Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Russo-Ukrainian War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Article uses Russia Today as sources?

I don't usually edit on Wikipedia any more but I came to read this and was shocked to see claims made using sources from Russia Today. That news source is a well known source of state propaganda and is surely not suitable for Wikipedia? --lincs_geezer (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC) http://rt.com/news/175484-hrw-rockets-killed-civilians/ The same thing http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians. and how can you prove that it is unsuitable for propaganda and wikipedia. can have such a source (www.hrw.org)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Volunteer_Marek what are you doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

http://www.ntv.ru/ + http://rt.com/ + http://lenta.ru/ + http://www.1tv.ru/ and American http://www.hrw.org/ + http://edition.cnn.com/ they all say that the city is destroyed. many cities and a lot of destruction. Why Ukrainian government does not talk about it? Obviously it's their job, this destruction did ukraine. And just because it hides them. Do not complaining anyone and nowhere.

I know it's the wrong English. But I'm sure you understand. Ukraine closes destruction, because it itself caused to them by their. 89.105.158.243 (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Darkness_Shines what are you doing? I use sources in English. This BBC and HRW this may not be a bad source. I also use good media with reference to the BBC and HRW.

U.S. accused Russia every day (without presenting evidence). What problems to use text - Ministry of Defence (Russia) has officially stated..... (open are a lot of evidence)

89.105.158.243 (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

RT is not RS, what with their selective reporting of what HRW actually said, the claims over the use of phosphorus weapons needs better sourcing as neither the RT or the CNN source mention this. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

1) good that you have recognized the BBC and HRW, but your words of several media companies is censorship (+ your personal without any reference to source for censorship. can you tell me that CNN or the BBC do less selective messages? it does not really hard? no no. also selectively). And that means that you have admitted -> error about sources. 2) what's wrong with the Russian Defense Ministry position? The article set accusations Russian Defense Ministry. 3) I'm not going to dispute this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:89.105.158.243&redirect=no 89.105.158.243 (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You cannot dispute it as you are topic banned from these articles, see your talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

that is articles and discussion page.89.105.158.243 (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I would have to agree that Russia Today cannot be the only reference material for this article. just as Times, the Guardian or Al Jazeera would also be inappropriate as a sole source for their respective state affiliations and funding sources. it is perhaps appropriate to mention varying accounts together from the states involved in this conflict so as to establish the foreign policy of those states and the narrative they wish to purposefully craft around the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.224.140 (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Can't we merge this article?

I'm wondering if we need so many articles on events happening in Ukraine. There's already 2014 Crimean crisis which deals with the annexation of Crimea, there's 2014 insurgency in Donbass and also 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.

This article could be easily merged with the Crimean crisis as it was the only Russian military intervention proven so far. If Russian military involvement in Donbass is confirmed, it could go to the proper article.

Actually, I'm wondering why this article exists at all. —Emesik (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

At the time this was created, it was decided to separate the military intervention in Crimea from the protests there. I would not be opposed to a merger, and in fact said that I was in favour of such a merger back then. RGloucester — ☎ 15:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Given how things have turned out, this page really should be merged into the numerous other related articles. As things currently stand, this article consists of redundant information that's scattered all over. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is a mess, and needs to be dealt with. I don't have the guts. Does anyone? RGloucester — ☎ 21:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I can put it up for AfD, the article is already covered in overlapping articles and aside from Crimea (Which has its own articles) the idea of Russia intervening anyplace else is disputed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: I'd support such an AfD, but I fear that there would be too many knee-jerk "keeps" from people not familiar with our articles on the matter. It seems that everyone that has commented here has thought that a merger is the most appropriate idea. All we need is someone with the guts to implement it. RGloucester — ☎ 01:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The only confirmed military intervention by Russia thus far is in Crimea, which already has it's own article. This article needs to go, unless there is further armed intervention by Russia in the future. Constance Lahaye (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if there is (i.e. in the War in Donbass), it can be covered in the appropriate article. It doesn't need a separate article. RGloucester — ☎ 04:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Reads good to me & is well-flowing. All these articles are different, the more variety the better. Dk pdx (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"the more variety the better" - that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate webhost of limitless information. We have standardised guidelines regarding the information that is covered, and "variety" is not a valid excuse to keep a content fork. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This article has to exist. However, it has to be extended and rewritten. Events in Ukraine are pieces of a one big plan and can't be considered separately. It will be honest to write a final version only at the end of this story. Shishkin (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Quote: "This article has to exist" - are you going to give a reason why? Or are you just going to keep your reasoning vague? There is no reason to have duplicated information in multiple places, this is essentially a WP:CONTENTFORK here. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that it is a content fork, is anyone going to do anything about it? RGloucester — ☎ 15:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Benlisquare: @Knowledgekid87: – The article has been nominated for deletion. Please do comment. RGloucester — ☎ 18:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Title

