Jump to content

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Neutral title pt. 2 - Ukrainian Civil War?

As far as I can tell, this article is the article that reviews all military conflicts in Ukraine since the apparent Russian seizure of strategic locations in Crimea, all the way to the conflict in the east today. These events include some confrontations in Crimea as the region held a referendum and effectively seceded, the anti-Kiev demonstrations and occupations throughout southern and eastern Ukraine, the counter-insurgency campaign from Kiev, the declaration of independence in some regions in the east, and what has been described as a civil war in publications on both sides. It also includes Russia's involvement in events, which this article focuses on while, perhaps due to the article's title, giving less attention to other aspects of the conflict.

I'd propose that this article either be renamed to "2014 Ukraine conflict," or that an article of that name be created to address the full scope of the events since Crimea, so that this article can specialize and focus only on the Russian military intervention. If this article really purports to be the history of the entire conflict, it is now systematically skewed to focus only on Russian intervention. -Darouet (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't purport to be a history of the "entire conflict", which doesn't exist. It is merely an article about the Russian intervention in two parts of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine: the 2014 Crimean crisis and War in Donbass. The umbrella article is 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 17:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
There isn't any prove or sources of somesort of civil war inside Ukraine.
Like there isn't any prove, sources or even indications that conducts of warfare or that tanks, grad-missle systems used to fight the Ukranian military where propretary of or used by citizens of Ukraine.
There is also no prove or sources that the constant schelling from inside Russia over the border into Ukraine was conducted by Ukrainian citizens that moved higly advanced weapenary from Ukraine to Russia, to start shelling Ukraine from inside Russia.
This page is about all and non-stop Russian military interventions/warconducts in Ukraine between februari 2014 and present.
This page is also about the period between march and july 2014 and not only the scaling up of the military interventions/warconducts by Russia observed in august.
This page is not sub-page of the 'war in Donbas'-page or category, that is POV puching...--Niele (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
This is getting tiresome, Niele. Since I was around at the inception of both 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and War in Donbass, I think I know what they are about. 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine is an overview article that documents the origin of the present events across eastern and southern Ukraine. In two areas of Ukraine, Donbass and Crimea, the unrest escalated. In Donbass, it escalated into the War in Donbass, and in Crimea, into the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Russian militarily intervened in both the 2014 Crimean crisis and the War in Donbass, which is why this article is a sub-article of those two articles. The conflicts existed prior to Russian military intervention. RGloucester — ☎ 18:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
But there we come to the core of you're bias.
You state that the 'conflicts existed prior to Russian military intervention'.
That is the assumption that you make, for wich there is no prove. And you did not question it beceause in the beginning of the conflict the Russion actions were still consceilled.
In reality there was no war before Russian fighters got involved.
  • It were Russian soldiers stationed in Sebestopol that were the Little Green Man that took over the Krim parlement, airports and streets. Not some Ukrainian civilians.
  • We don't know the extend of the Russian involvment in spurring unrest, protests, occupations in Ukraine. :::::But we do know that acts of warfare in the east after the first Russian fighters from Chechnya and Russia came over the border in April an May. We also know that virtual all million dollar tanks and BUK-missle-systems that were used from the beginning of war came from over the border in Russia. We also know that the well-trained soldiers in this tanks and missle systems speak NOT with an Donbas/Ukrainian accent, but with inner-Russian and caucasus accent. And a lot's of other evidence is showing up. But there isn't any prove that the conducts of warfare in the donbass area were done by local Ukrainian people. We also know that at least from june/juli there was constant shelling from inside Russia into Ukraine.
So there is actually more evidence that the Russian intervention IS the war and not a reaction to a civil Donbas war.
But you rule that out, without any evidence to rule that out. And changing wikipedia to that beliefs without evidence and fighting everyone who tries to report the scale of the Russion participation/actions while trying to provide evidence. And by doing so you are POV-pushing. Perhaps without even knowing it...--Niele (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you not listening? This article isn't about the war. That article is War in Donbass. Anyway, whether it is a "civil war" is greatly disputed by many parties, not least of all the Ukrainians themselves. RGloucester — ☎ 18:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester , I am voicing my opinion here, after reading the earlier comments. The ongoing event cannot in my opinion be described as just "War in Donbass". War in Donbass is a Civil war, but the title of that article does not reflect that reality. It is my opinion that this article should be renamed to accommodate the causes and circumstances of this civil war. Many countries and groups of nations have intervened in the conflict by aiding the Ukrainian government directly or indirectly. That aspect is only obliquely referred to in the article. I dont think that there is the need to create another article to cover Western assistance to Ukrainian government to cover that aspect. Widening the ambit of this article rather than confining it to Russian involvement which is anyway adequately covered in other articles such as War in Donbass and Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation is desirable in my opinion. If this article is about the civil war, some details about the background can also be included such as the support and opposition about joining the EU within the country. The plank on which Yanukovych contested and won the elections is an important background to the civil war. There are many such elements which an article on the civil war in Ukraine can cover but the article on the War in Donbass cannot. Let us keep this a discussion to reach a consensus and not a place where some talk and all others listen. --Drajay1976 (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
If your objection is to the term "civil war", which many reliable sources have used (but is disputed by some of the parties involved), can you suggest a better term? --Drajay1976 (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, the idea that there is a "civil war" is contested by many reliable sources, like Amnesty International.[1] That is a PoV title that is unacceptable in every respect. Regardless, background information is covered at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. That article covers the initial protests, the reasons for the protests, &c. That is the whole raison-d'etre of that article. We do not need a new article to cover information that is already covered. RGloucester — ☎ 19:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that both of you, RGloucester and Drajay1976, are making some really good points. Drajay, while I agree that there's a civil war going on, the entirety of the conflict from Maidan and Crimea through to Donbass and the present is larger than the present civil war. For that reason, I really do believe that 2014 Ukraine conflict, or something similar, is a stronger title. RGloucester, I hear what you're saying about the coverage of articles such as 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, 2014 Crimean crisis and War in Donbass. However, just reviewing the structure of this article, we see:

