the recent evidence of direct Russian involvement has been widely reported to be faked), because... (ready, set, GO!) Esn ( talk) 20:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Here is the UN report: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=50017 Over a million are meanwhile displaced internally in Ukraine due to the war and over 600.000 fled to Russia. The numbers in the article are old and draw a false image. Kulmanseidl ( talk) 20:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe it is time to address this issue. In the beginning of the conflict, we had media outlets calling the DPR and LPR affiliated fighters as insurgents and militants. Then from May to now, most outlets are referring to them as separatists and rebels. The only problem is that some editors still use these non-neutral terms "insurgents" or "militants" from 10 months ago! In fact, the only media that still uses these terms are the Ukrainian media. Imagine if in the Syrian Civil War articles some editors that are pro-Assad started labeling the Syrian rebels as anti-government insurgents or Syrian militants in all of the war related articles and nobody did anything about it? The same thing is happening here, I propose that we replace all of the words "insurgents" and "militants" with "separatists" and "rebels" in all of the War in Donbass articles. I would personally be willing to do this task if most people agree. SkoraPobeda ( talk) 19:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "War in Ukraine" to "Civil War in Ukraine" 72.253.121.52 ( talk) 07:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Where did the author of File:East Ukraine conflict.svg get his information from exactly? (User Zombear seems to have worked on several of such maps, but this should not only concern that user). The sources listed for the 'original' map date back 'as far back as' August 2014. Furthermore, I think that the colours of the map are biased too. Why choose blue for Ukraine and red for the separatists when you know these colours have particular meanings in Western symbolism? These words may sound heavy, but right now, the map just reeks of 'right' versus 'wrong', especially if that is what you are looking for in the map. Is it not possible to pick different colours or to make clear in some different way who dominates (...) which area? 82.217.116.224 ( talk) 11:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the status must be changed to low level conflict , only sporadic shelling near Pisky ,Popasna and Shyrokyne near Mariupol the truce is holding for the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.102.43.60 ( talk) 20:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting article from NYT about Ukrainian side presenting fake photographs on at least two occassions to claim evidence Russian involvement in Ukraine [11] Definitely notable and needs to be included.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 15:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Propaganda war for public opinion?
"RT: Why don’t facts seem to go anywhere in this Ukraine crisis?
Patrick Heningson: Well the main thing to understand is that most of what’s constructed regarding Ukraine that is going back twelve months or more, is really constructed and it’s focused towards a US audience and European audience. It’s a really a sophisticated war propaganda, it’s a war for public opinion because whatever the case may be on the ground Western leaders, specifically NATO-countries, they really need public opinion to be backing whatever moves they are making around the world. In the case of Ukraine this is quite an aggressive move by NATO allies led by Washington DC. So it requires a lot of very sophisticated media and public opinion forming, and I think that’s what we are seeing. This is an ongoing battle to get into people’s minds to say that Russia is the aggressor, Russia is responsible for this, Russia shot down MH17 and that justifies a sort of escalation, if you will, along the rim of Europe surrounding Russia.” Patrick Heningson on RT, March 06, 2015
To counter the claims that Wikipedia is anti-Russian, would not some of the articles on Russia benefit more of the above information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.244.67 ( talk) 10:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Following its annexation of Crimea, Russia intervened in different ways throughout the war in the Donbass region. Reports and statements by the US State Department repeatedly accused Russia of orchestrating the April unrest across eastern and southern Ukraine.[652][653] Russia denied these reports.[654] As the unrest escalated into a war in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, Russia supplied arms, armoured vehicles, tanks, and other equipment to the forces of the DPR and LPR.[152][655] A significant number of Russian citizens and military men have fought in the war as volunteers, something that the leaders of the DPR and LPR admitted.[9] Recruitment for Donbass insurgent groups was performed openly in Russian cities, using private and military facilities.[656][657] Reports of direct Russian military involvement culminated on 25 August, when the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) said that it captured a group of Russian paratroopers on active service in Ukrainian territory.[658] The SBU released photographs of them, and their names.[659] On the following day, the Russian Defence Ministry said these soldiers crossed the border "by accident".