Just a heads up indicating that the article is very unstructured: I find it hard to decide whether the title is justified in this article because of its length and unstructuredness. Where is 'Russian' 'military intervention' justified? I am not trying to start politics here, but how does Wikipedia decide this? Also, I just read an article in which an Indian professor is cited, who claimed that this conflict has claimed max. 20.000 lives in the past 2-3 months. Does anyone have any idea where he could have gotten that idea? The joke is that he also claims that Indian people know nothing of the conflict... here it is: [1] 77.175.64.145 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Additions by Sayerslle (talk · contribs)

Regardless of matters of forking and merging, which will be dealt with shortly, you are not adhering to our policies in your additions. We are not a WP:SOAPBOX for random academics and commentators, such as your Mr Galeotti and Shaun Walker nonsense. Citing Twitter and Youtube are absolutely unacceptable in this instance (WP:SELFSOURCED), as well. Please try and maintain WP:NPOV, and don't give WP:UNDUE weight to the positions of non-notable people. RGloucester — ☎ 14:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

guardian journalists and academics - why do you write 'your mr galeotti and shaun walker nonsense' ? - I am not 'citing twitter and youtube' - I am citing guardian journalists and academics - you might as well have said in jesus time 'oh you cant cite papyrus, anything on papyrus is nonsense ' or something - I think you should allow other editors to edit really and stop bloody well laying down the law the whole time in a very irritated and untolerant tone too. shaun walker is after al the guardian journalist who is actually there and you have the gall to say 'we don't care about his nonsense' -?! - absurd really - Sayerslle (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not intolerant of anything other than policy violations. I just know that we don't cite opinion pieces, and we don't serve as a soapbox for non-notable commentators, as our policy says. RGloucester — ☎ 15:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

well, citing shaun walker, guardian journalist there on the ground - I think that is useful and notable source-is galeotti non-notable - I don't know - he finds his material gets published doesn't he? Sayerslle (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It is simple. We cite reliable secondary sources for facts. We do not voice or cite journalistic opinion pieces. We can report the positions of the involved parties, and of international organisations. The quotation from Rasmussen is an example of the proper type of position we can use. Journalistic editorials are not acceptable, though. We present facts, not commentary, and allow the reader to come to his or her own conclusions about those facts. This is the nature of an encyclopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 15:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

stop lecturing/hectoring me all the time - your 'war in donbass' article has 'beginning beginning' in the first few sentences - looks sloppy really , repeating the word like that for no reason, it is simple, we dont repeat words for no bloody reason, - concentrate on your own edits and stop lecturing others. Sayerslle (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It isn't "my article", and there has been edit warring over the past day with regard to the lead, which I didn't have anything to do with to start with. I don't know what you are going on about. I'm not "lecturing" anyone. I'm trying to enforce guidelines and policy, which is what is supposed to happen on Wikipedia. I don't know how I've offended you, but please spare me the childish behaviour. RGloucester — ☎ 16:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