  • a background section addressing Maidan,
  • a section on Crimea,
  • a Donbass section that begins with building occupations in March 2014,
  • and reactions sections.

Drajay is right that it would be silly to create a separate article for western involvement in the conflict, when this article really covers the whole conflict from Maidan to today and could easily incorporate other forms of involvement besides Russian. RGloucester, there are plenty of sources that use the term "civil war," but I don't see how a semantic debate over that term in a larger review article helps anyone.

If this article is really to focus only on Russian involvement, I think it'd be helpful to create the review article that puts this entire conflict together. -Darouet (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We have that article. It is called 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. How many times must I say it? RGloucester — ☎ 19:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The pro-Russian unrest is about the civil unrest before military involvment and warconduct. So both the crimeacrisis and the war at the Russo-Ukrainean border ar not part of that unrest. There is no war in Karkiv or Odessa beceause there didn't went any military fighters and Russian tanks/BUK-systems to that places.--Niele (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. But it provides an overview of the whole situation, and how the unrest escalated into war and annexation in certain areas, as one will see if one reads it. RGloucester — ☎ 22:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
My 2¢: I agree with RGloucester's comments. "Ukrainian Civil War" is not only a POV name, it's a name for something other than the event this article is about. (Hence, oppose the suggested rename.) -sche (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am new to Wikipedia so I may be misunderstanding, but if we are on the bring of going from "Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014)" to Ukrainian Civil War, then is a sad state of affairs indeed. If someone wants to start a new article about the civil war aspects of the conflict, then be my guest. But I'll be damned if Russian soldiers in Ukraine will somehow be labeled on Wikipedia as a bloody Civil War. As I mentioned before, Russian intervention is a complete euphemism already for an invasion already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.94.85 (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Iryna Harpy. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy, there is a hatnote in Ukrainian War of Independence redirecting to War in Donbass which was not inserted by me!! It is the reverse of what I suggested. Do you hold the same disapproval about that too? --Drajay1976 (talk) 04:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
A lot of lists and articles in wikipedia already describe the War in Donbass as Civil war - for example see List of civil wars#Ongoing civil wars. It meets all the criteria for civil war (given in the wikipedia article on civil war). There are a lot of WP:RS in wikipedia as inline citations which describe the war as a civil war. Foreign assistance to one side does not make a civil war something else. It is still a civil war if the number of annual deaths reach a particular limit (1000) and there are two sides in a nation state fighting for control of a territory. If Iryna Harpy or anyone else feel that to term the situation there as "Civil War" is WP:BOLLOCKS or WP:OR, they may want to look into a lot of other articles. They may also want to take up the issue with WP:RS like Forbes and Time for using that "label". A BBC News article points out that there are many nationalities fighting for the rebels. Correctly labeling this as a Civil war does not mean that Russian governemnt is not intervening or that Russian troops are not fighting in Donbass. Confining the article to the intervention by Russian government alone (when there are two other articles -2014 Crimean crisis and War in Donbass- dealing with the same subject) is reason enough to merge these to articles with this article. On the other hand, this article can stand alone if its scope is expanded. --Drajay1976 (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You're not listening. NOT what this article is about. Volunteer Marek  04:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 Volunteer Marek , you are not listening. The content of this article is already covered in two other articles -2014 Crimean crisis and War in Donbass. In my opinion, the scope of this article needs to be expanded further to cover non Russian interventions as well. --Drajay1976 (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Drajay1976: Before your response becomes even more convoluted, I understand that you are suggesting that "Ukrainian Civil War" be used as a WP:TITLE based on some confused articles (and possibly based on the Red Cross referred to it as a 'civil war' a few months ago: at which point a number of contributors decided that one source was adequate to jump-the-gun and rename the Donbass conflict to Ukrainian civil war) and a brief, sketchy couple of paragraphs in Time written by David Stout, and equally sketchy couple of paragraphs by a newbie contributor to Forbes, Kenneth Rapoza, (whose only other published article is this and who doesn't seem to have any other credentials) can be considered WP:RS. Incidentally, the BBC article, in citing the number of nationalities involved, is the perfect example of why it cannot possibly be considered a civil war... and, most tellingly, does not describe or imply that the conflict is a civil war.