In the original quote from the Russian Defence Ministry stated this in a matter of fact manner, not sarcastically as the quotes around "by accident" would imply. The quotes need toe be removed or the entire section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.197.151.8 ( talk) 06:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
But the problem is those quotes were added by third party sources. If we look at older sources they are not there. In order to maintain NPOV I suggest we use the exact same quote from one of the thousands that do not quote the final two words in some sort of attempt to hint the reporters doubts. Here is one souce without those quotes ( http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/ukraine-says-video-proves-russian-soldiers-are-in-east-ukraine/505867.html) If need be I can provide 32 other souces that do not add quotation marks in some weird non-neutral attempt to express doubt.
173.197.151.8 ( talk) 06:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The united kingdom has deployed troops to ukraine to train and advise the ukrainian military. I had added them to the infobox as "supporting", but another user reverted. See here [ [12]]. XavierGreen ( talk) 18:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Using quotation marks to describe belligerents' rhetoric seems fine, but we should reduce their use in passages that are primarily intended to describe events.
Probably fine:
demonstrators regathered for a 'people's assembly' outside the building and called for a 'people's government'
Turchynov vowed to launch a major "anti-terror" operation
Needs work:
which prompted the Ukrainian government to launch a "counter-terrorism" operation to retake the city. (just say "an operation")
They said that they would use force if needed to defend the building from "criminals and terrorists" (just say "defend the building")
etc.
The quotation marks aren't technically wrong (they really are quotes), but they often read more like scare quotes. Both sides receive this treatment, but I think it more often slants against the Ukranian government. I don't see any reason to believe there was bad faith, but I think they weaken NPOV nonetheless.
Dmurvihill ( talk) 19:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
War in Donbass has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Russian army is not involved in the war in the Donbass.
Somarzen (
talk)
19:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
At least 2,053 killed and 6,331 wounded.
207.35.219.34 ( talk) 20:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The number 2,053 are Ukrainian soldiers only.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 ( talk) 21:52, 13 April 2015
This is what appears in a statement from General Christophe Gomart on the National Assembly's website: "The real difficulty with NATO is that US intelligence is dominant, while the French intelligence is more or less considered - hence the importance for us to supply sufficiently commanders of the NATO French origin information. NATO announced that the Russians would invade Ukraine while according to the information of the DRM, nothing came to support this hypothesis - we had indeed found that the Russians had not deployed command or logistics, including field hospitals, to consider a military invasion and the units of second level had made no movement. Subsequently showed that we were right, because if Russian soldiers were actually seen in Ukraine, it was more of a ploy to put pressure on Ukrainian President Poroshenko as an attempted invasion."
Is this statement enough to add France as being one of the countries that denies a Russian invasion of Ukraine? Esn ( talk) 13:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
They are clearly not doing combat. It is arguable if they train NAF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 ( talk) 21:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
201.103.94.240 ( talk) 06:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Whoever started this thread is doing a horrible job of building consensus. The only argument seems to be that the information is from sources that they considered biased. Unless you can convince enough editors and build consensus in support of your claim, then this thread is a waste. Myopia123 ( talk) 11:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Whether it is proven or not regarding Russian REGULAR soldiers is not up to Kudzu1. It should be up to the international court. Of course there are Russians fighting in Ukraine, but it is REGULAR soldiers that count. For one thing, I have not seen a single Russian air force bombing sortie on Kiev. Do you?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.200.29 ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 3 April 2015
201.103.94.240 ( talk) 05:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
201.103.94.240 ( talk) 05:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
In Western society, proof is everything. If you don't have proof, then don't put something in the infobox. News articles are not proof. It's like some people claim a Russian Buk shot down MH17, well, that's a CLAIM, that's not a PROOF. You cannot say there are Russian REGULAR soldiers fighting in Ukraine sent by the Russian government unless you have PROOF.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.219.200.144 ( talk) 12:37, 4 April 2015
There is ACCUSATION that there are Russian regular soldiers in Ukraine. There is no proof of this. Not a single Russian regular soldier has ever been captured as proof. Accusations should not be put into the infobox. Only things that are proven should be put into the infobox. This is a matter of ethics and morality. Wikipedia has a responsibility to provide true information to its readers, not unproven accusations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.219.200.144 ( talk) 13:18, 4 April 2015
Poroshenko reviewed the Ukrainian army a couple of days ago and what do you know, we have a photo showing an American flag and an M107 Barrett large caliber sniper rifle. This is proof the US is now involved and supplying lethal arms to Ukraine. This needs to be added to the infobox.