'I'm trying to enforce guidelines and policy, which is what is supposed to happen on Wikipedia' - what about not addressing users in talkpage headlines then Wikipedia:TALKNEW - #hypocrite - you say I'm a kind of obsessed crusader, you invoke the Lord to help you understand my incoherent writing, you say I add nonsense , you accuse me of childish behavior - and then write 'I don't know how I've offended you ' - I mean ffs - you are self-unaware to a massive degree imo. -

oh, heres more 'nonsense' on twitter -

'Leonid Ragozin @leonidragozin · 45m

Russia doesn't supply any military hardware to DNR - Putin's spokesman Peskov responds to DNR's message of gratitude. http://m.kp.ru/online/news/1820609/ … --'

Sayerslle (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at sources like this, and they tell that the war has already started at approximatly August 10. My very best wishes (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Related deletion discussion

A new fork of this article, titled Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014), was created. I've nominated it for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014). RGloucester — ☎ 16:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a fork.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to create any more articles on this subject but...

... maybe split off the "reactions" stuff? It just takes up a whole bunch of space here and most of is very outdated. Instead, in this particular article we'd have a prose paragraph describing the general nature of reactions. For example that paragraph in the lede which lists all the countries could go in it. That way the content here would be more manageable and it'd be easier to focus on the key elements of this article. Thoughts? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2014

This edit request to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Simply a linking error:

The local population and the media referred to them as "martians" or "little green men".

should be

The local population and the media referred to them as "martians" or "little green men".

Martian is not used for people from mars, but as a synonym of "Little green men". Nicolas.dirisio (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I don't think double linking to the same article makes sense but did delink martian. Also moved little green men up in the sentence Cannolis (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If you don't know what you are talking about, don't talk. "Little green men" in Russian is the most common phrase for "extraterrestials" (much like "the Greys" is in US). So both "martians" and "LGM" nicknames there actually do refer to that -- and to their disputed existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.214.16.205 (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If 100 Rusian

If 100 Rusian can defeat Ukrainian army what can do 5 milons? ... the article is completly misleding duplicating existing art. The propaganda line is to group Crimeria anexation with current aleged events.

The Z line of prop, known from earlier ops, aparently is this.

whie we(Z) ruin cities kill anybody, we report aterroist op progres (ATO), and they use of human shields
we take teritory we report mass graves and blame is on kiling by them. (publik can not conclude thy may be pple killed by us)
we retreat we report killing of cyvilians, destruction on property, and how they killing us by trachery.

IMO it looks like the Z goal is to kill as m.a.p. 'own' people . Which can have explanation if you follow what do Z. For any usurper their 'own' people are they biggest anemy. 73.50.83.60 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. (Also, your comment is incomprehensible). Volunteer Marek 20:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Euromaidan Movement

