Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 11

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Recent edits

Re: [1]. This is NOT "small reduction in lead". It's a straight up attempt at POVing the article's lead under the disguise of doing a "small reduction in lead". In addition to violating WP:NPOV it's also a bad faith attempt at WP:GAME. Volunteer Marek 03:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Try working with other editors instead of deleting edits. Removing POV tags does not get rid of POV. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

POV tags need to be based in policy not some one person's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you don't like what reliable sources report then perhaps an encyclopedia which relies on reliable sources isn't the place for you. Volunteer Marek 04:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You can hardly ask him to work with new people who just show up to push the "Russian Federation not involved" myth. With the deterioration of all russian state media into complete encyclopedic uselessness within just a few month, worldwide many of the guys who watched the russian state TV, read ria novosti and other outlets, will find articles in western Wikipedias heavily disturbing and may try "to correct" them. Hard to see how cooperation could function. Alexpl (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel the edit was referred to above was in accordance with WP:LEAD. The editor had moved one quote from the lead to the body of the article which is commendable. Mention of "Little green men" do not belong in the lead, but in the body of the article -this was removed in the edit. Only a summary of the material in the article should be there in the lead, not what the local people called the russian soldiers!! User:Volunteer Marek, read WP:LEAD please. The lead of this article contain much material not found elsewhere in the article. It is not a summary of the events at all, but reads like a mindless collection of data. There are a lot of citations in the lead. If the lead is a summary of the contents in the body of the article, the citations should only be there in the body. I dont see any POV pushing in this edit. Can you please point out what was the POV pushing? Making a general accusation whithout supporting evidence is not a very nice way of editing in wikipedia. --Drajay1976 (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There's plenty of POV pushing in there. In addition to removal of the "little green men" (this article is not linked to in the text- but this means it should be added to the main text, not removed from the lede), the editor removed anything that doesn't align with the RT version of events, for example the sentence beginning with "Russia has sought to distance itself...", removed the quote by Zakharchenko (we can go back to "on vacation" if you want), added "containing aid" in the description of the second truck that crossed unauthorized into Ukrainian territory (this is purely a Russian claim, dog knows what's actually in that truck - i.e. info's not based on sources), removed statement by Amnesty International which was critical of Russian government from the lede. Enough? Volunteer Marek 18:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree, I fixed this a little. My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed little green men because it needn't be there, I moved a quote to the body, I removed the Russia distancing itself because the very next sentence had the same idea (i.e. it was redundant), I added containing aid because that is what the article claimed (that it was aid as part of a 12 point plan, hence the silence from the Ukrainian government), I removed the quote about vacations with something that contained the exact same meaning that was shorter. I assure you the only thing I am trying to do is get the lede smaller and more readable. Hollth (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek,

How is removing the statement about "little green men" from the lead POV pushing? This is hilarious. This reference would not be there in any summary. But it would be there only in the body of the article.
Why should the Russian denial of involvement be mentioned in the lead more than once? Is removing a repetition POV pushing? It is just cleaning up.
Both the references about the convoys contain references to "aid". One reference says that Russia claimed that it was aid. The other reference says in clear terms that it was aid. The second RS (AP) has even a photograph of the aid. I think any editor would be completely justified in adding the term "aid" to the article after reading these references. If you have a problem with the term "aid", it is your POV, which is not reflected in the inline citations. Please dont try to push your POV. Try to bring some citations of your own before you remove references about "aid" in the future.
The statement of Amnesty International was removed from the Lead and added to the body of the article. It looks like cleaning up in accordance with WP:LEAD to me. Why would it be POV pushing?
Any quote, whether by Zakharchenko or anyone else needs to be there in the Lead of this article which is already cluttered. They can be there in the body of the article. Removing those from the lead is just cleaning up, not POV pushing.

None of your points looks like POV pushing to me. They look like reasonable positive edits to me. On the other hand, your blanket labeling of these edits as POV pushing looks like edit warring. Most of the times, you just revert positive non POV edits, claiming that they are POV without explaining how. --Drajay1976 (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for writing this. Galant Khan (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

War of Aggression ?

