Talk:War in Donbas/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

This article is NATO biased

In all this one cannot consider Western Media as reliable sources. At the same time Eastern media are ignored. Russia is part of conflict and US is not?? Well everyone could see, and US never denied what Mrs. Noland was saying. There are reports of US Contractors involved in the war. How come this does not make US as part of conflict in Donbas and makes Russia. This is not about Crimea but Donbas Actually there are more physical proofs of US involvement and presence of their politician on Ukrainian soil and interference in Maidan than it is of Russian presence in Donbas - again Russian from Russian Federation official institutions, not local Russian with volunteers. Many times especially UK media embarrassed themselves talking on Russian soldiers because they speak Russian or say they are Russian. That does not prove they are soldiers of Russian Federation for there are Russians in Easter Ukraine, lots of them, and there are also Russian volunteers from Russia as there are French on the other side. Many Ukrainians on East consider themselves Russians too. This was disgrace of UK self-proclaimed the most respected news organizations and you can find those clips now on youtube. There is clear effect of "Manufacturing consent" among all those media especially US and UK. There are no significant media from China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Russia, Greece, Iran, Indonesia,.. etc. that agrees on Western views. What makes Guardian or BBC so relevant. What makes Western media so much relevant then those other countries ones. We all know how they were badly and consistently wrong before. Look at your sources for this article. They are either Western Ukrainian or NATO countries and Quatar (in tune with Nato). Call this NATO-pedia then. There is no neutrality at all. Its utterly biased simply analyzing its sources. Not to mention Kudzu1. What an arrogance. Who are you to make such a strong statements to put yourself as arbitrator of the truth. Ango-Saxon (Canadain) arrogance. So Canadian will confirm British media credibility?? Again no one would have anything against if you call this thing Anglo-pedia or Saxon-Pedia or Nato-pedia or Western-pedia. But you like it or not White people and Western World is not entitled on TRUTH!

201.103.136.71 (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You should know I take your indignation and wear it as a badge of pride. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I know, what smart is ashamed of full gets proud in it. But honestly I do not care. This is not forum. I stated my facts and they are clear. All this is based in one sided sources with questionable integrity and credibility to be taken for granted.201.103.136.71 (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

201.103.136.71, don't bother - when it comes to ongoing events with different political agendas involved, many people, who don't live in Western countries, consider english Wikipedia to be just another propaganda tool. What western citizens choose to say or believe - well, it's up to them, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.11 (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If you cite specific sources used in the page and indicate reasons they should not be considered WP:RS, we can try to build a consensus to remove or replace them. Otherwise, they will stay in. Dmurvihill (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that's the nature of the beast. Wikipedia has a number of tools and policies that have been used to make the article what it is. One of them is a policy (WP:UNDUE) whose goal is to make sure that "fringe" views are not given undue prominence (originally created to discourage uncritical articles about wild conspiracy theories. However, in any war in which one side is smaller than the other, as is the case in Ukraine, that side's views will be considered "fringe" and will therefore be largely not mentioned in any article, while the views of the other side will be largely accepted as the mainstream truth, per the policy). Another related policy is the one that has to do with reliability of sources. Simply put, there is no neutral metric for judging which sources are reliable - it is simply decided that English mainstream media is more reliable than most Russian-language sources, or "small-press" English media, because that's the majority opinion of Wikipedia editors. In support of their opinions, numerous known cases of the Russian mainstream media, or "small-press" English media, being wrong about something are cited. That there are also numerous known cases of the Western mainstream media being wrong about something doesn't seem to affect its perceived reliability to the same degree. The problem is that there is no independent organization that evaluates potential Wikipedia sources to determine which percentage of factual claims that they report turn out to be true or false. This makes accusations of bias such as yours both predictable and unavoidable.

There are potentially a few ways in which the situation (specifically in this article) could change.

1) if the mainstream Russian POV becomes adopted by significant geographical areas or political groupings outside of Russia's borders. For example, a major party in one of the EU's more important countries (Germany's "Left Party" and France's "National Front" don't count as such), or in China (where officials and media have been carefully noncommittal). In that case, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE could no longer be invoked, and an article such as this would be forced to change radically.

2) if Wikipedia adopts a specific policy for "war" articles which recognizes that truth is the first casualty of war, and that therefore the emphasis should be towards presenting both sides' views equally and attempting to reconcile them, even if one of them is an internationally "fringe" view. I do not expect this to happen until the major Anglophone countries (the Five Eyes) find themselves in a strong minority in some international conflict. If that ever happens, I fully expect Wikipedia's WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE policies to be amended so that Wikipedia can still be used to present the mainstream Anglo view!

3) if someone creates a neutral metric for judging which sources are reliable, which proceeds to change the "balance" of sources that are acceptable in Wikipedia articles. As this is far too huge of an undertaking, it is merely a fantasy unless some powerful state or private interest decides to fund it, in which case the results might be open to charge of bias anyway.

All in all, your best bet is to recognize that the deck is stacked, that there is nothing to do about it, and try to solely use pro-NATO sources, which do sometimes publish things that go against the official narrative (that way, you are shielded from charges of bias, fringe theorizing, etc.).

Esn (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is the point. If one is to write article on something he should make sure his sources are reliable. It is amazing that audio record of Noland available to world and never denied by US is not an clear evidence, yet writing based on western newspaper is, especially as stated above considering record of lies from Salvatore Allende till today (not to go further in past). It is amazing that US ambassador is lecturing Czech president or Hungarian president, that Greeks are openly threatened not to go to Russia for military parade. This is evidently apparent. Is this to you "free will" of Europe. Or disciplining Europe into single thought. Does this raise eyebrow what messages then could be delivered to those western media. It takes no much analysis to realize "consensus in lies" across the NATO media that is denounced publicly by many known names and more over not accepted by any of significant media in other then NATO and significant world countries mentioned above. There is known fact that West was manufacturing tragedies and motives for intervention. They could not get German consensus on action till Malaysian plane was crashed. Now apart being loud no real proof of neither Russia not rebel responsibility is proven. Many western news published key evidence against Russia recently found by Dutch investigators, which shamefully Dutch investigators promptly denied. Simply, by constant public blame, image of Russian responsibility is created even though claims associated with Dutch investigators or Malaysian officials are constantly denied by the very same parties. The most astonishingly MSNBC with liberal views (for US standards, for European one this are clear no-conservative not to go further) Rachel Meadow (or whatever is her name) spent hours convincing audience it had to be Russians. First Russia has no responsibility for rebel action even if given them arms for arms given were not given to take down civilian plane. If so appear to be logical to Mrs Meadow, then in honesty she should be aware that every Western sold and supplied weapons given to other countries or movements count for western responsibility for every evil doing. Then, however, memory of Mrs. Meadow suddenly shuts down. Example: West armed Suharto in Indonesia, that commit genocide over East Timor people. Not one airplane, but if I am right few hundred of thousands of people dead. Would Mrs. Meadow accuse US for that in rage and not let it go and demonize responsible ones, claim sanctions against her own country. If Russia for not proven responsibility over airplane crash suffers EU sanctions, what shell be done to USA in moral outcry of Germans and EU. Where are this honest administrators of this Wikipedia to answer this question. Where is the "international community outcry" on behavior of US and UK. It was 200000 people against 400 in Russian unproven case. Even though it is now know and publicly available fact on that case, there is no outcry of western media quoted here as relevant and reliable source. There are no penalties on US and UK and their officials. You will not see BBC panels on discussing if US is responsible power after such an record demonizing it and requesting EU to get sanctions on US. Not to mention Iraq, Lybia, Yugolsavia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan... (end show goes on).... However, lamenting on Russian bear responsibility is overly present. Damn Russians.

So I am asking you based on your senses. If Russia is so so responsible to be penalized by sanctions by EU for one airplane (again not proven to be Russian responsibility even by Dutch(NATO) investigators) where is Western Media outcry on US, not on Indonesia, but US who armed Suharto and presented him to world as roaring economy tiger leader, proud of IMF, dear friend of HRM Elizabeth II. Where is pointed finger of blame, to demand responsibility and punishment. I believe Mrs. Meadow, when it comes to that, somehow loses herself in Prada, somewhere on 5th avenue. Where is anger of Germans and EU media who so much demonize Russia and Putin now. Nowhere? 200000 East Timorian dead and UK is celebrating pathetic Queen Jubilee and world watches in amaze. Dear friend of Suharto is not demonized as Putin. For God sake she is English!

So to write article that aims to be objective and truthful, you should do more then simply being Rupert Murdock agents in establishing his media prints into encyclopedic facts of the matter. Otherwise simply do what I have advised you for a sake of honesty, if nothing else. Call this FOX-Pedia, CNN-Pedia, NATO-Pedia, WesterView-Pedia so at least people know what they are dealing with. What is wrong with that.

How is this relevant to article? Well to help you, it shows you how one sided sourcing can lead you to strange conclusions. Again ask yourself if Putin is demon for one airplane (and again not even proved to be the case but Dutch(NATO) investigators) how come there is no Western media demonization of US and UK and their leaders on killing of one nation. Instead, one borrow the name to airport, the other has her statue in bronze in British parliament. They are praised by EU leaders and western media that are used as sources of "truth" here. Unlike them East Timor dead do not even have marks on their graves. .... "and waltz goes on"...

Finally if Russia is to be put as side in war in Donbas, then US and U should be put as side in genocide in East Timor. Otherwise this views are of David Cameron. On one side he honors Thacher on another he is blaming Putin. More over UK and US involvement is proven fact today. Russian is Donbas is proven even less then American in Ukraine overall. Keep in mind on your pages on East timor invasion you have not put US and UK as participants but supporters (which is quite different) and you did not associate them with genocide responsibility what wester media quoted bluntly do with Russia and Putin when it comes to airplane case.