My edit was reverted here with the tag that it was POV. I have added a source which says that President Yanukovych's government which was democratically elected was ousted. It is common knowledge that the government was democratically elected. I dont understand how stating that becomes POV. I have reverted the edit. Please discuss it here. --Drajay1976 (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't yet decided if this change was correct or not, but our article on Viktor Yanukovych claims that he was removed from office by the parliament(which would be a legal process and not undemocratic). 331dot (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That does not contradict the statement in this article. I only said in this article that his government was democratically elected, not that it was ousted by undemocratic means. If the question of the ouster (whether it was democratic or not) comes, the wikipedia article should give both sides of the story which our article on Yanukovych does. --Drajay1976 (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The article on Yanukovych also mentions the argument that constitutional provisions were not followed in the removal. But the constitutionality of the removal of the government is not the question here. I dont think my edit (which was reverted) was POV. It the community consensus is that it was POV, it should be removed. But please convince me how a statement of fact becomes POV. --Drajay1976 (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The way that is worded seems to me that it would be like saying, had it occurred, that Mitt Romney ousted a democratically elected government(of Barack Obama) or that the Republican Revolution in 1994 ousted a democratically elected government. It suggests that the "ousting" was not legally or otherwise legitimate, or that it was somehow undemocratic. If the process was democratic it isn't necessary to state that a democratically elected government was "ousted" as the legitimate processes were used to change the government, not "oust" it. I think that is the POV issue that was cited by whomever removed the statement. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between democratic elections and this process in my opinion which warrants a term like "toppled" which was used in the article or "ousted". Let me put forward a more appropriate (in my opinion) example. Had the occupy wall street like protests in the DC (had it happened that way) forced Barack Obama to run away from Washington and for the congress to declare him "removed" (without following the proper procedure of impeachment), then it would be okay to say that Barack Obama was "toppled". Can you suggest a better term instead of "toppled" there? Is "....the success of the Euromaidan movement which led to the removal of a democratically elected government" acceptable?--Drajay1976 (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That sounds a bit better than 'ousted' and I won't stand in the way of using that, but I still don't think it necessary to make the obvious statement that a democratically elected government was removed through democratic procedures, as every transfer of power based in law removes a democratically elected government in favor of another one; that is what is supposed to happen. As I said, however, not using 'ousted' is enough of an improvement for me. Congress cannot validly declare the President removed without impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate; that would be a 'toppling'; if you are saying that is what has happened here, then several changes need to be made in many articles(including Poroshenko's as he would then not be the legal President). 331dot (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Changed it to the removal of a democratic government. Hope it would be acceptable to everyone. The fact that the removal of Yanukovych did not fully follow the procedures laid down in the constitution of the country is obvious. He still claims that he is the legitimate head of government. So there is a difference of opinion regarding the legality of Poroshenko. The wiki articles only need to mention the difference of opinion. The protests itself was somewhat undemocratic because the support base of Yanukovych was not from around Kiev. A somewhat similar thing happened in Pakistan before it split in two. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had won the majority in the undivided Pakistan assembly, but all his seats were from the east Pakistan (Bangladesh today). The capital of Pakistan was in the west. Those in the west Pakistan did not want to be ruled by someone from the east who spoke another language. This lead to violent suppression of the population of the east by the west dominated military, the Indian intervention and subsequent division of the country. --Drajay1976 (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It'd be nice to explain why it is necessary to have this information in the introduction. Why is it necessary? As what was said previously, it's obvious that it was a so-called "democratically" elected government that was impeached democratically. Thus it is not necessary to have this in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciophobiaranger (talk • contribs) 00:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sciophobiaranger, in my opinion the information is necessary in the lead because the fact that the government was constitutionally elected is relevant and very important. The fact that the process adopted in removing the government was unconstitutional is also very important. The fact that a government with the support of the majority of the electorate was toppled is a very important fact. It needs to be mentioned in the body of the article - a short description needs to be there in the lead also. --Drajay1976 (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The changes made in this edit were partially reversed. The word "impeachment" was replaced with "removal" as the impeachment process did not meet the constitutional requirements. References were provided. The fact that the government of Yanukovych was democratically elected and was not some dictatorship is of importance. So the part " the democratically elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych" was restorted. Please discuss the matter here as per WP:BRD. Please do not make any further changes without a consensus. Otherwise this may degenerate into an edit war and we may have to go for mediation. --Drajay1976 (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The wording is obviously meant to push a POV. Anyway, we're supposed to be trying to shorten the lede and clean up this mess, not over extend it (again!) and make it even more confusing. Save the arguments for the body of the text. Volunteer Marek 04:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

When the wording is "Russia intervened in Ukraine on several fronts following the events of the February 2014 Ukrainian revolution and the success of the Euromaidan movement" it is obviously pushing a POV. By changing it to "Russia intervened in Ukraine on several fronts following the events of the February 2014 Ukrainian revolution and the success of the Euromaidan movement which led to the disputed removal of President Viktor Yanukovych", we are actually removing a POV. Stating the fact that something is disputed does not make it POV pushing. --Drajay1976 (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It's POV because it is trying to emphasize this "dispute". It's trying to lead the reader to believe that the removal was unsupported (despite all the votes in parliament for it). Actually the "disputed" is already implied and leaving it out simply doesn't emphasize it. Volunteer Marek 04:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