Now, could you explain how this article, examining explicit or implicit Russian military intervention in Ukraine, could possibly be reinterpreted as being 'Ukrainian Civil War'? What this suggests to me is that you haven't done much in the way of comprehensive reading about what is going on and have concluded that it can be simplistically interpreted as Russophone Ukrainians (ipso facto, pro Russian) and Ukrainian speakers (ipso facto: pro Ukrainian government) fighting it out amongst themselves as to whether they want to stay a part of the Ukrainian nation-state or become federations dependent on the Russian Federation. If that's your reading of the situation, not only is it incorrect but straight up WP:OR. Ukrainian Civil War makes no sense in any context. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Gawd, if you've accomplished anything here, it's to alert us to the fact that articles such as List of civil wars#Ongoing civil wars have added unreferenced and uninformed content (notably, tracking the history it seems to be IP contributors developing this article). Time for a clean up of this mess! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Iryna Harpy, your argument that it is not a civil war seems to be based on the assumption that when a third country interferes militarily in a civil war, it ceases to be a civil war. That is your opinion (WP:OR even). The definitions of a civil war are given in the wiki article on that. The situation in Ukraine meets all the definitions. Cambodian Civil War does not cease to be a civil war because North Vietnam was involved. Pakistan civil war is a civil war even though India intervened. I had stated this point in posts above. It may have escaped your notice. The argument that it is not a civil war because Russian troops and tanks are involved is flawed. To borrow some of your words, "Russophone Ukrainians (ipso facto, pro Russian)" with considerable help from the Russian government and other "Ukrainians (ipso facto: pro Ukrainian government)" are fighting it out in Ukraine. And this is a civil war. --Drajay1976 (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy, do clean up the other articles. The minimum that I require is consistency across wikipedia articles. The criteria for calling an unrest a civil war is NOT that there should be no foreign troops there. You may want to look into that aspect as well. There are dozens of articles on civil war in wikipedia were another country has intervened militarily. --Drajay1976 (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Drajay1976, I'm sure you're aware that, per WP:WINARS, invoking other articles is not relevant to this article. The article defining civil war is a technical/theoretical article. The articles surrounding recent events in Ukraine are also proscribed by WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. While I appreciate that you are not being cavalier in your arguments, and apologise for coming across as being discourteous, I don't see the approach you've suggested as being a constructive one at this point. Until we have scholarly research to draw on, I advocate following a conservative approach in adhering to policy and guidelines in order to draw clear distinctions between the various levels of events, ensuring as much clarity for the reader as is possible. For me, this means not conflating issues. As an encyclopaedic resource, it does not adhere to specialist fields whereby it it understood that the average reader is acquainted with the lexicology used in such fields and comes with a glossary. I am also a stickler for consistency across the articles, but I'm also a stickler for sticking to the subject at hand, and this article is about Russian military intervention. As has been noted countless times, there are other articles dealing with other specifics surrounding the events. Hopefully, this has not created animosity between us as I most certainly do respect your abilities as an editor. Regards. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The criteria for calling something a "civil war" is that reliable sources call it a civil war. At present, reliable sources do not call it that. As I linked above, Amnesty International called it an "international armed conflict" specifically mentioning that it was not a civil war at all. Ukraine does not consider it a civil war, nor does the United States, the EU, or Nato. Calling it a "civil war" would be endorsing one PoV which is not supported by the preponderance of sources. Regardless, this article is not the article about the war anyway, so this whole discussion is off topic. RGloucester — ☎ 15:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with RGloucester: vast majority of RS do not call this "civil war", but describe these events as an international military conflict were Russia is one of the sides (hence Putin-Poroshenko negotiations and the "agreement"). Why? There were no ingenious rebels from the very beginning; they were always guided and created from Moscow. Right now, this is a hybrid warfare that combines war by Russian regular army, irregular warfare and war by proxy, all of them conducted by Russian state. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article is about the Russian intervention, not about the war itself which is already covered in the War in Donbass article. And even this one has been labeled in different ways, which are described in that article.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester , many reliable sources describe it as Civil War. [2], [3], (only an oblique usage of the term). I had posted a few other links above. There are a lot more to be found in English language news if you care to search. Like you yourself pointed out, International Red Cross Society calls it a civil war. Which of these sources is unreliable? Why? Is it WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? --Drajay1976 (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Like Iryna Harpy suggested, it may be better to wait till scholarly works on the conflict are published. The reasons suggested for changing the title are many. It is not that the title has to be changed to "Civil war" because the current title propagates a mistaken notion. No, Russia is intervening in Ukraine. But that intervention is already dealt with in many other articles referred to above. In my opinion, this article is redundant if its scope is not expanded. --Drajay1976 (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
ICRC did not call it a civil war (despite what ITAR-TASS, Reuters, and some other sources said), they called it a "non-international conflict", which is a technical definition that does not preclude certain things that the phrase "civil war" does. Regardless, your pulling out of old sources from July and early August is indicative of one problem, which is that things have substantially changed since then. Secondly, even prior to this latest incident, "intervention &c.", most sources still did not call it a civil war. Most simply used "war", as it is and always has been disputed as to whether it is a civil war. I could pull out just as many sources for "war against Russia" as you can "civil war", if I wanted to. That is why both such inferences are PoV. There is a dispute as to what this conflict is, hence the use of "War in Donbass", a WP:NDESC title that avoids take a side (civil war or direct war), and merely describes the events neutrally (a "war" in the "Donbass" region). RGloucester — ☎ 04:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, I cannot understand what you are talking about with regard to "scope expansion". We have other articles that cover what you mention. This article is only about Russian intervention in those conflicts, nothing else. It has a lot of unique content, much of it transferred from War in Donbass, as that article was getting too long. If there is superfluous information that you think doesn't belong here, toss it. This article is now too long as well. RGloucester — ☎ 04:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
@Drajay1976:, the problem is that Wikipedia has been 'scoped' out of proportion with a multitude of POV articles such as timelines, articles that don't meet GNG and were (and still are) being developed based on RECENTISM. These articles, once created, have become little pockets of ownership by one interest group or the other, with content based entirely on Russian news outlets or Ukrainian news outlets, dependent on which interest group has claimed it as their own. Rather than developing more and more in the way of detailed and UNDUE issues which quickly get pulled from the main articles and used as COATRACKs, I believe we'd be serving the project far better by reigning in the the number of articles and superfluous content. The shrapnel hit the fan quite some time ago. While I'm not suggesting that you are intentionally trying to introduce trojans, they've been picked up on and cherry picked to death throughout the course of this year. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
It's an 'Anonymous' site. Sorry, but that definitely does not make it a reliable source. I could set up a blog site under the banner of 'Anonymous'... so could Russian nationalists... so could Illuminati conspiracy nutters... so could extreme right nutters of any given proclivity. There may or may not be bits of credible infomation, but it's really just a lucky dip. Credibility = zero. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
No, this was signed by two people. Here is English language site and disclaimer. It looks like an ordinary internet news site/journal to me. Nothing is 100% reliable, but there are many other publications telling generally the same. My very best wishes (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This Article's Lead - Yikes!