201.103.94.240 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

See Whataboutism.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Do not see any relevance with the article. Maybe you should find meaning of words principle, shame and honesty. There is nothing "Whatabout" when it comes to killing of 200000 people in East Timor and those responsible are honored instead of being hanged. There should be only shame and blame on Wikipedia to participate in cover-up. Instead of blaming them, world faces cheep trill of Jubilee of Elizabeth II, honoring death of Margaret Thacher and Ronald Regan and their "greatness" at every step. Media you quote had no decency to raise their voice in name of those killed and demand responsibility. So it is 1. Principle: justice should be blind and truth should be based in facts 2. Shame: Killing of that many people with direct arming by US and UK should be denounced in shame and US and UK should be found responsible in full if same principles used in Nuremberg are applied 3. Honesty: to admit lacking of 1. and 2. instead talking on Whataboutism. I will repeat it again 200000 people killed in East Timor by Suharto praised, armed and sponsored by US and UK openly. There are many photos you can find on Google. Be not afraid of facts like media. For many years Western Media did not report anything on it, they bluntly hide it from eyes of public; interestingly what does it tell us about your sources? Yes in Wikipedia there is no finger of blame pointed though there are articles, pictures and videos on it and even parts of documentaries ("Manufacturing consent"). There is John Pilger documentary clearly mentioning it, going after IMF chiefs. Yet at the same time Putin is demon by Western media and EU Brussels oligarchs for airplane never proven to be his responsibility. This media instead on castigating those demons responsible for it (Demons of Nazi caliber) go after Greek, Czech and Hungarian president for attending military parade honoring those who fought against Nazi :-). If not sad (horror and sad) it would be comedy. That is what they found appalling. Quoting this media as relevant without clear checks and balances shows lack of senses to me. Whatabout, has nothing to do with what has been said. I am not Soviet representative I am pointing you clear luck of competence, consistency, neutrality, principle and lots of dishonesty in what has been presented here. I leave you to see if you should have feeling of shame for whatabouting comment, for even if I was whatabouting (though have never been in Soviet world not Soviet leader), you still could have taken action on the other side and correct what was written on East Timor invasion page. You could have use sources overly available to correct what was incorrect there in respect to truth that you are advertizing on these pages without bothering with Russia and Putin and Whataboutism. Your argument is as relevant as one of Bill O'Railly. Low punch as response to argument-ed criticism with labeling not followed but one single argument to support it. Again, remember I was never using East Timor to justify one side but to point lack of consistency in judgment and lack of credibility of sources used. What I used in argument to show your bias on US vs Russia in Ukrainian conflict itself is beloved Noland that was so "open" on the phone on what the real intentions of US were and lack of principle on Wikipedia to trust obvious and to be at least a bit suspicious about speculated western thought. Of course other speculations are by wiki standards to be ignored unless they align with western one. Hope you get what I mean now? 201.103.94.240 (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Re-opening this as I do not believe that WP:NOTFORUM applies; anonymous IP is discussing systemic bias in the article and pointing out specific perceived editorial lapses, not simply using the talk page as a "soapbox for discussing the topic". Nevertheless, I would advise anonymous IP that the only productive discussions you will have here will happen if you accept the current page's editorial line and overall modus operandi (abhorrent as they may be to you) and try to work within them. Please also see the message on your talk page. Esn (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

With all respect to your comments I simply cannot believe how one can be more productive. I clearly stated point and backed it up with facts. Is productive when Todd and Kudzu1 to other participants suggestions answer using words as "rubbish" and strong cynicism and sarcasm.

Look you are kind and I respect it but I am not going to be intimidated by them. Discussion should be based in arguments and respect to other party. I have never show disrespect to anyone, and I was sharp but to the point with arguments to those treating me and others with disrespect. When you speak about achieving something knowing that all is sourced the way it is sourced chances are pretty low to impossible. I am not aiding Wikipedia as it is, I am fighting to change its very principles for the way it is structured it is so damaging to truth and it is such a waste of opportunity to build something so powerful in doing good to justice, to education, to enlightenment in corporate information darkness. Not big fighter though. Limited time. However, I respect your arguments and I am sorry if I failed your expectations. Btw if you are looking for Western Sources that can aid in your research focus on Democracy Now - Amy Goodman e.g., or Real News. There you can find lots of articles in English that can back up your story. I simply do not have time for that. Also world wide known US and British professors and intellectuals: Stephen F Cohen, Michael Parenti, Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Remzi Clark, comedian George Carling (not typical comedian), comedian Robert Newman, Harold Pinter, John Pilger, Jeremy Scahill, Michael Ruppert, Amy Goodman, George Galloway, and I forgot some more names to mention...

There are lots of alternative media in California, Seattle and NYC but you will need to dig. However I am not sure if these are relevant for Wiki but its worth of trying if you want to fight using your soft power approach. Good luck!

201.103.94.240 (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear, 201.103.94.240 not all mainstream news is spewing propoganda and not all alternative news sources are reliable... D3RP4L3RT (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Who's George Carling? If you mean George Carlin, somehow I doubt he has an opinion about what's going on in Ukraine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

request to rename separatists as rebels

They are not separatists because they do not wish to separate. Their goal is to take over all of Ukraine, which makes them rebels, like the ones in Syria whose goal is to take over all of Syria. 204.197.183.97 (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to back up that assertion?-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It is assumed. They try to take all of Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies such as WP:OR and WP:RS that you need to read.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I know for sure they want to take over all of Ukraine. In fact, the old Ukraine is currently divided up between the new Ukraine which has the same flag and New Russia which has the white blue red flag. 104.243.107.11 (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

And this knowledge is based on..... -- Toddy1 (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Separate into what? It makes no sense. The objective of rebels is taking Kiev. Even an idiot know that. 207.35.219.34 (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Great point, dude. Got a reliable source, or can we go back to ignoring your fringe original research now? -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

POV blanking of sourced material

Please explain how my additions [1] specifically violate Wikipedia policies on neutrality. Otherwise, this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

• (London-based think tank Rusi estimate of combined rotation)

• NATO's top commander in Europe General Philip M. Breedlove has been criticized by European politicians and diplomats as spreading "dangerous propaganda" by constantly inflating the figures of Russian military involvement in an attempt to subvert the diplomatic solution of the War in Donbass spearheaded by Europeans."Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine". Der Spiegel. March 6, 2015. For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over again, Breedlove's numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America's NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO.

And this is absurd: [2], [3], [4], [5].

Everything has been discussed here: Neutral point of view/Noticeboard - Ukraine conflict, and here. Your constant removal of well sourced material is blatant POV-pushing. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes it was discussed there and ... THE FREAKIN' CONSENSUS WAS AGAINST YOU!!!! Stop playing disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

VM-please don't shout. I agree with Tobby72 that this vital information should be in the article, especially as it is supported by RS.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Shouting is perfectly acceptable when someone just refuses to listen. We all know this has already been discussed. We all know there's no consensus for inclusion, and if anything, a consensus for no inclusion. There's no point in going through the argument again unless your and Toby's intent is to waste (more) of people's time. We've been through this. So how about I refrain from shouting and you too refrain from being tedious, tendentious and disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It is cherrypicking, and there's clearly no consensus for it to be added to the article. bobrayner (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, where did your WP:FAITH just go? Now, you can try feel it: It seems to me that your purpose on Wikipedia is to secretly spew anti-Russian POV all over the place. I see how you WP:POVPUSH together with your little gang on the Ukraine articles, while accusing others for doing so. Cool, I just inserted some links to Wikipedia essays, perfectly WP:CHERRYPICKed for my comment. I think that now you would be throwing some links to WP-essays at me with a message of stop being disruptive, you are sooo neutral and blahblahblah, but reading my prediction, you are likely going to ignore me. Lol. Tobby72 is making constructive criticism, while you are being simply rude to him. I see that types like you are running this show, and as a result I have lost my trust in Wikipedia. Wikipeda does in fact work for a lot of topics, just not these politically sensitive topics. What a shame. Bye. --But..why..321 (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The above comment was the one and only post by But..why..321. Remarkably, he/she was able to quote various Wikipedia policies that a real first-time editor would not know...-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree that it's positively fascinating. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

RUSI estimate

With respect to "RUSI estimate" included on the "Strenght" section, the source (article on RUSI website) actually do not support claim that is official RUSI stance. If one goes to the bottom of source last page, the following statement appears;

"The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) alone, and do not represent the views of RUSI." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.113.61.186 (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but that just means it should be properly attributed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount, why are you not paying attention to discussions on this talk page. As per VM, it only needs to be attributed, not removed (as you've attempted to do). The submission was further substantiated by The Guardian. Don't removed reliably sourced content based on flimsy pretexts reflecting your personal WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Whatever WP:OR objections you have to the author, your view as to whether he is credible or not is completely and utterly irrelevant: he most certainly does not qualify as a POV crackpot according to RUSI. In fact, he's a Senior Research Fellow in Russian Studies at RUSI, and the content is to be further elaborated on in an upcoming RUSI occasional paper. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

difference between soldier and fighter

In the infobox it says UAF has this many soldiers and NAF has this many fighters. What's the differerence in terminology?

45.58.91.62 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

conflicting casualty numbers

Poroshenko says nearly 7,000 civilians killed. UN says overall killed is about 6,100, including soldiers.

https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/almost-7000-civilians-and-1675-soldiers-die-over-1000-people-gone-mission-due-to-conflict-in-donbas-388096.html

207.35.219.34 (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

How do these figures 'conflict' with each other? There is no absolute estimate, therefore casualty numbers are derived via WP:CALC, or according to estimates by a neutral, attributed source. Could you please specify what your issue with the numbers depicted in this article actually are? If you have access to absolute figures from a reliable source, please direct us to the source/sources and explain why other sources should take priority over the UN estimates. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think this is a fine example of how WP: CALC and neutral/reliable sources should superceed claims by warring parties. This example shows the improbability of Poroshenko's claim that 7,000 civilians died since the UN has been able to confirm only 6,240 deaths which include civilians, separatists and soldiers. Also, seems Poroshenko intentionally downplayed government troop losses. He claimed 1,675 soldiers died, while the Ukrainian MoD has said the figures catalogued by the National Museum are the correct ones (reached 1,960 by 14 February). Even Kyivpost's count is 2,053 dead soldiers as of mid-April. I read an article where the Ukrainian government does not acknowledge deaths of soldiers who are not part of the regular Army (paramilitaries). So the figure Poroshenko gave (1,675) was probably just regular Army and did not include hundreds of paramilitaries as well as members of the Interior Ministry. I am even considering that it would be best to remove the Ukrainian claim of 7,577–14,600 dead separatists and the Separatist claim of 32,580 killed and wounded soldiers because, when taking into account what the UN (reliable source) has confirmed, all these figures seem like fantastical propaganda from both sides. Opinion? EkoGraf (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Poroshenko says 1,657 Ukrainian servicemen KIA. This is not that inaccrate. Many of the combat related deaths died in hospital, so they are not counted as KIA who died on the spot. Also, many soldiers such as Right Sector and OUN fighters are not servicemen. Kyiv Post reports 2,000+ soldiers killed, which includes servicemen KIA, servicemen died of combat but who were not KIA, non servicemen killed, soldiers who died in accidents and other non combat related causes, and possibly even foreign soldiers for example from Georgia, Croatia, Chechnya. It is Poroshenko's much higher reported number of civilian deaths that is suspicious. 204.197.187.131 (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, his civilian figure is questionable. In regard to your commentary on the soldiers, yeah I saw Poroshenko was referring to only those killed in combat. So it would turn out they are additionally ignoring deaths in hospitals. And yes the Right Sector guys, the foreigners and others are not regular servicemen, like I also said. But they are still paramilitaries fighting in the ranks of government forces and at this point the Ukrainian government is simply playing dumb about those hundreds of additional losses while talking about deaths among their regular troops only. At this point they even stopped including the Ministry of Interior troops, whose losses also run in the dozens. EkoGraf (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so we all agree that numbers are being hushed up, drummed up, and generally massaged by both sides. As to how this can be applied to conform with Wikipedia standards is beyond me simply because trying to apply CALC including 'claims' on both sides is ridiculously uninformative, and stating that we don't believe it (and just don't know) contravenes WP:OR and WP:NPOV. For better or worse, we're stuck with the system you're currently using, EkoGraf. The only article that has the potential to be expanded in more detail is the "Casualties" article you've been working on. Even there, it needs to be treated per DUE... and avoiding COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I only raised the possibility of removing government claims of rebel losses and vice-versa from the infobox since they do not correspond (not even slightly) to the reliable sources confirmation (UN). EkoGraf (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

UN documents 6,200+ killed overall. It is important to notice they say the actual number could be much higher. So 10,000+ is not out of the ordinary IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbass#cite_note-100

207.35.219.34 (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree, 10,000+ civilians and combatants dead is not out of the question. But claims of 14,600 separatist dead and 32,580 killed/wounded soldiers is out of this world. EkoGraf (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the subject of what figures and wording has come up a number of times on articles related to recent events in Ukraine without any serious consensus as to how to tackle the infoboxes. From my recollection, there was 'sort of' consensus for keeping the infoboxes as uncluttered as possible, although I'd be damned if I can remember which of the articles it was discussed at (and going through all of the archives is highly unappealing).