But if we do not use the term "dispute", the reader would be led to believe that there was no dispute at all and it was in complete agreement with the constitutional provisions (that would be a POV in my opinion). How can the fact that there are two opinions about the constitutionality of the removal be included without emphasizing either side of the argument? --Drajay1976 (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The lead itself mentions other disputes - ".... annexed Crimea following a disputed status referendum." Clarifying that the referendum was disputed is clearly not POV pushing, but a statement of fact. The same logic applies here as well. I reinserted the term "disputed" in the first sentence of the lead. --Drajay1976 (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, if it's just the word "disputed" without any editorializing or undue detail, I'm ok with it. Volunteer Marek 06:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Move request: "interventions"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: discussion archived, not moved —innotata 17:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine → 2014 Russian military interventions in Ukraine – As the deletion discussion regarding Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) has been closed with no consensus to nix the page, I propose moving this page to the new title to better convey that it covers both the military intervention in Crimea (in February and March) and the military intervention in Donbass (from August to present), with daughter articles (2014 Crimean crisis and Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) specific to both. Kudzu1 (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose and Alternative: Since many of the alleged interventions are described as claims in nearly all RS, the best title would be Alleged 2014 Russian military interventions in Ukraine.Haberstr (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Support It would solve the redundancy problem (both in the content and name) without any deviation from the nature of the events. And as there have been 2 military interventions (in Crimea and in Donbass), it makes sense that "intervention" can be renamed as "interventions".Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose – "Intervention" in the singular form does not need to be made plural. The singular form implies an ongoing intervention over-all, which is an accurate reflection of what has happened. There have been multiple events under a broad umbrella of Russian intervention, therefore necessitating the singular for continuity. RGloucester — ☎ 05:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Support. "Interventions" describe the events more accurately. We may have to move the article again as this is likely to extend into 2015 as well. Like it was stated above, the article already mentions two interventions, in Donbass and in Crimea which are two distinct events. As for the alternative suggested, whether the interventions are factual or alleged, it can be detailed in the body of the article, no need to take it to the title. --Drajay1976 (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - the English idiom (?) doesn't discount a sense of interventions, plural, far from it - just seems unnecessary finesse-ing - Sayerslle (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Dispute" regarding the impeachment

The word "dispute" and the references in support of it are being removed repeatedly (the last example). The matter has been discussed in the talk page (see the section above). It is a fact that there is a dispute regarding the impeachment. Why would it be POV when a fact is stated? Similar disputes are recorded in the lead itself elsewhere (annexation "of Crimea following a disputed status referendum" for example).

The edit summary of the diff posted above is this "took out sentence that seems not relevant to subject of article and irrelevant bits added for pov only- would article on invasion of Poland begin 'hitler invaded, the winner of a plebiscite in early 1930s '? - rubbish". It is incomprehensible!!! What is the editor trying to say here? That the dispute regarding the impeachment of Yanukovych is similar to a plebiscite which Hitler won (???) before invading poland? Did Yanukovych invade Ukraine? Did he win a plebiscite? The wikipedia article only stated that the impeachment of Yanukovych was disputed!!

It is even possible that there is some sock puppetry going on here. --Drajay1976 (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with using 'disputed' as it is indeed disputed, or at least was at the time(I think Russia has now acknowledged Poroshenko, but until the election kept saying Yanukovych was the legit leader). 331dot (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

drajay , for all your bluster, look at the sentence about the 328-0 vote - it was written up 'in a certain way' - an RT way , - anyhow the article title is about Russian military intervention in ukraine and you seem intent only in setting out Moscows analysis of recent history. I would simply have a link to the relevant article about this stuff and stick to Russian military intervention here. Sayerslle (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course the removal was disputed, and that's one of the reasons there's a war now in Ukraine. -Darouet (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

yes, of course, putin for one disputes it, or did, or whatever, - subject , the bleedin' obvious - but the vote was apparently 328-0and drajay left that bit out - if its going to be gone into here it should be done properly and not sort of edited in a RT way,- imo this article should be exclusively concentrating anyhow on Russian actions in Ukraine and leave the 'background' - heres a discussion of 'background' darjay - [3] - Sayerslle (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sayerslle, whatever way that sentence is written, does it show that there is no "dispute"? Does it warrant any mention of hitler, plebiscite and rubbish?? Look at the way the sentence is written now. A vote to remove Yanukovych from office emerged 328-0. Abstentions and absences meant that the vote was 10 short of three-quarters of the Parliament members, a formal requirement of Article 11, a circumstance Yanukovych and the Russian government seized on to claim negligibility for the vote and reason to ignore the clear majority position You are clearly editorializing here.