According to WP:LEAD:

...Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.

This article's lead is ten(!) paragraphs long, running well over a "screen" of text!

I would suggest that this is not good, and I'd encourage regular editors of this page to figure out a way to cut the lead's text down to no more than four paragraphs (while moving any left-over, unused text elsewhere in the article, where applicable). Because, right now, I suspect this article's lead is scaring readers away. --IJBall (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I attempted to solve the problems of this article through mergers in a recent discussion, but this was kiboshed. As it stands, you are a left with a WP:COATRACK. I see no way to fix this article at the moment. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought last two efforts were actually to delete the article, though, I could be wrong. I am not the "regular" editor to this page. I work for a living, but I will attempt to do some clean-up this weekend since I did vote to keep it and no one else seems to be doing it.
However, I can tell you that a few editors to the other Ukraine articles sometimes go ballistic over my writing or deleting of a single sentence which is much less than the full article cleanup this one requires. So, you may likely have to read my revision on the history page.
The history of this article is why it's so messy. The title of the article seems appropriate as people seem to visit it despite it being the unwanted orphan of the Ukrainian Wikipedia articles.Hilltrot (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
It's true that this article, and the lede in particular, is a mess. However, given recent events, deletion or merger of is pretty much out of the question. Renaming to "Russian invasion of Ukraine", possibly, yes. What really needs to be done however, is a general clean, which as a starting point entails cutting the hell out of that lede. That's basically what this requires, even if it is somewhat of a Augean task.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