My position would be that, where it may be appropriate for the body of the article to include variants on estimates from BIASED sources, it's confusing and inappropriate for the infobox. Even as regards the body of the article, it's UNDUE to offer up multiple biased source estimates. While RS figures are appreciably low, the figures brought up here are extraordinary. I fail to see how RS could be that far off the mark. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. So how about we move the Ukrainian claims of rebel casualties and vice versa from the infobox to a section in the body of the article (so as not to delete it entirely and show the POV of the two sides) and leave figures for losses admitted by the respective sides and of course figures confirmed by reliable sources? It will also take of some weight from the cluttered infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

!Voting a big thumbs up on that as a good compromise. If anyone sees cause to dispute the 'according to' in the body, they're welcome to do so: at least it won't be as obtrusive in the body should there be any BRD. In all honesty, the infobox is as huge and perplexing enough already for a reader to have to wade through without different quasi-estimates of maximum and minimum casualties. Almost a quarter of the length of an entire, byte-heavy article is enough for anyone to go cross-eyed before giving up on figuring anything out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Only thinking now to which section to move these claims. What do you suggest? EkoGraf (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, EkoGraf, I'm not ignoring you, just caught up with a couple of Russophobes/Ukrainophiles refactoring content on articles that don't appear to be being watched. I don't have any bright ideas on this at the moment. If I don't get back to you on the subject in the next day or so, could you ping me to remind me? Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Your workaround the infobox is definitely an improvement, EkoGraf. While, ideally, a huge de-clutter may have been the desired outcome, there's certainly no quick 'n easy fix. Aside from moving extraneous content out, you've accomplished greater transparency for readers in order that they recognise (at a glance) that the figures are (biased) RS estimates. That's all we have to work with, and it doesn't come across as being misleading as per the previous 'version'... but still allows for scope in the reading of 'officially declared' numbers. Well done, bright spark! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) I really thought for months that inserting possibly misleading/propaganda figures in the infobox was not really informative for the readers. I also saw an opportunity to create a summary section on casualties in the article that had not been created up until now. EkoGraf (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

General Staff of Ukraine:there is no regular Russian units in Ukraine

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b3nL4i914m0 I suggest we should remove regular Russian troops as a participant of the conflict and keep it on as a supporter. Because general staff of Ukraine admitted absence of Russian forces — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDK-169 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There are no Russian regular troops in Donbas. If so, General Lentsov wouldn't be in the JCCC. In western countries, the law specifies very clearly, innocent unless proven guilty. No proof of Russian regular troops sent by the Russian government, then by law there is no Russian regular troops in Donbas. No one denies there are Russian troops in Crimea. In Donbas, there isn't any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.58.86.171 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This is an article WP:TALK page, not a WP:SOAPBOX. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a court of law, nor is it original research. We use reliable sources, not 'contributor' WP:POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources listed state there are Russian troops in Donbas. They say there is evidence. They do not say there is proof. It's all speculative. At the end of the day, you have to make a choice. If you put Russian armed forces in the infobox, then you have to put a footnote saying denied by Russia, which means it means nada putting Russian armed forces in the infobox. Either they are there or they aren't there. This isn't Schroedinger's cat which is both dead and alive at the same time. Either the Russian armed forces is in the infobox or the Russian armed forces is not in the infobox. It cannot be both in and not in at the same time. As of now, there is a footnote stating denied by Russia, so by assumption the Russian armed forces is not in the infobox. The Russian armed forces is in the infobox only if there is no footnote which states denied by Russia. Simple as that. A man cannot be innocent and guilty at the same time. You cannot say a man is guilty with a footnote stating denied by that man. That is not western logic. And wikipedia is a western website. So there you go.45.58.86.171 (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Evidence is proof. And yes, the sources do say that there are Russian troops in Donbass. I have no idea what you are going on about in the rest of your comment. WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Evidence is not proof. Otherwise we would already know who shot down MH17. Put Russian armed forces in the infobox if you want. It means absolutely nothing because of the footnote which states denied by Russia. Anyone with half a brain knows Ukraine does not dare to fight the Russian armed forces. See? No fighting in Crimea, is there? 69.166.125.108 (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Proof is a word that is only applicable to mathematics. There is so much evidence at this point that it is effectively a fact. There is no absence of evidence to warrant what is suggested. Russian military forces are in Ukraine, it shouldn't deny that. 68.227.167.123 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian public opinion

...According to the International Republican Institute.

(Not that the IRI would ever push a right-wing point of view?)

Just because it has the word "Republican" in it does not mean it's affiliate with the Republican party. It's just a word. Anyway, WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

IRI Principals

"IRI Board of Directors and Personnel includes major Republican foreign policy voices, and other prominent Republicans."

International Republican Institute, Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.239.252 (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Note added to infobox

Hi, EkoGraf. Just to let you know that I've added a note to the number of Russian soldiers killed in the infobox. User Kapcapkapm left a message on my talk page expressing his/her confusion as to whether Russian soldiers were included in the separatist figures, or whether they were separate (due to the Nuland ref). I've simply added a note, for clarity, that it is unknown whether they're included as Russia hasn't confirmed any numbers killed). If you'd like to make some sort of amendment to the note style, feel free to do so. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy I thought it was already clear because the number of Russian dead was in brackets beside the larger toll. I will check to make an edit to the style of the note. EkoGraf (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I made a change. Check it out and let me know what you think. EkoGraf (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that works for me.

I know it seems a little trivial, and that the purpose of the exercise was to de-clutter the infobox however, after I'd received the query, I checked it again objectively and, while the numbers being in small font was an indication, I found myself agreeing that it could be a little clearer as it isn't elaborated on in the "casualties" section summary. Another alternative could be to pop the info into the Nuland ref before the citation so's to not extend the infobox any further, but I'm good with it either way. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean like this [6]? Let me know. If not I will revert myself. EkoGraf (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was thinking of just for the sake of keeping the infobox as clean as possible. I've reinstated the full citation. Hopefully that'll make it clear to readers where the info comes from! (I'm starting to feel that all of this pedantry may be the sign of becoming mentally defective as a result of spending too much time on controversial articles...) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Rofl. :D EkoGraf (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the so called "RUSI estimate"

I have removed the so called "RUSI estimate", it was private view, if you went into the source it specifically stated that it wasn't the RUSI view. If anyone wants to reinstate then the RUSI estimate claim needs to be removed. In any case we have better sources now thanks to EkoGraf.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The form of words "The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) alone, and do not represent the views of..." are a standard English convention used in both the United States and the United Kingdom. It is particularly used when publishing academic work by civil servants, and is also sometimes used by academic institutions such as universities and "think tanks". It is not a valid reason for deleting a source.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The text clearly states that The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) alone, and do not represent the views of RUSI. There is no need to dwell on this, claiming this exaggerated figure as RUSI view goes against what the source says.Now, if the convicted spy who published his views is a reliable source for information about Russia, is another thing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't play WP:GAMEs. It is a standard disclaimer. It would not be published on the RUSI site unless it had been approved. A legal disclaimer of this nature should be handled with care (attribution) if taken from even a reliable news source, but such care with inline attribution does not apply with regards to a governmental investigatory body. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Definetly wrong attributed. When, for example, university or journal publishes some work done by their employee we do not declare "University (Journal) says that ..." but rather "Researcher X.Y. says that...". Disclaimer (I wouldn't do original research whether it is convention or not) says clearly they published it but not said as a whole organisation. Rephrasing to "RUSI researcher" or just "Expert opinion" seems valid option to me. Nonetheless, I would vote for remove that from infobox and include in appropriate section with adequate description.164.127.75.24 (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTVOTE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The separatists call the Ukrainian government "fascists" because of Viktor Yanukovych’s spin doctor's

This article points out that the attempts to label the current Ukrainian government as "fascists" started about 1 year before the war in Donbass. The then government government of Viktor Yanukovych then already labeled the then opposition (now they are the government) spin doctors already seemed to focus on dividing Ukrainian society into “neo-Nazi fascists and their supporters” and “anti-fascists” expecting this to play into their hands. It could be argued this help the current separatists, the groundwork for their portraying of the current Ukrainian government as fascist was already done. Should this be mentioned in the article; or another one about the Ukraine crisis? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK. It not relevant to this article, though it is relevant to articles on the former-president, the crisis that led to him fleeing the country, and the political groups alleged to have been fascist.-- Toddy1 (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Russia: the most evil nation in the world?

Just cannot believe how POV pushing and one-sided this article is - almost as if the text come from the US State Department. Can someone address this unbalanced (neo-con type) attack on Russian? --89.243.216.201 (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Just one piece of advice, if you want someone to care about this opinion, I suggest that you provide a couple of examples from the article and argues for why they contain POV-pushing and one-sidedness. Do not forget that you need reliable sources for your statements. Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Now why does under-tone of that "piece of advice" seem less-than-friendly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.107.130 (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You are free to speculate, please tell me if you come to any conclusion. /EriFr (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

And,on the "matter of polite and effective discourse",folks are free speculate why Wikipedia house rules do not seem to apply to the comments of certain editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.246.159 (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize to Anonymous user. I tried to be clear and honest, but I could have chosen a better way to express myself. Not much can be done with that sort of general and personal opinions, and the way in which they were expressed (with a complete rejection of the work of others as an "unbalanced (neo-con type) attack" and something "from the US State Department") is not exactly constructive, but I will try again: "Dear Anonymous user. Thank you for sharing your opinion. Could you please provide a couple of examples from the article and explain why you think they contain POV-pushing and one-sidedness?". Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Russian tank incursion

“Russia had indeed sent tanks, along with other heavy weapons, to the separatists in Ukraine”.