Why the insistence that it is "formal"? Are there "informal" requirements in a constitution? Does the constitution of of Ukraine make a distinction between requirements which are formal and which are not? If such a violation of the constitution happens in any country, it would be questioned in a constitutional court. Some constitutional court judges were dismissed immediately after the disputed impeachment, but that is another matter, a sideshow of the dispute.
Abstentions and absences do not mean what you are trying to imply (a POV). The required number of votes in most parliaments is counted after discounting abstentions and absences. Was it not so in Ukraine? Does any reference say what you are saying here (Abstentions and absences meant that the vote was 10 short...)???
Is it only Yanukovych and the Russian government which raised this circumstance? Here an independent observer says that it was unconstitutional. Here another RS says that the impeachment may have been unconstitutional for another reason, who assumed power after Yanukovych was removed.
The constitution of Ukraine does not say that a "clear majority position" is sufficient to remove a president. So whatever dispute is there may have legitimacy. Anyway, the language you used above is not at all supported by any of the references and you are inserting original research.
One source says that the Article of the Constitution concerned is Article 111, not Article 11. It may be wrong information which need not be included.

But as wikipedia editors, our concern to write an encyclopedia without POV pushing. You are clearly doing the opposite. I propose that the bold quote above must be completely rewritten. Let me propose a draft.

A vote to remove Yanukovych from office emerged 328-0. The vote was 10 short of three-quarters of the Parliament members, the requirement of the Constitution of Ukraine. Yanukovych claimed that the vote was unconstitutional because of this issue.

Please suggest modifications. I would like to request you to keep the conversation civil. --Drajay1976 (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sayerslle, you can include the information in the youtube video in the article if have that in any reliable sources. And I did not leave any bit out. The information was clearly given in a Note. --Drajay1976 (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

'clear majority position' - that's in the source you , or whoever it was, provided, - not editorializing, as for the rest I think its perfectly in the content and spirit of the source , which your version totally mis-represented, no? - - your version was the pov version really wasn't it ( oh, I added it - in a note' - ffs - - I think its so bleedin obvious your pov, its absurd you saying ' oh, miss, sayeslles pushing a pov and I just want neutral stuff, totally' - yeah, right. and what is the sockpuuppet stuff accusation - I am not a sockpuppet o.k. - how does sockpuppetry work darjay? I dont go there myself. any version that at least mentions the 328-0 is better than what was before imo, if it has to be gone into at all in this article, which is about Russian military intervention. Sayerslle (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sayerslle, Supplying information in a foot note is a legitimate way of doing things in Wikipedia. By the way, if anyone has a reference which says that Russian government said that the vote was unconstitutional, that fact can also be added in my opinion. As of now, the inline references given at the end of the sentence do not state that Russia specifically challenged the constitutionality of the vote. --Drajay1976 (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Inserted the proposed draft in the article. --Drajay1976 (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

See another removal of "dispute"? I am reinserting the word. --Drajay1976 (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Sciophobiaranger is systematically removing the word "dispute" first and then removing the inline citations which support the usage of the term "disputed". Please discuss it in the talk page. --Drajay1976 (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Citation overkill, we need to add inline citations for anything that is challenged or even likely to be challenged. The fact that the impeachment of Yanukovych was disputed is repeatedly being challenged in this article. See this section and the section above. A statement which is challenged NEEDS supporting inline citations. Please dont remove either the word "disputed" or the citations which support it. --Drajay1976 (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