photo proof
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=231579&d=1428313367
207.35.219.34 ( talk) 15:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
How do I sign?
It's only proof that they have american flags in Ukraine. And also, the muzzle does not look like the muzzle of an M107 Barrett. And even if it is, here's video of Berkut police officers using one during the maidan protests, which means there's nothing shocking about M107's in Ukraine. Ipso facto, nothing new here. Myopia123 ( talk) 19:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
201.103.94.240 ( talk) 14:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
201.103.94.240 ( talk) 02:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Neither Ukraine nor Russia have ever declared war. This is an Anti Terror Operation, so it should be called Conflict in Donbas rather than War in Donbas. If it is a war, then both sides are liable to war crimes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 ( talk) 21:51, 13 April 2015
There is no war in Yemen, so why should it be a war in Ukraine? No international organization, by it UN or Red Cross, has the authority to declare a conflict as a war. Only the belligerents have that authority. And that has not happened in Ukraine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 ( talk • contribs)
Quote:
"Between 22 and 25 August, Russian artillery, personnel, and what Russia called a "humanitarian convoy" were reported to have crossed the border into Ukrainian territory without the permission of the Ukrainian government. Crossings were reported to have occurred both in areas under the control of pro-Russian forces and areas that were not under their control, such as the south-eastern part of Donetsk Oblast, near Novoazovsk."
Comments: 1. It clearly should be mentioned that in August there already was a humanitarian crises (catastophe) in Donbass. And the crises was caused by social-economic blockade and by goverment shelling living and densely populated areas of Donetsk, Luhansk and other Donbass cities. 2. Also it shoud be clearly mentioned that Donbass filled with russian and russian-speaking majority. Russian Federation feels deep empathize with them and have obligations to save lives of innocent people. 3. Delete quotes "humanitarian convoy". It was a humanitarian convoy and it was inspected by plenty of organisations (including Red Cross) on russian territory and on the border. 4. Firstly Ukraine agreed the convoy and at the moment the convoy was on the border Ukraine rejected and Russian Federation waited few days for an agreement. 5. Finally there is no any evidences and proofs that there were artillery and personnel in the convoy. Maybe Department of States and Ukraine goverment says that there were but Russian goverment says that there were not artillery and personnel. Until there is no facts it should not be in the article.
Result (please correct gremmar cause English is not my native: "In the beginning of August social and economical blockade of Donbass region and constant 4-month shelling of living and densely populated areas of Donetsk, Luhansk and other Donbass cities by Ukraine goverment caused thousand of deaths of civil people and a humanitarian crises (catastrophe) in the region. At the second decade of August Russian Federation decided to send a humanitarian convoy to Donbass as region populated with russian and russian-speaking majority. Russian Federation got Ukraine goverment permission but later it was revoked. The convoy stand on the border between 22 and 25 August waiting for the permission. It was inspected by Red Cross members and other organisations. Russian humanitarian convoy were reported to have crossed the border into Ukrainian territory without the permission of the Ukrainian government."
both are states, so the terms Ukraine and New Russia should replace the terms government and separatists in the article and the infobox
207.35.219.34 ( talk) 15:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone else read that Russia is withdrawing from all copyright treaties? This is big news because in 2010, 34.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) was Intellectual Property.
173.79.49.64 ( talk) 08:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Ukrainian rada passed motion declaring February 20, 2014 as the first day of the Russian Ukrainian war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9jx4LYpmUbQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.58.89.32 ( talk) 23:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)