US State department — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.53.40 (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The information is transparent. It is very clear to the reader who made the statement. The reader may thus evaluate the information for herself or himself. If you want to add contradictory information about where these tanks came from, present the information and your source for the information. Please, do not say again that I am unfrendly. You are just as welcome to contribute to this article as anyone, but you must understand that sources are necessary. Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

We could of course add a (another) statement that denies that these tanks came from Russia or a statement that questions whether tanks were used at all, but for that, we need sources. /EriFr (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an article talk page, not a forum or blog. Read the talk page archives and understand that there are not going to be any disclaimers or any form of op-ed input as regards the content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Allright. Thank you. /EriFr (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this article wouldn't come across like an "attack on Russia" (a characterization which I think is totally off-base and unsupported) if Russia hadn't attacked Ukraine. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

NAF strength update 80,000

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY6q9uKqo8s

207.35.219.34 (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The actual article at their news site features text as well. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Article needs updating

The situation in Donbass is not static, but substantial parts of this article (such as the map) haven't been updated since February. I do not speak either Ukrainian or Russian, so I cannot consult the primary sources to update this article myself. (Also, I do not know which primary sources are reliable and which are propaganda channels for either side.) --Rob Kelk 17:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The situation in Donbass, as far as reliable sources are concerned, is largely static. We don't use primary sources. We use reliable secondary sources. The line of contact has not changed in any significant manner, meaning that no map changes are needed. Minor skirmishes continue, but they are WP:UNDUE for this article, and are mentioned in the timeline. Nothing about this is outdated. If reliable sources report a significant change, it will be included. No such change has occurred. I suggest you browse the relevant sub-articles, as this is merely a summary article. RGloucester — ☎ 17:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Quite opposite, a lot has changed, for example the nationalistic Right Sector forces have been ordered to withdrawn from the front, after they started fighting police in Western Ukraine and organized marches in Kiev against the government. Also Ukrainian officials stated that rebels are preparing a nuclear device against Ukraine[7]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The Right Sector business is covered in the Right Sector article, and the Shyrokyne stuff is covered at Shyrokyne standoff (February–July 2015). None of that stuff is relevant in this summary article, as it is minor, and does not represent a major shift in the war itself. RGloucester — ☎ 16:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

2,410 Ukrainian soldiers killed as of July 3

http://memorybook.org.ua/

207.35.219.34 (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Right Sector involvement

The involvement of the Right Sector group in the current conflict is well documented and indisputable. Upon noticing the groups unexplained absence from the info-box, I re-added them only to have the edit reverted by Iryna Harpy, diff here [8]. This user obviously has infected the article with his personal biasness, as when I sought to remove the involvement of the RNU, explaining that it is ridiculous if an extremist group on one side is allowed to remain while the other isn't, it was reverted, diff here [9]. The vibe I'm getting is that we are allowed to be more subjective when it comes to the involvement of 'less than savory' combatants on the 'pro-western' Ukrainian side while not affording the same standard when it comes to documenting combatants on the separatist side. This is ridiculous and unbefitting of an Encyclopedia. I do not want any POV pushing in this article, and only wish to know why the inclusion of the Right Sector is being censored. --Ritsaiph (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Have to agree with Ritsaiph. Unfortunately some editors have become strongly engaged here and are pushing a very one sided POV. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we all know what you POV is. Why do you feel compelled to leave POINTy comments days after a content matter has been resolved? Is it that you want to be seen to be involved - via means of your signature - despite the time lapse between a discussion's resolution and your self-righteous non-comment? It might just go a long way to explaining why you pull up comments and differences months apart in order to keep reminding everyone of just how much you don't anything that doesn't suit a POV you feel strongly about. Please stop being plain ol' redundant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the Right Sector; I'll let others hash that out. But there's no reason to remove the RNU. You can't use the argument that "you won't let me do what I want so I won't let you do what you want" on Wikipedia. Or in real world.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I was the one who added Russian National Unity to the infobox in the first place, diff here [10] I merely removed them to see if user Iryna Harpy had an agenda by reverting me adding the Right Sector, and not to my surprise, I was correct. --Ritsaiph (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Right Sector There are two questions: (1) is there at least one reliable source? and (2) is the inclusion of the group significant enough to mention? In the case of Right Sector, there have been many reliable Western sources that wrote about their involvement. The sources have indicated that their presence is significant.

"I merely removed them to see if user... had an agenda by reverting me". You have proved nothing. Long-standing editors often revert the deletion of properly-cited content, when there appears to be no good reason for the deletion. Have you read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point?-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

"Long-standing editors often revert the deletion of properly-cited content, when there appears to be no good reason for the deletion" - Toddy1. Is this the Wikipedia equivalent of going senile? Your tirade was pointless, and you have actually proved my point that the user removed sourced content without any explanation or reason. --Ritsaiph (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of points that need to be addressed here, not the least of which is WP:GAMING by Ritsaiph in order to elicit 'responses'. I don't appreciate WP:ASPERSIONS (as are demonstrated by the user's missive on my own talk page here) as to my having a "Ukrainian-centric group" [sic] agenda (I'm sorry but when, exactly, did I become a member of a Wikipedia cabal bent on flexing my mythological influence muscles to merit accusations of, "I am now aware you have a biasness for your lack of justification in removing material which is well known." [sic])

To be honest, outside of imaginary agendas, I see fundamental problems with the inclusion of either group and would suggest that both are probably WP:UNDUE. The major problem is that of WP:SYNTH: depicting either political party as being a party endorsed, pro-active military group would need WP:RS demonstrating that extremist party members are supported financially, morally, et al by the parties and are, ergo, the norm. Yes, both parties hold extremist ideas and are bound to attract the most extreme elements who can't be prevented from using the party logo. Does that mean that these militants are truly the embodiment of the parties, or is working on such a premise a conflation of two related, yet disparate, concepts (party as ideology and party as military entity)?

While we can claim abundant RS (outside of WP:BIASED and op-ed pieces), where is it? Does any of this serve as being informative for the reader in the infobox or is it just designed to be plain WP:POINTy?

As to why I left Russian National Unity there pending discussion, that's simple: yes, of course there's been a lot written about Right Sector and its involvement because they're a Ukrainian party who have Ukrainian citizens as members and the extremism of their ideology has been bandied around right from the word 'go'. RNU are not Ukrainian, yet have a presence in Ukraine fighting in a Ukrainian(?) war. Why are they present in a country they are not citizens of? And, no, you're not going to find significant analysis of their presence simply because it has been Ukrainian affairs, as well as larger Russian interests, that have been under scrutiny in the press. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, I personally don't give a sh*t about what you do or do not appreciate. The fact of the matter is you having unjustifiably and consistently removed well-documented and sourced information from reliable, as well as from partisan sources. For you to then write about justifying your decision by writing utter bullsh*t is just pathetic but also the icing on the cake.

depicting either political party as being a party endorsed, pro-active military group would need WP:RS demonstrating that extremist party members are supported financially, morally, et al by the parties and are, ergo, the norm. I mean, what are you trying to say here? That just becuase members of a group fight, the organisation they are apart of doesn't endorse them? The leader of Right Sector, Dmytro Yarosh is an aide to Ukrainian military chief Viktor Muzhenko and Right Sector would therefore have to condone (which it has) the conflict if its leader is involved. But of course Right Sector doesn't condone fighting in Ukraine, this assertion is just ridiculous.

"there's been a lot written about Right Sector and its involvement because they're a Ukrainian party who have Ukrainian citizens as members and the extremism of their ideology has been bandied around right from the word 'go'" Oh, so it's 'unfair' to comment/scrutinize on this particular group and its ideology becuase it's a Ukrainian group comprised of Ukrainians.

For some reason, you seem confused about what goes into an info-box. Let me make it easy for you: If it is mentioned in reliable sources, it goes into the fuck*ng box. Do you understand, or would you like me to re-type this statement for you to analyse?

I have come across too many people on Wikipedia who are like you Iryna Harpy. Pathetic, stupid and selfish people. --Ritsaiph (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Feel free to retype your complaint at the WP:ANI, Ritsaiph. Oh, and incidentally, that's a terrific piece of WP:SYNTH you've managed to squeeze in into your (shall we say) rather protracted tirade against me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: That "there's been a lot written about Right Sector" is not a convincing reason for excluding Right Sector from the infobox.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I'm fine with that, too. I merely presented explanations as to why I would consider both to be WP:UNDUE for the infobox. If they're both considered DUE, then I'm also fine with that. The only thing I object to is editors who jump straight into attack mode on my talk own talk page and made full-on personal attacks on other editors on the talk page of an article. Ritsaiph has some severe behavioural problems I believe need to be addressed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Thank you. I have restored the information to the infobox.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Cheers. I'm just surprised no one else did so earlier. It's not down to me to question consensus: I have no illusions (or grand delusions) as to WP:OWNing the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Herzen, I'm addressing only one of your tendentious edits here (without bothering to address other POV refactoring you've engaged in after this edit). As you see, per discussions in this sections, consensus stands at the inclusion of both the RNU and Right Sector in the infobox as being reliably sourced. Stop trying to edit war your POV into the content of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I hadn't read this article for months, much less edited it, so how could I be edit warring? All I did was see some wildly unencyclopedic editing choices (to call them expressions of POV would be to attribute some kind of merit to them) and respond accordingly. Evidently, the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" means nothing to you. (I did glance at some of these Talk pages occasionally, too see whether the circus was still in town.) Your bandying about the term "consensus" fools nobody, by the way. Editors managing to hound out editors who are here to build an encyclopedia does not consensus make. You used to know at least how to give the impression of being civil. – Herzen (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Military forces of "Right sector" are a part of Territorial defense battalions (Ukraine). If anyone wants to include more materials about them, sure, please do. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Herzen: The bounds of civility and assuming good faith were stretched well beyond the norm by three edits by you in quick succession:
A) Discussion as to the content deemed DUE for the content relating to edit No.1 existed in this section already.
B) Edit No.2 was the removal of sourced content. The reason it stands in its current form used can be answered by checking through the archived talk pages of this article and the Russian military intervention article. The infobox became heavily cluttered some time ago, and discussions took place as to how best to address these issues rather than duplicating multiple RS already in place. It was decided that, for the sake of cite kill, this was a more effective way of avoiding duplication and, as such, is in no shape of form a breach of WP:WINARS.
C) With edit No.3 you claim that RT is equally reliable as the BBC despite the fact that I know you are well aware of the discussions of the use of RT (and Sputnik - ex-TASS and RIA Novosti now combined) at the RSN and NPOVN relating to their reliability (or lack thereof) in the context of events in the Ukraine, Georgia, etc. (if not elsewhere)... particularly as the escalation of the propaganda element has been thoroughly examined by multiple RS over the last few years.