'even likely to be challenged' - that could be everything - Russia does not recognize its role in the conflict, any direct involvement, - on the Russian prisoners there was a sentence , with a RS - and then you add loads to set out russias explaining how, since they are not directly involved in the conflict, how this came about, and then lay out their latest story, and other extraneous stuff you think belongs. I find it a bit unbalancing, - in any case, the narrative of the last two weeks of august deserves setting out explicitly in the article that's for sure , with every detail supported by as many RS as possible - 'The Ukrainians said that regular Russian troops were crossing the border, a contention supported by western intelligence reports. More and more stories are being written in the Russian press too about soldiers killed in action in Ukraine, though the Russian government flatly denies that any regular soldiers—as opposed to volunteers who have come on their own—have crossed the frontier. However not only is there mounting evidence of the presence of regular Russian soldiers but the fact that the military situation has changed so rapidly also suggests the rebels have acquired new strength.' Sayerslle (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sayerslle, in your edit summary here, you say that you are "cutting a bit of surplus - per the title of the article". Can you explain? Ten Russian troops were captured inside Ukraine (fact 1). You want this fact alone to be there in the article. You don't want the fact that Ukrainian troops were captured inside Russia (fact 2) to be there in the article. It is a bit unbalancing (to use your own words). When the statement in the article is about a troop exchange and you mention the number of Russian troops exchanged, it is perfectly alight to mention the number of Ukrainian troops also. I have reinserted the number of Ukrainian troops exchanged. If you are suggesting that for the number of Ukrainian troops to find mention in a Wikipedia article, another unnecessary fork by name "Ukrainian military intervention in Russia" has to be created, I disagree with your point of view. --Drajay1976 (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

the count of Ukrainian troops exchanged was again reverted by Sayerslle. Please discuss it here. --Drajay1976 (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

look at the title of the article - given that, why is this detail so vital to you to be set out exactly. I don't get it. Sayerslle (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that one should start an article with the title "Ukrainian Military Intervention in Russia" to include this information? The article clearly says that there was a troop exchange. The number of Russian troops exchanged is given in the article. Since it is an exchange, the number of Ukrainian troops exchanged has equal importance. The title has nothing to do with it. I don't get why you want to suppress the number of Ukrainian troops involved in the exchange. --Drajay1976 (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

POV tag attached.

This article is the anti-Russian perspective on recent events in Ukraine. From paragraph one the article decides that, apparently, Russian "special forces" (who? what? weren't they the mostly naval personnel already on the peninsula?) "took over" Crimea. That's the Western perspective, and it is an allegation or claim. Russia also makes a claim, that its personnel already there supported and backed up local security and defense personnel inside Crimea. An NPOV entry on a topic with two radically opposed perspectives MUST balance between the two perspectives, except where it is relaying facts. A couple sentences later "unmarked troops and military vehicles from Russia" acted in eastern Ukraine. Yes, but this article is about the Russian government's intervention, not actions by Russian private citizens, and it is a _claim_ that those "unmarked" troops are Russian government troops. That distinction and the fact that we don't know what the real story is would be upfront and clear in an NPOV entry on this topic, but instead it is unstated. Then there is this: "Russia sought to distance itself from allegations of military involvement in Ukraine, despite evidence presented by Western governments and media outlets." But no, Russia didn't 'seek to distance itself', it rejected ... and not 'despite' the evidence. It attacked the evidence is weak or non-existent. Why isn't Russia's perspective allowed in? Next sentence: "During the Crimean crisis, the Russian government insisted ..." No, it didn't INSIST, you need to use NPOV language: It SAID. Next sentence: "Despite this, ..." is unnecessary prosecutorial language. Why not just write, "Later Russia admitted..." Then there's this:

Many of the separatist insurgents are Russian citizens,[66] and American and Ukrainian officials said they had evidence of Russian interference in Ukraine, including intercepted communications between Russian officials and Donbass insurgents.[67] The SBU claims key commanders of the rebel movement during this time, including Igor Strelkov and Igor Bezler are Russian agents.[68][69]