At this point, a new article should be made titled "Russian Invasion of the Ukraine." Russia has even admitted it, of course they are saying vacationing Russian soldiers are the ones fighting. Being a soldier myself once, I was never allowed to take a tank with me when I took a vacation. However, it appears that Ukraine has called this a direct invasion, and it appears NATO and the UN will say so soon.Panzertank (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I generally agree. My only thought was whether to try and clean up this article then move it to "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" or to start a new one then merge material from here. Originally I was hoping to do the former, but given how much of a mess this article is, the latter may actually be a better option.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I've always favoured the WP:KIBOSH approach. This article needs to die. A new one can be created, written properly. RGloucester — ☎ 15:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I have a problem with this title. My primary problem with the title "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" is that it will hog-tie the subject and prevent it from having the depth and breadth that it needs. The events in Crimea, Eastern Ukrainian protests, insurgency and now invasion are all directly related to Putin's military aggression. If you think that all of that can be in an article titled "Russian Invasion of Ukraine", then I am ok with that. Otherwise, "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" becomes another restrictive sub-article instead of an overview article which is needed.
All that is out there right now are subarticles. Some of them have POV titles which are dubious at best. "Insurgency or War in Donbass" Nobody is looking up Donbass. They are looking for Ukraine or East Ukraine. No one in the media is refering to it as Donbass in their titles. I guess this is the best way to bury a topic you don't want anyone to find out about. "The Crimean Crisis" Can people be more vague? I'm not sure if they can! It sounds like Crimea just ran out of water for a couple of days. Or are they talking about the the bad time the British had in Crimea over a century ago? These titles are actually worst than this article. Because people are still coming to this article because of the appropriateness of the title, not due to the content of the article.
I think the title has something going for it. I think that it's the main thing going for this article. It called a spade a spade when many of the other articles were giving equal weight to the fringe. If a lot of the article ends up removed to help make it readable, that is fine for me. However, I believe the title is very resilient.Hilltrot (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't "hide" that article, as all the titles you mention redirect to War in Donbass, a WP:NDESC title decided by consensus. To say that "no one is looking up Donbass" is nonsense, and media sources were provided in the discussion. There are good reasons why it cannot be named "War in Ukraine" or "War in Eastern Ukraine", and those were dealt with in the discussion. Regardless, those names redirect there, so it is no more difficult for people to find the article. RGloucester — ☎ 16:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, I do agree with you with regard to scope. The broad scope of this title is useful, as it encompasses all types of Russian military interference, not just direct military invasion. RGloucester — ☎ 16:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The WP:KIBOSH approach is impractical and probably won't be able to get consensus. The best thing to do is to appropriately expand the Russian invasion of Ukraine 2014 article and trim this one down. I do agree with Hilltrot that there needs to be a central article which combines all the relevant events. Obviously "War in Donbass" is too limited in scope as a title and remains only roughly descriptive as long as the conflict remains very localized. Mariupol, which is threatened by Russian forces is on the very edge of the "Donbass" (if not outside of it).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Mariupol is in the Donbass (note the first Battle of Mariupol), which includes all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. There is no evidence of the conflict moving out of Donbass, at yet. The problem, Mr Marek, is that "military intervention" and "invasion" mean exactly the same thing. RGloucester — ☎ 17:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The lead is full of information that belongs in the body (little green men, committee of soldiers mothers etc. are not relevant enough for the lead). Here is a shortened version of the first paragraph. It's slightly more than half the size and still covers all the main points. Given the contentiousness of this article I thought it would be better than just editing it in.

Russia intervened in Ukraine on several fronts following the events of the February 2014 Ukrainian revolution and Euromaidan movement which led to the flight and subsequent disputed impeachment of President Viktor Yanukovych.[48][49][50][51][52][53] Following the ouster of Yanukovych government, a secession crisis erupted in the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. In late February, unmarked soldiers gradually took control of Crimea. U.S. officials and analysts said they were likely Russian special forces.[55] Russia then annexed Crimea following a disputed status referendum.[56] Several months later, as Russian-backed separatist insurgents fought a war against Ukrainian forces in the Donbass region of Ukraine, unmarked troops and military vehicles from Russia crossed into Ukraine, reinforced the insurgents.[57] Video evidence of captured soldiers has been used to claim that Russia is involved in the conflict[59]. The Russian government maintains that the soldiers either entered Ukraine by mistake or were there of their own volition. [60][61]

Thoughts? Hollth (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that's pretty good. Just make sure that the info doesn't get lost - i.e. that it's in the article body. Volunteer Marek  05:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
how can you think that is pretty good. 'Video evidence of captured soldiers has been used to claim that Russia is involved in the conflict[59].' - reads like boilerplate Russian regime verbiage to me. Sayerslle (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Was it incorrect? I paraphrased it to be less journalistic in tone and more aligned with an encyclopaedic tone. 'Videos of captured Russian soldiers have directly challenged Vladimir Putin’s longstanding claim that Russia has nothing to do with the conflict in eastern Ukraine' Was long with a lot of unnecessary words. I removed them, whilst retaining all the information. The lede is already beyond ridiculous, we do not need additional adjectives and adverbs in it. Hollth (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed the lead as per WP:BRD. Please discuss. The citations in the lead need to be altogether removed or drastically reduced. Please discuss. I tried to remove quoted comments (which belong in the body of the article and not the lead) and some material which should be there in the body of the article alone. --Drajay1976 (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek has reverted my attempt to trim the Lead as per BRD. Fair enough. His edit summary was "this isn't just "Trimming" that's some substantial, potentially POV changes". Can we discuss 1) why it was not trimming? & 2) why it was POV change? and why "potential"?
The changes which are not "potentially POV changes" can obviously be incorporated now itself. Those suspected to be "potentially POV changes" can be incorporated (or not) after the discussion. --Drajay1976 (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
do you take us for mugs? its insulting really. this 'what pov?' is disingenuous humbug. Sayerslle (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Sayerslle, please keep the discussion civil. I am asking you again. Which part of this edit was POV/"disingenuous humbug"?--Drajay1976 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
imo it would be better if you think it needs trimming to do it one edit at a time , perhaps with a short edit summary if you think it might be contentious - your edits were obviously pov and too drastic for other editors to follow your exact method so to speak , - though the general mindset is obvious of course.Sayerslle (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Sayerslle, please stop the ad hominem attack and answer to the topic. Give one example of POV/"disingenuous humbug"/change which makes "the general mindset obvious". We will start from there. --Drajay1976 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I will be really surprised if you are able to come up with a single change in the edit which was not neutral or not in accordance with the inline citations. --Drajay1976 (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Ive said i think its better if you edit in a slower way and leave edit summaries so others can follow your rationales. you removed material which I thought was kind of central - now, heres a good article from Mikhail Pavlovich Shishkin that discusses the atmosphere around and why it behooves us to not be too quick to ditch information. putin black hole - don't throw info into a putin black hole, - no need Sayerslle (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Look, even your "trimming", POV issues aside, wasn't very good. For example, originally the text said "Videos of captured Russian soldiers have directly challenged Vladimir Putin’s longstanding claim that Russia has nothing to do with the conflict in eastern Ukraine, while the Russian government maintained that the soldiers had entered Ukraine territory accidentally." (and this is someone else's version to which several editors agreed) then you changed it to...