Most importantly, not only did you fail to catch up with the talk page discussions, you did not even attempt to follow BRD. If you have a genuine issue with content, bring it to the talk page, and do not use this page to make bad faith personal attacks on myself, other editors, and cast aspersions about a cabal at work. After the first sentence, the remainder of your comment reads as a very POINTy list of grievances founded on your own sense of self-righteousness. Mimicry of trashy accusations is the last bastion of someone who doesn't actually have a constructive argument. It is not evidence of 'hounding' out editors who are 'here'. If you have any such suspicions and can back it with evidence, take it to ARB. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Content fork

Regarding to this edit [11]... Well, I simply do not think we should provide that many images of paramilitaries and dedicate so much content about the paramilitaries, given that they are well described on numerous pages liked from this page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately your recent edits are likely violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. Tendentious editing, WP:NPOV, WP: RS. I also feel that this is a WP:DONTLIKEIT issue. "Pro-Russian insurgents" section is obviously much longer. -- Tobby72 (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Tobby, MVBW made a very specific argument about content. You made personal accusations against them. Who's "violating several Wikipedia guidelines andp olicies"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies to My very best wishes or anyone who feels offended. Essentially, my argument is that "Counter-insurgency forces and Ukrainian militias" section is much shorter than "Pro-Russian insurgents" section. There is no need to further shorten it. My very best wishes and RGloucester have also accidentally deleted a section called, "Chechen and Muslim paramilitaries". — [12], [13]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not your 'argument', Tobby72. Your history of WP:GAMING has not left you standing in good stead with editors who are WP:HERE. Are we about to go WP:REHASH another bout of WP:GEVAL POV-pushing? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It continues. No, simply telling in edit summary "deletion of cited text" is not enough. Not every cited text belongs here, and this is precisely the point. If needed, I can provide links to other pages with duplicate texts. My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I can also provide links to other pages with duplicate texts or similar content. For example, 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine ("Russian involvement" section). Why did you choose this particular section ("Pro-government paramilitaries")? -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Why did I choose to change this particular segment? Simply because I happened to read this particular segment. Sure, a lot of pages must to be improved, but I either did not read them or did not see anything particularly troubling. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think revision of the section on Counter-insurgency forces and Ukrainian militias would be a good thing. It contains some apparently random sentences that appear out of context. To illustrate the uselessness of these sentences, I have added in italics the conclusion I would draw from the out of context sentences.

• "It lost twelve fighters when it was ambushed outside Donetsk in August 2014." Only 12? And none since August 2014?
• "The National Guard is trained by U.S. Army paratroopers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade." So there are thousands of US paratroops in Ukraine? Since when?

-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Speaking more generally, I think that copy-pasting texts about "Ukrainian fascists" to numerous pages (even where they do not really belong) is a bad idea. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The current state of the article is one-sided towards certain POV and a lots of balancing realiably sourced info has been removed under often flimsy pretext ("content fork", "no consensus", etc). I have never ever written something like "Ukrainian fascists" or "Ukrainian nazis". It would be pretty stupid. Similarly, to say that Russians are "terrorists" or "fascists" is equally stupid. On the other hand, the Azov Battalion fighters have undoubtedly links with neo-Nazi groups. - [14], [15], [16]. It cannot be denied. There is also no doubt that volunteer battalions such as Azov have taken the brunt of the fighting. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, there's been an inordinate amount of sabre-rattling about how unfair it is to characterise pro-Russian separatists, Russian involvement, ad nauseam for the past couple of years (that is, a superlative case of 'wearing down the opponent' until they give up on following innumerable, mainstream RS descriptions), yet when the shoe is on the other foot, 'neo-Nazi', 'Ukrainian fascists' and every other extremist descriptor used in some RS are POV-pushed into any and every article possible disregarding whether it meets DUE. Do we have two rules for content, or is it that tendentious and disruptive editors get the final word? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black — [17], [18], [19], [20]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Could you please try to make some sort of sense. Okay, I can see that you are admitting to being the kettle, but who, exactly, is the pot? It seems that you've pulled out valid edits going back over a year of editing without providing a context, and are trying to make a WP:POINT about editors who reverted or changed content added by editors who have been warned off by administrators for tendentious editing practices, or have had sanctions imposed on them preventing them from editing these articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Actually, the entire sentence, "Some of the volunteer battalions belongs to Right Sector. It lost twelve fighters when it was ambushed outside Donetsk in August 2014. Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh vowed his group would avenge the deaths." reads as WP:POINTy without any context other than 'we want to put in Right Sector, plus use WEASEL description like "vowed" to "avenge the deaths" here'. Even the article cited doesn't use "vow" and the single description of the response is pure WP:CHERRY. In the context of the article, it's only an aside to the primary information. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think revision of the section on Pro-Russian insurgents would be a good thing. Here is one example:

"Mozhaev also alleged that some of the more extreme views of the Cossacks include destroying "the Jew-Masons," who they claim have been "fomenting disorder all over the world" and "causing us, the common Orthodox Christian folk, to suffer."— Young, Cathy (21 May 2014). "Fascism Comes to Ukraine – From Russia". RealClearPolitics.com. "On 25 May, the SBU arrested 13 Russian Cossacks in Luhansk."—"Russian Cossacks Arrested in Luhansk: Ukrainian security forces detain Kremlin-backed insurgents". YouTube. Retrieved 12 June 2014."

Do we have two rules for content, or is it that tendentious and disruptive editors get the final word? -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It continues. Obviously we have two rules for content. — [21], [22]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

What "continues"? Your unyielding WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Yes, yes it does.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious editing, repeated deletions of reliable sources posted by other editors. — [23]. Please stop your disruptive editing. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing tendentious about my edits. There IS something very tendentious about your tenacious repeated attempts to reinsert text that several other editors told you repeatedly does not belong in this article. There IS something disruptive about a single editor, you, edit warring against multiple other editors to try and force their way through on the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I am talking about tendentious editing, repeated disruptive deletions of reliable sources posted by other editors. — [24], [25], [26]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

1st diff. Yes, I can partly agree: this text could be included if shortened and corrected to properly summarize sources. 2nd diff - No, that was correct removal or remotely relevant and uninformative text. 3rd diff - no, that was improvement of sourcing. My very best wishes (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, My very best wishes. 1st diff. Shortened. — [27]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't an inclusion in the spirit of "Yes, I can partly agree: this text could be included if shortened and corrected to properly summarize sources.": it was CHERRY and POINTy SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is worth noticing that some Chechen (like Isa Munayev) fought on the Ukrainian side and died. However, text inserted by Tobby72 (and especially the phrase about Nord Ost siege that did not involve anyone fighting on the Ukrainian side) was very far from WP:NPOV, to tell this politely. My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"Nord Ost siege" removed. — [28]. Btw, the pro-Kiev Chechen commander was a member of the terrorist group responsible for the Nord-Ost theatre siege. — [29]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? No, as far as RS tell, all members of the terrorist group were killed, together with 130 hostages by FSB forces, except only the famous double FSB agent Terkibayev who directed the terrorist group to the theater. But he was killed later. My very best wishes (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no substantive argument against the material other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT — [30] -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we know that you don't "see" it. That doesn't mean that such substantive arguments have not been made. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

And let's be clear here. This isn't just about adding some (undue) text. You are also trying to remove some info while you do that. Trying to be sneaky. For no apparent reason. Talk about WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Euromaidanpress, Youtube, Realclearpolitics. — [31]. Talk about WP:RS.

Marek, I'd recommend you to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've read it. Pointing out that you are not only trying to add text but are also trying to remove text in the same edit is not a "personal attack". False accusations of "personal attacks" however, can be, if yourself read WP:NPA, construed as personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Tobby72, I'd recommend that you read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. How many times are you going to WP:REHASH the same POV changes from article to article? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to comment that using youtube as source or Euromaidanpress doesn't fulfill RS criteria of Wikipedia. These sources need to be removed and better ones provided to support their claims.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Youtube isn't being used as a source, a video from a news organization which can be linked to on youtube is being used as a source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as Euromaidan press goes, the text it is sourcing is also sourced to Reuters so, uh, "better ones" ALREADY ARE provided. And it's trivial to find more since the story was reported by most media organizations (for example [32]).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I think your comment is off topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Violation?

Repeated references are made in the article to the "Fall" as opposed to "Liberation" or even "Capture" of Debeltsevo and other rebel held areas. The rebels and separatists are also referred to in places as "occupiers." To me this betrays a blatant pro-Kiev bias in the editing of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.29.128 (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It's even worse than violation of NPOV. This article does not even meet the standards to be included in a respectable newspaper, even less an encyclopedia. Just one example of the language used: what Russia called a "humanitarian convoy". The author of this phrase should apply for a job at 'The Daily Mirror'. Alas, there is a group of like-minded people who watch this article like a tigress watches her cubs. Blinded by their bias, they don't see that all they are achieving is damaging Wikipedia and, instead of furthering their cause, make it look every day more dubious. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

no data on Ukrainian wounded

memorybook.org.ua only lists fatalities, numbering some 2,600. There is no data on wounded. Some 6,800 wounded listed in the infobox seems too few for some 2,600 fatalities. 172.98.153.169 (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

On what basis do you say that the number of wounded is too low?-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Because it's much harder to kill someone than it is to wound someone. 172.98.153.169 (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes with what reliable sources say. It does not use editors' original research. Your argument is based on the flawed premise that you can scale up from the micro to the macro scale. When you are dealing with battles that may last days or months and involve thousands of people your simple logic does not apply. Historic wounded to kill ratios have been very variable - from more than 10:1 to 0:1.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Toddy is probably right, the it is about the ratio you'd expect for DPR to suffer under normal modern conflict circumstances. Abattoir666 (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

request to rename War in Donbas to Anti Terror Operation

This has never been a war. It is an anti terror operation ATO.