"Many"? What does that mean? The NYTimes article used as a source doesn't include the word "many," but it does include this: "almost all the original Russian leaders of the rebellion have resigned and gone home, replaced by Ukrainians of dubious qualifications." Doesn't that translate into 'few' or, charitably, 'some'? And where is the Russian response to the US/Ukraine allegations in sentence one of the blockquote? Non-existent in this Wikipedia entry even though RS sources allow Russia to respond and vociferously attack the other side's 'evidence'. And the concluding sentence, should bald assertions without any evidence always be allowed into a Wikipedia article? Doesn't this at some point become 'piling on' (yes, it does)? Anyway, the POV goes on and on and on as anyone neutral knows.Haberstr (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC) Other evidence provided for POV bias here: [4].Haberstr (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

One more time. You are simply complaining that reliable sources do not say what you want them to say. That is not a valid complaint and not a reason to tag the article. That's a straight-up WP:IDONTLIKEIT and insisting on the tag is disruptive.

It is also NOT true that a neutral article must present "balanced" view of the subject. We don't "balance" the article on the shape of the earth by including stuff about how it could be flat. A neutral article is one which reflects reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 12:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And of course this has already been discussed above so you are just being tendentious. Volunteer Marek 12:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Marek, you don't realize the following three things: RS state the intervention claims as claims, therefore Wikipedia entries should do likewise. It is OR to take those claims, stated as claims by virtually all RS, and turn them into 'fact'. Second, the previous 'pov tag attached' subsection proves that there is a real issue (not a 'just being tendentious' one) being presented here, because people take my side and the discussion is relatively balanced 'for' and 'against'. Three, the POV tag is KEPT when there is not a consensus to remove it, and ESPECIALLY when there is a fairly balanced disagreement on whether or not it should be placed above a section or entry.Haberstr (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This whole article is a disaster, and needs the attention of professional editors who are not Russian or Ukrainian nationalists. Please keep the POV notice on the article until it has been improved. -Darouet (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The tag already there indicates the article is in a state of kind of flux - its 'disaster'ness is perhaps because editors keep arguing instead of researching in RS for content for a good article - instead of which, kind of 'tankies', I think they are called, - just seek to deface the article , and tag it and scream that putin is a fountain of truth or something - what 'professional editors' darouet- this is volunteers I thought , amateurs - I doubt seymuor hersh is going to show up to explain the whole situation accurately for usSayerslle (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

nobody says putin is a fountain of truth nor western media shoud be considered so.Mnt (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Darouet, I am neither a Russian nor Ukrainian nationalist and I guess I am sort of a professional editor (not sure what that means on a volunteer project like Wikipedia). At your service.

@Haberstr, while RS do say that Ukraine has claimed intervention, they also state that to some extent or another, Russia has been intervening. Only a (censored) would argue that Russia has not been intervening in Ukraine (in both Donbass and Crimea) so it's not exactly surprising that they state that. POV tags are kept when there are policy based reasons for it and editors are capable of articulating these. They are spurious and disruptive when they are added because someone's unhappy that the article doesn't fit their own particular POV. Volunteer Marek 13:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I am also not a Russian or Ukrainian nationalist, but I can read reliable sources and they do not say what Haberstr wants them to say. If there is not enough information about Russian denials or Russian explanations for what is going on, then we can talk about that, but reliable sources are quite clear (including the US government) that there are Russian troops and equipment in Ukraine. Russia doesn't need to admit this for it to be true. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and even if there are sources with Russia's claim of un-involvement those are presented in the article too to counter WP:UNDUE correct? We cant just take out one side and keep the other point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
331dot, you can raise the level of debate by avoiding bare statements and working on facts. For example, do most RS say that Russian "special forces" intervened in Crimea, or do most RS describe that as a claim by reporters or other 'observers'? Do most RS say "special forces" "took over" Crimea, or do they categorize this as a claim and then cite evidence for the claim? Do RS call intervention by the Russian military in eastern Ukraine as a fact, or as a claim backed by evidence? Feel free to answer the preceding questions, and/or deal with any of the other factual claims I make in the long entry at the top of this section.Haberstr (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Russian forces - [5] - its not a 'claim' -its a fact isn't it? blimey, are you more denialist than Putin himself? that's a feat. Sayerslle (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You clearly don't need me to answer your questions for you, and even if you did, I doubt we will see eye to eye on this so I see little point in arguing about it. 331dot (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)