"Videos of Russian soldiers captured in Ukraine, while the Russian government maintained that the soldiers had entered Ukraine territory accidentally."

This doesn't even make sense. Basically in your attempt to remove anything that doesn't agree with the official Russian/RT line you left in your wake of "trimming" completely garbled sentences. Volunteer Marek  00:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

 Volunteer Marek , the intended sentence was this. "Videos of Russian soldiers captured in Ukraine,[62] comments by rebel leaders such as Zakharchenko [63][64] and statements such as that of Valentina Melnikova, head of the Russian Union of Committees of Soldiers’ Mothers[65] establish that Russian service personnel are fighting in Ukraine." The profusion of inline citations in the lead was the cause of the confused outcome. The portion "while the Russian government maintained that the soldiers had entered Ukraine territory accidentally" should also have been removed, but was accidentally left in. I agree that the incomplete edit led to some garbling. But is there any problem with the bold portion above? Is it acceptable to you? It retains all the ideas and removes the quotes of Zakharchenko and Valentina Melnikova which belong in the body of the article, not the lead. You will surely agree that this was not deliberate POV pushing, but a genuine mistake.

Sayerslle, as per WP:BRD, the way I did it is also an acceptable way of doing things in wikipedia. It is an accepted fact that the lead of the article is too long and contains too many citations which goes against WP:LEADCITE. So I made a bold edit. Volunteer Marek reverted it. Now we can discuss it here. In this process, those who find that the "bold edits" were wrong needs to point out the specific problems in the discussion (like Marek did above)--Drajay1976 (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