207.35.219.34 (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No, per WP:COMMON. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Russia should be removed from the belligerents section and listed as a supporter

Because there is no Russian unit listed in the units section

207.35.219.34 (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a legit reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It is even less legitimate, because some kind of sneaky user removed the relevant unit. It has now been restored. RGloucester — ☎ 17:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Russian armed forces is not a unit. There is no proof of a Russian unit having ever fought in Donbas. There were some paratroopers captured at one time, but no evidence of them having carried out any combat mission.172.98.153.169 (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Give it a rest! You will be telling us next that there is no evidence that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour before declaring war in 1941.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Why should I care? It's people like you who have ruined wikipedia. Made it a joke. No one respects wikipedia anymore. It's people like you who say Russia is fighting in Donbas. Where's the proof? Has anyone seen Russian air power in action? Here in the west, there is only 1 golden rule, and that is innocence unless proven guilty. That's precisely why there is no perpetrator who shot down MH17. Because there is no proof. 172.98.153.169 (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. NOTAFREAKIN'FORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

One of the most widely quoted divisions of regular Russian army that took part in this war was 76th Guards Air Assault Division from Pskov, as discussed here, for example (I am mostly reading Russian language sources). There are many others, such as 18th Motorized Infantry Brigade and 5th Tank Brigade of Ulan-Ude [33] My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no proof of involvement of direct Russian forces in Ukraine,there have been allegations but they are unproven.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh please, there has been plenty of proof. Like Russian soldiers captured by Ukrainians. Like documentation showing Russian soldiers and equipment in Ukraine. Etc. etc. etc. Just because some people keep repeating a lie over and over again, does not make it true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Marek on this one, it's blatantly obvious Russian regulars are in Ukraine. There is no way that the DPR could train and equipment armored units in it's less than one year of existence, let alone regular infantry. Top that off with frequent footage of captured soldiers, and one must reach a conclusion that Russia is a combatant in this conflict.Abattoir666 (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It may be true, but I see more similarities with the "secret" support of the U.S. government for Contra rebel groups in Nicaragua. Top that off with frequent footage of captured soldiers, As far as I know, they have actually captured about 13 Russian soldiers - [34] - and several hundred separatist fighters - [35]. Donbass region of Ukraine is home to some 3–4 million ethnic Russians and there have been tens of thousands of military & police desertion cases. For example, one of the separatist groups claimed to be composed of more than 1000 former Ukrainian special police officers (Berkut). Separatist commander and DPR's security minister Khodakovsky is a former commander of the Alpha special unit of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). – Tobby72 (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Nicaragua was arms shipments, not actual soldiers.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 September 2015

This edit was removed depsite consensus that Right Sector remain in the info-box. The foreign volunteers list was also removed for unspecified reasons, despite heavy sourcing.

• Right Sector

Foreign volunteers:

• Belarusian
• Georgian
• Swedish
• Croatian
• Chechen
• Others

References

Ritsaiph (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but this is mostly a duplicate material (already in the page) and therefore should not be included without proper discussion and consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  @MSGJ: Consensus for the inclusion was reached (see the relevant section above). If there's any confusion as to later exchange with Herzen, it was over his removal of RNU despite the discussion and consensus for both Right Sector to be included as an active party to the Ukrainian forces, and RNU as an active party to the pro-Russian forces. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, I do not think that consensus has been reached. In brief, the military forces of "Right sector" are a part of Territorial defense battalions (Ukraine). These territorial battalions are already included in the infobox. No need to repeat the same twice. No one responded to this argument. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

This change is ultimately based on an unofficial website, http://bs-life.ru, which doesn't look like a reliable source at all. Please revert the edit.

See also some remarks from people in reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/3ig4tk/russia_inadvertently_posts_its_casualties_in/cugad1e — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardy.tardi (talk • contribs) 08:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

We are not here to qualify sources. Forbes, The Independent, NBC, IBT, and The Times all are carrying the story and treating it as a legitimate leak. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 21:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but how is this a legitimate leak? Just because all of those RS claim this is a legitimate leak doesn't mean we have to treat it like some undeniable truth. Lets think about it for a moment, the main "source" of the story is from a shady website called "Bs-life.ru" that nobody ever heard of until yesterday. Even Bloomberg’s Leonid Bershidsky dismissed this report as fake citing the url name and the grammatical mistake of "v Ukraini" instead of "na Ukraini" (in Ukraine). RS make mistakes too, and so does the US State Department. Does anybody need a reminder of how Strelkov's militiamen in Sloviansk were portrayed as Russian Spetsnaz in April 2014? [36] [37] Seems like RS nowadays pickup stories that make big headlines, without even verifying whether the source is reliable. Bottom line, Wikipedia is no place for rumors that turn into "leaks" overnight. SkoraPobeda (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea whether the leak is legitimate or not. But until there's a RS which says it's bunk we stick to the reliable sources which are reporting on it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And, uh, the sources you link to, do NOT state or show that "Strelkov's militiamen in Sloviansk were portrayed as Russian Spetsnaz". What the guardian article in fact says is that the proof in the photographs is not unequivocal (i.e. they could be Spetsnaz) but that Russian special forces probably are there. Try again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"the grammatical mistake of "v Ukraini" instead of "na Ukraini"" - what? Russian media used v Ukraini as normal grammar until 2005. source. "In Ukraine" is correct, "on Ukraine" (na) is imperialist jargon.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 14:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Marek, could they be Spetsnaz? Lets take Alexander Mozhaev for instance, that main bearded man accused of being a Chechen Spetsnaz GRU from the 2008 Georgian war [38], VICE News even confirmed his identity, and he's definitely no Chechen [39]. The other men were also found on social media and were not known to be in the Spetsnaz GRU. Did RS ever go back and correct their mistakes? Obviously not, because they aren't interested in that. As for Levivsky, your chart proves nothing. All of my relatives from Ukraine always said "na Ukraini", even during the Soviet Union. So that "imperialist jargon" is nothing but a lie. It is the correct terminology since Ukrayina literally means "borderland", don't let any website tell you otherwise. SkoraPobeda (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

SkoraPobeda, you claimed that the sources you provided, like the guardian, stated that other reliable sources mistakenly portrayed "Strelkov's militiamen in Sloviansk ... as Russian Spetsnaz". The sources you provided in fact say no such thing. What they say is what I already wrote above.

As to the little original research that you guys are conducting here, both your analysis of Mozhaev or "v" vs "na" is completely irrelevant until you bring reliable sources to the table.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I won't be able to find you a RS that calls them "Strelkov's militiamen" if that's what you're expecting. That's not even the point, the point is that there are some RS that don't come to a conclusive term of what to call those men. At first they were called "gunmen" [40] later they called those men Cossacks [41], and of course the most often term was the simple "Spetsnaz". Even with the original research that I showed, it proves that RS make mistakes and don't go back to correct themselves. The very same thing is happening right now with this whole hogwash story of 2000+ Russian soldiers killed, and 3000 wounded. The RS themselves are using a Non-RS for their media frenzy, isn't that silly? That is why I am in stark opposition to the addition of these numbers. And no, you won't find a RS that disproves this data because none of the RS are going to be disproving it. SkoraPobeda (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but that's not enough reason to remove the info. You either follow WPR:RS or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright then, today we bear witness that under-investigative RS uses non-RS, but it's ok to put it on Wikipedia because it's RS. If only you guys understood how frustrating it is to see a lie being labelled as RS. SkoraPobeda (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Ugh, I had to make a new account - I agree, the source is not credible and is the result of a propagandist feeding frenzy. Anyone with an IQ above 75 would be able to tell that those numbers are EXTREMELY unrealistic and ridiculous. Not too long ago a 'human rights activist' in Russia claimed 3500 Russian soldiers were killed. This is getting ridiculous. Please revert the figure back to its previous estimate, of 400-500 from the US Department of Defense. A much more credible source. ChuckChuckRuck (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Until there's a reliable source which says it's bunk we stick to the reliable sources which are reporting on it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"numbers are EXTREMELY unrealistic and ridiculous." - Is it? I mean the alternate estimate is 2,500 RU mercenaries, right? I don't think 3,200 wounded out of 40,000 is unrealistic either. However, personally, if it's 10k RU troops deployed on rotation of 40k, then 2k dead does seem high, especially since they are mostly in the rear and cleanup with the mercs as cannon fodder. At the same time, you have a lot of officers and soldiers embedded as part of these 'volunteer' units that are getting wiped too. I don't know, just personal opinion rambling here.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 14:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Marek, please read the reddit links I provided. They *prove* beyond doubt that this bs-life.ru site is not reliable at all. Please load their website in Google translate. It has *no street address*, its whois record is obscured, yet it's depicted in the Western media as a Moscow based newspaper. It's as good as any site that can be built in 10 minutes. Mardy (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, here's a reliable source which debunks (with investigation) the Forbes article: https://www.rt.com/news/313653-russia-ukraine-soldiers-fake-forbes/ Mardy (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments on reddit are nowhere near being a reliable source. RT is nowhere near being a reliable source. See WP:RS. No go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Then how come that an unknown Russian site, with no valid contact information, full of ads, is a reliable source? Please elaborate. In the RT article and Reddit comments there is some information which *everyone* can verify. You don't need to trust them, just do the checks yourself (knowing Russian, or having Russian friends helps!). Mardy (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The "unknown Russian site" is not being used as a source. Forbes, The Independent, IB Times, NBC News and The Times are being (or could be) used as sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Marek, dont be a fool. Forbes is nothing but a blog, and the sources those writers use are bogus. Therefore, the echo articles cannot be taken as a legitimate source. Ukrainepolicy also used it, does that mean we can use Ukrainian propaganda as a source? I agree with Mardy. You are being a hypocrite.Two Russian journalists warn that the source is not legitimate: https://twitter.com/NataliaAntonova/status/636475839316631552 | https://twitter.com/NatVasilyevaAP/status/636467968331882496 Someone revert it to the solid numbers from the US government. ChuckChuckRuck (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/ChuckChuckRuck, when you said that you had to make a new account, what was your previous account?-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Even if Forbes "was just a blog" (blogs can be reliable depending on who writes them) you still got four other reliable sources up there. Are we using Ukrainepolicy? No? Then it's irrelevant.

You might want to lay off the personal attacks like "fool" and "hypocrite".

Also, I also thought that the "other account" you referred to was Mardy.tardi. But in the comment above you say "I agree with Mardy" which indicates that this is not the case. So let me echo Toddy1 in asking what is your other account? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Marek, The Independent quotes Forbes as the source. Can I remove it from the article page, then? Also, Both Ukrainepolicy and The Times quote directly that bs-life.ru website as their sole source. Shouldn't we just restore this whole section to how it was before this piece of "news" broke out? Mardy (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No, The Times is just being a secondary source. Which is what we use. Again, until there's reliable sources out there which say it's bunk, we report what reliable sources are reporting.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And are you going to answer Toddy1's question? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what question? The only question I see from him was not for me. Mardy (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"Ukrainepolicy also used it, does that mean we can use Ukrainian propaganda as a source?" - wait, so you're calling western academics "Ukrainian propaganda" now? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 14:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the western academics believe that if the headlines are on other sites, then they too must have that story. So technically yes, they are swallowing propaganda and becoming a mouthpiece for it themselves. SkoraPobeda (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please observe WP:NOTAFORUM and drop the editorializing which does nothing to improve the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

We should not be including this figure in the article at all, certainly not presenting it as some sort of undisputed fact. All of these outlets are basing their reports on something published on this one very shaky site that was created using a readily available template. It appears that there is only one point of contact for the outlet as NBC, Radio Free Europe, and Russia Today, all mention the same "representative" speaking to them about the site by e-mail and no details appear to exist about any other staff. Even though it is supposedly a major Moscow-based business magazine, an Associated Press reporter in Moscow does not seem to have ever heard of it.

The idea that because this site's claim has been repeated by more reliable outlets this means the information somehow is no longer questionable is absurd. None of these outlets have any way to verify that the original article's claims were legitimate or based off any real sources and the "representative" did not provide any outlets with their supposed sources. I don't believe we would ever accept this site as a reliable source given that we know nothing about it so suggesting its claims should be treated as fact just because some "reliable sources" repeated the information despite not being able to verify it for themselves is ludicrous.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate, you've been around long enough to know that a Wikipedia's user original research doesn't trump reliable sources. Thank you for your opinion, but it's irrelevant until someone finds a source which explicitly says these numbers aren't true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Another debunk, from a Russian blogger close to opposition figures. In English, just please take the time to read it: http://ruslanleviev.livejournal.com/37565.html Also, why isn't this *HUGE* news in the CNN, BBC, The Guardian? You would think they'd report it too, if it was true? Please put prejudices aside, follow the source chain and get to the bottom of the facts. It's just a Russian click bait site. Mardy (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The original source is fake, that is plenty of reason to remove the info. You can't just use secondary articles as a source when the information in those articles have proven to be fake.ChuckChuckRuck (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You still have not answered my question Chuck.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, secondary sources is exactly what we use.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

stopfake.org debunked it as fake

http://www.stopfake.org/en/debunking-the-fake-article-on-2000-russian-soldiers-killed-in-donbas-everyone-fell-for/

172.98.153.169 (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That's more like it. Need a bit more though, this is user generated content, no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Marek, in my opinion you are reversing the logic: in order to add something to an article, we need reliable sources. Those numbers come from a blog of an anti-Russian journalist hosted in Forbes, some tabloids and many Ukrainian sites, and they all refer as a primary source to an unreliable site (bs-life.ru). None of the big news agencies carries this news. The US department did not update his estimates. Now, do you really expect the BBC to write a piece of news about this news (which they didn't report) being fake? Or do you expect Ukrainian sites or the journalist who posted the news into his Forbes blog to retract it? It may happen, but most likely it won't. So what, do we have to stay with these fake numbers in Wikipedia, just because the formal process requires so? I have a proposal: we revert those numbers to those given by the US department and, if you wish, we can add a small section in the body of the article, where we report of this "news" and its criticism.Mardy (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

We do have reliable sources. Not just forbes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• We do have reliable sources. Not just forbes.* | You are trolling. You don't. You just have sources that regurgitate the same information presented in the forbes and ukrainepolicy articles. (Information that has proven to be 100% incorrect and false.) You have no reliable sources. If the information is incorrect, it doesnt belong on this page. No matter what article it comes from. Someone, for sanity's sake, revert the edit. Stopfake.org is a website dedicated to debunking Russian (mostly) and Ukrainian propaganda. It has been used as a source throughout Ukraine-related articles, it is a legitimate website. Its not Reddit or 4chan. If people can use Bellingcat as a source, then they can use this as one too. Its more than reliable, its basic analysis. Please accept the fact that this is NOT correct information, and revert the infobox to its previous state. The sources you are using contain false information. Its all fake, why can't you just accept that? How much more evidence do you need? RT, stopfake.org, and even moronic redditors have been able to debunk these false statistics. ChuckChuckRuck (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Guys, I've studied Russia's wars and conflicts for years, and there is no way they've lost 2,000 men in Ukraine. Apart from the dubious sources, it just isn't an accurate number. Russian soldiers, even conscripts are vastly superior in ability to their Ukrainian counterparts, (this is even excluding Russia's armor and artillery superiority in the Donbass region), the odds of them losing 2,000 men and only killing 2,000 Ukrainians is absurd at best, ludicrous in all probability. We should probably just add a lower limit, with a question mark highlighting the massive uncertainty surrounding this number. Abattoir666 (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, you need more than personal opinion for that. You need a source. The StopFake source above is getting there - it doesn't quite fulfill the necessary conditions for WP:RS however (I wish it would). Just keep looking and find a published, reliable, secondary source which states what you state.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, a lot more than 2,000 Ukrainians were killed, such data by official Kiev can not be trusted. One should also realize that a lot of Russians who fight in Donbass are not official Army, but "volunteers" who fight as a part of Donbass "militias". Hence the higher losses. No one knows the numbers for sure, but they are many thousand. Russian government was forced to declare them a state secret, allegedly to cover up the significant jump of mortality rate in the entire country during this year [42]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Marek, above you accuse me of original research, but that is not what is going on here. I am saying the original source is not even remotely reliable and thus we should not rely on anything repeating the claims of that source even if it appears in a "reliable" source. None of these "reliable" sources independently verified the claims made in the original source or checked the veracity of the original source so we cannot really say the information is reliable. Absent independent verification of the information by these "reliable" sources, we have no reason to trust the information enough to include it in the article at all given the shaky nature of the only actual source.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say. Forbes, The Independent, NBC, IBT, and The Times. We don't second guess reliable sources or try to "correct" them because we think they got it wrong (except in extreme cases). Second guessing and trying to correct reliable sources is textbook original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The hypocrisy in this is unbelievable you just said "We report what reliable sources say" yet you have repeatedly deleted reliably sourced material — [43], [44], [45]. – -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing hypocritical here (again, please lay off the personal attacks) - different issues are involved as has been explained to you fifty fucking million times! Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not just opinion, people are actually reading this page, the longer we leave up the crap estimates the dumber the readers will become. It's impossible to have 2,000 kia, 3,000 wia and only 12 prisoners, this isn't just from a historical perspective, every law of warfare and statistics says that's crap, so do the US and Russian government. The source where people got this shitty estimate from is most obviously crap. And Forbes, the Independent, and NBC aren't reliable sources, they all report what other news outlets say, IBT is especially guilty of this. We're making the Pedia seem more susceptible to fantastical stories than it already is. Abattoir666 (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, then find a source which says "this number is crap".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Even a quick scroll through Institute for the Study of War, records shows that this number is crap, and ISW is where the government actually get's data from. Abattoir666 (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Marek, 340 people have seen these numbers, and are probably already spreading this false info. Can we please just revert it already, if you don't believe me just call the institute for the study of war, and they will tell you that number is bullshit. Abattoir666 (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This is how war propaganda works. Do you remember Iraq's WMD and media's complicity as cheerleaders to war? – [46]

This article isn't about Iraq and WMD. See red herring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Debunking the fake article on 2000 Russian soldiers killed in Donbas everyone fell for, Ruslan Leviev, LiveJournal, 28 August 2015. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice try but LiveJournal's not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh my God, I get headache just by looking at the arguments the naysayers post here. The article from Forbes is reliable as for now, and the casualties should be listed as such in the infobox. DO NOT DELETE THEM. There have been many wars in the past were the casualties have not been confirmed, yet we have listed modern day "estimates" as facts. Why should we treat this information any differently? The article has been debunked by a person with ties to Russian propaganda. That makes sense. Russia inadvertently released these casualties numbers and now they are trying to clean up the mess by debunking the article, and you fall for it?

In war the KIA/WIA ratio is always higher! 2000 KIA and 3,200 WIA is actually a very reliable number and most likely true. The POW have nothing to do with the casualties number and do not reflect if a country is at war or not. ~ Richard

Nice try, but the article has been debunked by Russian opposition blogger Ruslan Leviev with ties to Kyiv Post. – [47] -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, but that Kiev Post article doesn't say anything about this issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• The 2,000 casualty number has been published in a large number of RS [48], and it only concerns Russian soldiers from the regular army. It does not include "volunteers" that are a lot more numerous. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The author of the Forbes blog added a follow-up post, in which he acknowledges that the news is most likely a fake.Mardy (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No. It does not say that. The relevant sentences are quoted below:

"An independent analyst named Ruslan Leviev has argued that the Business Life-obtained document is a fake. He makes a number of fair arguments that I take seriously. I have updated my original article to make note of Leviev’s analysis. Western journalists and commentators, in contrast to their Russian counterparts, must stick to the truth or not be seen as credible. The subject matter—the number of Russian military deaths in Ukraine—has been declared a state secret in Russia (Ukaz of the President of Russian Federation, No 273.) The purpose of a secrecy law is not only to conceal something but also to make leaks unverifiable."

-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Bloomberg contributor Leonid Bershidsky: "The initial distributor of the bs-life.ru casualty fake defends his right to publish bs because Putin does." -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Looking at the above discussion, it is now very clear that this information is incorrect and based on fake data.It should be re-phrased to reflect this or removed altogether. We had situations were mass media did report false information before.Logic would dictate that we are to reflect reliably information, and Wikipedia readers shouldn't be presented faked information as objective statements.However looking at the discussion above, I would suggest seeking a neutral third opinion or mediation as compromise or agreement doesn't seem to be possible at this stage.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. Now... where is the reliable source which says this information is incorrect? You know how this works, NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually just something is published by reliable source doesn't mean it has to be included:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I also note that you aren't actually claiming that the information is correct just that it was repeated by mainstream media without the due diligence of fact checking, and therefore needs to be included-this is at least the way I understand your reasoning. In any case looking at the pattern on this and other articles I believe this is best to decide for third parties. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

That applies to situations where some info can be sourced but is not really relevant to the article's topic or constitutes trivia. Here we just have a couple editors engaging in relentless original research in order to exclude relevant and on-topic information which has been published in reliable sources. Please don't try to WP:GAME wikipedia policies for POV purposes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Marek, are we still on this? The source that says 2,000 dead is crap, but for the sake of just getting this pointless thread over with, we should just leave it as the upper limit, with a note saying the sources for the low and high numbers. We should also do the same for the wounded as well. (Side not: since this is a low intensity conflict, the more correct numbers are probably the lower numbers, just a basic maxim for editing. Unless of course this low intensity conflict is in China or India, in which case anything goes.)Abattoir666 (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, and in fact have not made any changes after you changed it to that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tobby72, Abattoir666, The Devil's Advocate, SkoraPobeda and MyMoloboaccount. The alleged leak is highly dubious and has been contested by many, thus making it highly unreliable. Considering we already agreed to include only figures of dead made known by highly reliable sources or self-admitted figures, and not potential propaganda, than the figure has no place in the infobox. A fair compromise would be to mention the 2,000 figure in the casualties section. PS In regard to the figure of 2,248 dead separatists, it has three sources. 1st ref confirms the graves are that of separatists, 2nd ref confirms (up to that date) at least 2,213 graves (read the number on the grave), 3rd ref confirms (at a later date) an additional 35 separatist deaths. Thats 2,248 dead. EkoGraf (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

has been contested by many - like who? Some reddit editors and a couple Russian bloggers? Where are the reliable sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Listen, first, the RS are NOT the ones who are reporting 2,000 soldiers have been killed. They are relaying the claim of a dubious news site. That it is being relayed by RS does not make the claim automatically reliable/verifiable. MyMoloboaccount has already pointed out Wiki policy on this issue. Second, an obvious majority of editors is in agreement that the claim is too dubious to be taken as reliable. But, even if you call upon Wiki policy that we are not a democracy, Wiki policy also dictates that when consensus can not be reached on an issue no changes are to be made (leaving the older version of the article). At this point you have no consensus. Third, I am again proposing a compromise where we will mention the claim/leak of 2,000 dead in the casualties section of the article (which I have already inserted). EkoGraf (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you listen. Above you stated that this figure "has been contested by many". Yet you have not provided a single reliable source which contests this figure. So you're making shit up, unless by "many" you mean random people on reddit, a couple no-name bloggers, and few tendentious Wikipedia editors known for their POV PUSHING and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality (that's putting the anon IPs aside). Nice to know that you're ready throw out the WP:RS requirement out the window when it fancies you. Really good editing practice there and a pretty stark admissions as to the nature of your edits here on Wikipedia.