 Volunteer Marek , I would like to assure you that my attempt is not to "remove anything that doesn't agree with the official Russian/RT line". My attempt is to help write an encyclopedia. Please assume good faith in others. What you cited was a honest mistake. My intention was to trim the flab retaining material suitable for the lead. --Drajay1976 (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
if there are things you are object to per LEADCITE drajay,- where the guidance says 'Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none' - why not bring them up here, and explain the difficulty - you praise volunteer marek for givingyou a concrete example of how your changes made an unintelligible sentence - so why not follow that example then, and bring up specific cases. Sayerslle (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Sayerslle, Volunteer Marek said that my edit was "potential POV change". On prodding, he gave and example of a "garbled" edit, which was sadly a mistake on my part. I have given the intended edit, which can be discussed here. You on the other hand made much stronger comments about me, but have not given even a single example to back it up. You owe me a single example at least which suggests that my edit was "obvious POV"/"disingenuous humbug"/change which makes "the general mindset obvious". If you cant find such an edit, an apology wouldnt hurt (because I dont think that I am a POV pusher).
The example Volunteer Marek brought is already being discussed here. Do you agree with the change I intended (given in bold above in reply to Volunteer Marek's post) by the way? --Drajay1976 (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
did you remove the linsey hilsum sourced material? from channel 4 news? if you did, can you explain why exactly? it concerns absolute core material for the lead imo. 13:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Sayerslle (talk)
The ail of the lead is this (WP:MOSINTRO) "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The gist of all the different quotes by Putin and official Russian government positions is this - RUSSIA IS OFFICIALLY DENYING MILITARY INTERVENTION IN UKRAINE. A whole lot of other things in the lead gives this idea - RUSSIA (USING ITS MILITARY AND OTHER MEANS) IS ACTUALLY INTERVENING IN UKRAINE. These two ideas and the fundamental facts (like how and when it started and what the current situation is) should be there in the Lead. Quotes of people which support the idea that RUSSIA IS DENYING MILITARY INTERVENTION should be there in the body of the article and not the lead. If you are putting a quote of Putin, Zakharchenko or Valentina Melnikova in the lead, it means that you dont know how to summarize. Put that information in the body of the article and put the summary in the lead. The Russian denial of the intervension was included in the version of the lead I put up. Putins paraphrased statements were there in my version though - While recognizing the role of Russian forces in Crimea, Putin rejected claims that Russian special forces were operating in eastern Ukraine, but has described the region as Novorossiya, and expressed confusion as to why the Bolsheviks had handed the territory over to Ukraine in the 1920. Even this is superfluous. This can be summarized better. Anyway this does not push any POV - read this lead again, I am sure my intention is clear. --Drajay1976 (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
yu didn't answer my question - 'the ail of the lead is this' - what on earth are you on about? I ask you about linsey hilsium material and you give me a load of drivel-ly waffle. ah, well. tbh , and maybe this isn't allowed to say - I hate what you represent. not you personal, what you represent. loathe it. Sayerslle (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sayerslle The Malaysian Flight is not important enough for the lede. There is barely anything on the article dealing with the plane. In an article this large, the lede should only contain points that are expanded upon in the body. There are about three sentences in this article dealing with the downing of the Malaysian flight. That is not enough to warrant its place.Hollth (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • @hollth there are 3 sentences in the article - well, maybe there could do to be more , it was such a world commented on aspect of the Russian intervention, - but if there are 3 sentences in the article and one in the lead , that is only too much , for those who consider this an insignificant aspect of Russian intervention in Ukraine. I beg to differ. Sayerslle (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Sayerslle, "the ail of the lead" was a typo. I was referring to the policy regarding the lead.. I dont understand what you refer to when you said "linsey hilsium material". I was answering about the channel 4 news reference. And what do I represent? Please tell me that at least. I take it that you or Volunteer Marek do not have any problem with the portion he brought up and I clarified. I am making that change. --Drajay1976 (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Sayerslle, you asked two questions - "did you remove the linsey hilsum sourced material? from channel 4 news?" I was answering one of the questions. The one regarding a channel 4 news reference in the lead. What exactly were you referring to by the first part of the question? --Drajay1976 (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't see how you were answering my question about the linsey hilsum material - whatever, your latest contraction of the lead seems better to me , and theres no material left unintelligible like last time. Sayerslle (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Sayerslle, I still dont understand what you meant by Linsey hilsum material. --Drajay1976 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
when you cut the length of the lead first time I thought you took out this bit - 'After the heavy defeat of Ukrainian forces by early September it was evident Russia had sent soldiers and armour across the border and locals acknowledged the role of Putin and Russian soldiers in effecting a reversal of fortunes. - Channel 4 News tensions still high in Ukraine linsey hilsum material' - I regarded that as quite an important sentence and couldn't see it after you cut the lead first time - that's what I meant by 'linsey hilsum material' Sayerslle (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sayerslle, I agree that it is a quite important material. It definitely belongs in the body of the article in detail. In my version of the lead, a) the presence of Russian troops, b) the presence of Russian Buk system in Ukraine which was used to shoot down the malaysia plane c) the commanders of rebels being Russian agents, d) NATO photos of sophisticated Russian weaponry within Ukraine were retained. I left out this portion because this was repeating the same information (Russian soldiers and armour in Ukraine on the side of the Rebels fighting against the government forces). But a specific part of the sentence seems to convey a unique statement now that I look at it again - that the presence of Russian soldiers was important in the reversal of fortune for Ukrainian government. That part of the sentence should definitely find a mention in the lead. But I do feel that the portion needs to be completely rewritten. Anyway, that edit was not a POV pushing on my part - because I dont hold the point of view that Russian troops are/were not there in Ukraine. I only hold the view that the lead could be pruned a lot more, is not a summary of the article now, it has a lot of citations (against the gist of the policy on lead) which need to be removed, and that it has some material which is not there in the body of the article which needs to be tossed from the lead to the body. --Drajay1976 (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

o.k - oh Christ - sounds like we shall meet again then as I don't see the need for it to be pruned further really - of course it could be pruned a lot more - but should it - I don't think so. (although the list of countries -I always find them a bit 'yeah well, whatever' - but probably you don't mean that list of countries - you probably mean substantial information - oh dear - this is still a kind of 'molten' article anyway - like its Saturday today yeh, - and what has gone on? -"The Kremlin loves Saturday. While the rest of the world relaxes they Grad Mariupol, blow up a munitions factory and sneak in 200 trucks." - tarés ) Sayerslle (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Another point for discussion. An exhaustive list of the countries which oppose or support Russia's role in the crisis need not be there in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the contents in the article, it is not a place where you give information which is not there in the body of the article. The list of the countries along with the citations needs to be taken to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#International diplomatic and economic responses. A summary of the information only need to be retained in the lead. For example, Several members of the international community and organizations such as Amnesty International have criticized Russia for its actions in post-revolutionary Ukraine, and condemned Russia, accusing it of breaking international law and violating Ukrainian sovereignty. Many countries implemented economic sanctions against Russia or Russian individuals or companies, to which Russia responded in kind. The comments made by Amnesty International and quotes from its statement should be taken to the body of the article. --Drajay1976 (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sayerslle, what is the "substantial infromation" which I proposed to be removed? I find this confusing when you make allegations and dont specify which part is it that you are referring to? I want a SUMMARY of all substantial information to be retained in the Lead as per policy. The substantial information, if it is there in the lead only, should be transferred to the body of the article. Do you want unique information in the lead (which is not there in the body of the article?)--Drajay1976 (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I want the lead to have all the important - the salient - the most important details, - that have told the story of Russian intervention in Ukraine, - in summary form, yes, but not just erased - like the plane was taken out at one point - if something salient in the lead is not in the body of the article - then I would say leave the salient point in the lead , and also add it to the body - Sayerslle (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Sayerslle, I agree with all of what you said.--Drajay1976 (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I still disagree with the Malaysian flight being in there, I think it is too specific for the lead of this article, but you both seem to believe it is justified so I won't remove it. Now other points. Since I'll be accused of POV I'll put my justification for my edit here.