Then you repeat that empty assertion in your edit summary: "a source that has been contradicted and put into doubt by several other sources " Really? What are these "several other sources". List them please. Right here. Since neither you nor anyone else has done this, that means you're just bullshitting. Trying to sneak in your own original research rather than actually following one of Wikipedia's WP:FIVEPILLARS which is that reliable sources trump individual editor's opinions and fancies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, first, beside ignoring the two policies MyMoloboaccount and me pointed out to you, you violated two more policies just now. Accusing me of conducting bullshitting and ignoring WP:RS is not in accordance with WP policy on assuming good faith and not in accordance with WP: Civil. Second if you are going to compare reliability, which is more reliable? The State Department giving a figure of 400-500 dead up to around the same time period, or that news site claiming 2,000 died? You are acting on the basis that all those RS are the ones who reported the number but in fact they didn't. They relayed the claim of a dubious news site. If those very RS news sites were relaying for example a claim by a separatist commander that he killed 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers, per your logic that would mean that claim is as well reliable. Third, the sources I referred to have already been linked to you by all the other editors up above (I can link a few more here [49][50]). I know you will contend they are all not reliable, but there's enough of them to cast doubt. Fourth, since when is 8 editors a few...editors? Fifth, in the future I would ask that you discuss contentious issues in a more calm manner. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Look, it's a simple question/request. You said that this figure "has been contested by many". You then said "a source that has been contradicted and put into doubt by several other sources ".

Now.

Please show me this "by many". Show me these "several other sources"

You can make all the excuses you want and throw all kinds of baseless accusations my way and complain about the use of a grown-up word to accurately describe your actions. Doesn't change the fact that you're making stuff up.

And no, RT does not count. Hell, random reddit editors probably ARE more reliable than that. No it's not enough to cast doubt. You didn't say "a Russian propaganda outlet cast doubt on this source". You said "by many". And you said "several other sources". Still waiting on these.

And you keep piling it on even thicker. Now you say "the sources I referred to have already been linked to you by all the other editors up above". What sources? Comments by random schmucks on reddit? A LiveJournal blog? Twitter posts by non-notable individuals? A site with user generated content? Gimme a fucking break.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, read my previous reply. Or are you simply blanking out of your view all the links our fellow editors have posted? EkoGraf (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Please list them again. What are they? Reddit? LiveJournal? Twitter? RT? How many times does it have to be repeated that these are bunk, non-reliable, sources.

Look, it's a simple question/request. You said that this figure "has been contested by many". You then said "a source that has been contradicted and put into doubt by several other sources ". Now. Please show me this "by many". Show me these "several other sources".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Already replied to your simple question/request in my previous reply. Read it again if you need to. Don't know how you missed it. EkoGraf (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm blind. Can you list them right here? Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It may be simple use of a grown-up word for you, but its not for WP: Civil and WP: Good faith. PS You did it again, violating WP: Good faith by accusing me of making stuff up. EkoGraf (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. You are making stuff up in your talk page comments and in your edit summaries. Specifically, you claimed that the info was contested "by many" reliable sources. You claimed that it was put "into doubt by several other sources". It hasn't. You made that up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of term schmucks and gimme a fucking break in a discussion that should be civil is again not per WP policy. And its your personal POV. At this point I would ask you to take a break and cool off before continuing the discussion in a constructive manner so we can find a consensus (which is required by Wikipedia policy). EkoGraf (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of "schmucks" and "gimme a fucking break" are perfectly fine when used appropriately as they are here. And I would really appreciate it if you dropped the passive-aggressive condescending tone. I'm perfectly cool. I just don't like being lied to. And you are still trying to make excuses rather than actually providing these "many" reliable sources which "contested" the info or "put it into doubt". Until you do that, yeah, the discussion is stuck. But it's not because of my use of the word "schmuck" but because of you playing WP:GAMEs. Sources please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(and the State Department figure is pretty old so non-comparable).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It may be old, but it refers to the same time period. EkoGraf (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but it may have been based on old info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@EkoGraf. Sorry, but I believe this is not quite correct understanding of the policy on your part. Here is one of numerous sources telling that at least 2,000 Russian regular Army soldiers (not "volunteers"!) were killed. We have no responsibility to conduct investigations if this number was true. We have absolutely no obligation to trace anything to a primary source. To the contrary, we must use reliable secondary sources whenever possible. If there are other secondary RS which claim something different, we should also mention such sources, if they qualify as RS. But unfortunately, these alternative sources, such as discussions in Russian LiveJournal (see above) do not qualify at all as RS. The best we can do is to simply ignore such sources, especially if they contradict actual RS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not the Independent who are saying 2,000 soldiers died, they are reporting on the claim by the dubious news site. That does not make the claim verifiable/reliable. Like I already stated in an example up above, if the Independent was reporting a separatist commander claiming he killed 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers, would that make his claim automatically verifiable/reliable as well? In any case, putting the reliability of the claim aside, the fact of the matter is at the moment there is no consensus to insert the information into the infobox (with 2/3 of editors opposed to it). I am proposing as a fair compromise, for a third time, that the information be still mentioned in the casualties section, since it was notable enough in the RS media. PS Those volunteers ARE Russian soldiers, but they are going there under the cover of simply being volunteers under the orders of their officers. RS media has already reported on this dozens of times. EkoGraf (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"It is not the Independent who are saying 2,000 soldiers died, they are reporting on the claim by the dubious news site" First, whether the site is "dubious" is your own original research. I've been begging for a reliable source on it and all you can come up with is some comments on reddit or a LiveJournal blog. Please. Second, so what? The news site is the primary source. The Independent is the secondary source. On Wikipedia we use secondary sources. We most certainly don't conduct our own original research and evaluate the dubiousness of primary sources. At best this is just a matter of phrasing. Instead of saying "according to the Independent 2000 soldiers died" we say "The Independent report on a leaked report which suggested that 2000 soldiers died". It's not that hard and doing it that way is in accordance with Wikipedia policies on verifiability.

Or are you trying to claim that we cannot verify that the Independent reported on the leaked report? Really? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that news site that reported 2,000 dead is reliable? PS I have no objection to including a sentence like "The Independent report on a leaked report which suggested that 2000 soldiers died" (as you suggested) in the Casualties section, but again due to the contentious nature (and lack of consensus) I am against inserting the figure in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

We can not tell "The Independent report..." because that was also claimed by Forbes and a lot of other sources quoted above. Yes, we have smaller tentative numbers in reports published several months ago, but it's always better to use the most recent numbers. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That's the problem here, they did not claim, they reported on a claim. Like I said big difference. In any case, word the sentence any way you like. But like all the other editors, I'm against inserting the figure into the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

" they did not claim, they reported on a claim" - that's. what. secondary. sources. do. On the other hand you want to engage in evaluation of the primary source. Which is original research and against Wikipedia policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

And what you are proposing is not a "fair compromise". I'm starting to get a feeling you don't quite understand what that word means.What Abbatoir666 proposed and implemented was a compromise. Your version is more like "my way or the highway".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

So far the only one here who has been pushing "my way or the highway" has been you. You have half a dozen editors who wanted a total removal of the mention of 2,000 dead from the article, while I made a proposition of inserting it into the casualties section, for which you replied with insults towards me. EkoGraf (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Of these "half a dozen" editors three are brand new single purpose accounts, three are most likely the same person and two or three of the others have a long history of tendentious POV pushing in this topic area. Sorry if I don't have much respect for such a "consensus". I think you're thinking of tag-teaming and meat/sock puppetry, not "consensus".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Listen, I really don't care if they are sock puppets, meat puppets or any other kinds of puppets. I'm not here for those kinds of things. I'm here to discuss an issue/problem plaguing the article at the moment. And I would like to focus on that. And even if you did remove 3 sock-puppet accounts from the count of 8 opposing the insertion, that still leaves 5 vs 3 (again, no consensus). And them being know for tendentious POV pushing does not make their opinions any less relevant than yours or main. Especially considering I've seen people accuse you of POV pushing many times but here I am still listening to what you are saying (and insulting) and trying to figure this out. EkoGraf (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a simple question/request. You said that this figure "has been contested by many". You then said "a source that has been contradicted and put into doubt by several other sources ". Now. Please show me this "by many". Show me these "several other sources".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I already told you (this will be the third time now) our fellow editors provided some of the links up above and I provided a few more. That you consider them all unreliable and are blanking them out is your prerogative. EkoGraf (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you said that three times and not one of those times was it true. It's still not true now. Please list these sources right here. Or is it too embarrassing to have to admit that either 1) you're full of it and are making stuff up or 2) you think that comments on reddit are reliable sources which pretty much means you got no business editing an encyclopedia.

So please. List these sources right here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't know whats so embarrassing about a thing that doesn't affect my life in a bit and especially towards a man thats again stooping to insults (contrary to WP: Civil and WP: Goodfaith) instead of a constructive discussion. For the fourth time, read what our fellow editors linked: comment by Mardy 05:51, 28 August 2015; comment by ChuckChuckRuck 07:24, 28 August 2015; comment again by Mardy 05:44, 29 August 2015; comment by 172.98.153.169 11:50, 29 August 2015. I would again ask that in the future you refrain from chucking deragatory comments/insults towards fellow editors. Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was working under the mistaken impression that the fact that random comments on reddit or twitter were not reliable sources was understood by anyone with minimal competence in editing Wikipedia. And in fact your misleading edit summaries and comments repeatedly suggested that you were talking about reliable sources - not some bullshit someone posted somewhere on the internet - "contesting" the report. But no, apparantly you were actually talking about some bullshit someone posted somewhere on the internet. Just didn't have the honesty to state so explicitly.

So tell you what, I'll stop "chucking"... relevant and substantiated criticisms, when you stop using misleading edit summaries and comments to try and win arguments. Volunteer Marek  07:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)