  • Why is the convoy of trucks entering Ukraine there? In fact why is it in this article? Neither sources claim it to be military aid, so it ought to be outside of the scope of this article. It should be removed until there are reports of it being militaristic in nature.
  • 'After the heavy defeat of Ukrainian forces by early September it was evident Russia had sent soldiers and armour across the border and locals acknowledged the role of Putin and Russian soldiers in effecting a reversal of fortunes' sounds too journalistic to me. Half of it is already covered in the preceding sentences too. The new part is locals acknowledging the role of Putin/Russia.
  • I'm including that there was a cease-fire agreement in September to help make sense of the violence and statements post the cease fire.
  • I'll be moving the marching for peace to the body of the article. The march is in no way, shape or form summarising. Recent and salient doesn't mean it should be in the lede by default. That's how the lede got so big in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollth (talk • contribs) 02:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
why are the convoys of trucks even in the article? because the article should follow RS Russian convoy invasion - you want it removed, like all what you want, its just pov pov - Sayerslle (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Sayerslle (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I want it removed because this article is the MILITARY intervention. To date we only have RS that call it humanitarian aid, none call it military aid. It is therefore outside of the scope of this article. That has nothing to do with POV. The previous convoy was in August and that was called an invasion. Nothing of the sort has been mentioned so far regarding this convoy in the lede. When and if it is, then it within the scope of this article. Hollth (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hollth, whatever type of aid it was, it was delivered without the consent of Ukraine within Ukrainian territory. This would make it relevant in this article in my opinion. --Drajay1976 (talk) 05:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. The fact that it was illegal doesn't make it military related. There aren't even accusations of it being militaristic. I fail to see how something that is not related to military intervention can be included in a page on military intervention. There are pages appropriate for it, I just can't see this as being one.

Regardless it doesn't need an most of a paragraph in the lede. I'm cleaning it up and moving most of it to the body. Hollth (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

protests in Russia

This info about protests in Russia against Russian involvement in the war in Ukraine should be added. Volunteer Marek  18:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

yes - the guardian article says 26000 by some estimates (5000 according to regime )- [4] - one of the banners said 'putin stop lying and fighting' - succinct and to the point. Sayerslle (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Use 2014 anti-war protests in Russia for that. RGloucester — ☎ 01:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
it belongs here too- its directly connected to the article subject. if theres an article on anti-war protests that doesn't mean the material has no place here also. Sayerslle (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
This article already is huge, and already a ton of it is going to have to be rubbished to meet the article length guidelines. That's the point of sub-articles, to keep the length here down. RGloucester — ☎ 01:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree with RGloucester . Include it in 2014 anti-war protests in Russia and give a link here. --Drajay1976 (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
As long as its mentioned and linked, that's fine. Unless it grows and has impact etc. Volunteer Marek  03:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems that article could use a good bit of work and updating though. Volunteer Marek  03:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Concur with original poster. Wikipedia is not censored. If these protests are occurring, at least some summary mention of them is appropriate in this article, since they are definitely relevant to the Response to the military intervention. It is, of course, okay to have most of the detail reserved to another Wikipedia article such as 2014 anti-war protests in Russia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a military map! That would be like adding the demonstrations in London, Paris or Germany in a map about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Add that information in another image, if you wish, not in this one! If you have good sources, that is welcome (in my opinion), but not in this map. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was in the Talk Page of the map itself. Yes, it's welcome and informative, since it comes from reliable sources and complies with the WP rules!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  •  DoneI added a statement to the article prose yesterday that covers the street protests within Russia itself, with citation. If there are other reliable sources, it might be good to add an additional source for that protest (these protests?) as well. — N2e (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Moreover, since I added that initial prose before I knew that another Wikipedia article existed on the matter—2014 anti-war protests in Russia—it became appropriate to copyedit my single sentence from yesterday, which was only about one particular Moscow protest on one specific day (since that was in the source article I had read yesterday), and make it a more general summary of protests in Russia. I have done that now—while still keeping the summary very brief in this long article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Pro-Russian forces

If they are Pro-Russian Forces, does that make the troops of the Kiev coup d'etat Pro-American or Pro-NATO or Pro-EU forces?

Just a little thought on the nomenclature being used here.

Solntsa90 (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Volunteer Marek  02:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking a question. Should we use the phrase *Pro-EU forces* to describe the forces of the Kiev Regime? Solntsa90 (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:GOODFAITH.
Is such a term (Pro EU forces) used by any WP:RS? --Drajay1976 (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh please. Why are we wasting time discussing this?  Volunteer Marek  18:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You spend too much time on this page. I most certainly wasn't addressing the question to you.

Solntsa90 (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This is so very true. This page is severely harmed by aggressive POV editing of few users. Just look at all those claims presented as facts. Even if from a channel4 blog...Galant Khan (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War/Archive_10&oldid=1251675759"