One of the russian protestors called it War of Aggression.[2] Altough the requirements in UN Resolution 3314 already define the support of armed bands in another country (Article 3) [3] as an agression, the Security Council would have to approve on this, which it will not. So can the term still be used? Alexpl (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-Military Events

I'm trying to move everything in this to more relevant headings. Crimea and responses should cover everything in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollth (talk • contribs) 10:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The biased article

This article is based on biased sources and operate by allegations. I propose to delete the article - Wikipedia isn't a place for propaganda war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alligas (talk • contribs) 01:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

wp is place for RS Allgas,- not totalitarian epigones who want to destroy all information not controlled by their favourite dictators of the day. Sayerslle (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

There has been a persistent deletion if the POV tag by User:Volunteer Marek without an attempt to address the article. The talk page is the place to work this out, as is being done with the lede. Removing the tag is no helpful to the article or it's readers. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You have reinserted the spurious tag and have begun a second round of your previous edit war. Previously you were reported for a 3RR violation and the only reason you did not get blocked was because once the report was up you ceased to edit war. The report was closed as "stale" with the suggestion to "But report again if the user resumes warring on the POV tag". This is exactly what you have done know, racking up 3 reverts in 24 hours.

I very strongly suggest you self revert both your latest reinsertion of the tag, as well as your revert of my other edit (the one which undid Hollth's POVing of the lede). I'd also appreciate it if you didn't try to "take your revenge" by following me to other discussions, such as the on the redirect about South-East Ukraine as you did here [4]. Volunteer Marek 04:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the tag is needed because there are numerous claims presented as facts, e.g.., regarding the alleged Russian invasion. There is even one by a Channel 4 blog. Rockets fired from Russia, tanks from Russia, hundreds killed by Russian forces. It's ok to mention these claims, but as long as they are not proven let's just stick to the facts, they are nasty enough. Galant Khan (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

claims - claims - claims - the channel 4 news report, - a report on the news - shows the destruction , luhansk airport for example, - and you say yes , claims, no, not claims, RS reports with physical evidence and RS reportage - - heres more 'claims' about the BUK - came from Russia - Sayerslle (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no doubt about destruction, the question is whether actual official Russian military is involved. Credible sources doubt that, like Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of former US intelligence professionals who had rightly warned that the "proofs" used to justify the Iraq War were unreliable. You will find numerous claims in western media, it is however not neutral to suppress sources that are more critical. Galant Khan (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

this isn't about Iraq - if VIPS get picked up by RS for their views on Ukraine then that would be more relevant here - RS reporters who are in Ukraine talking to locals, looking at the evidence, are certainly less likely to know whats going on than senile old codgers many miles away but unfortunately wp says articles should go with RS Sayerslle (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

There were many telltale sources reporting about their Ukraine related letter to German chancellor Merkel, among them Süddeutsche Zeitung, Stern (magazine), and The Nation. As former FBI/CIA/NSA agents they are probably more experienced in judging whether intelligence material is reliable than locals who are under the influence of Ukranian and Russian propaganda. Did you hear about the Ukranian Secretary of Defence claiming Russia used nuclear bombs? Galant Khan (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Splitting of this article, Crimean and Donbass/Lugansk

I suggest to split this article, because the reader is impressed by this article especially part with units involved in this intervention that ukrainian and russian forces were/are involved in both regions, on the other hand for example ukrainian navy was involved only in russian incorporation/annexation of Crimea, and there were no national guard units there, because national guard was created 4 days before russian incorporation/annexation of Crimea, on the other hand there is only one secure source of presenting of russian armed sources donbass/lugansk(Capture by ATO of 2 BMD from Pskov division confirmed in the National Security Council) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.223.63.199 (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, did The National Security Council say which Russian Federation Army Unit did give that T-72BM tank to the separatists? Alexpl (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No. We already have War in Donbass, 2014 Crimean crisis and Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, let alone various other articles. RGloucester — ☎ 22:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Rewriting the lead

I just copyedited the lead a bit, but it's still too long per WP:LEAD, and IMO it's also awkwardly structured: it goes back and forth between the 2014 Crimean crisis, the Donbass, more discussion of the Crimean crisis, and then the discussion of the Donbass that takes up most of the lead. (I think it'd make sense to consolidate the info about each region.) I've set up a sandbox where we can discuss and trial major changes to the lead. You can compare the lead before or after my lite copyediting of it with my suggested rewriting of it (which is NB still one paragraph too long, per WP:LEAD).
You can see from the sandbox's edit history that I initially thought about reducing the info on the Crimean crisis to just a link, because it has its own article (which even this article's section on is just a short summary of and link to) and I read WP:LEAD as saying this article's lead should summarize the body of this article, not the body of this article plus another article. However, I think the amount of info in my suggested rewriting is a decent middle ground between too much summarizing of that article in this lead and too little coverage of that crisis which was, after all, a Russian military intervention in Ukraine.
Please offer feedback and feel free to make use of the sandbox. Hopefully we can come up with something worthy of implementation in the mainspace. :) -sche (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

having read the version in the sandbox I think it reads fine. perhaps a link to the battle of ilovaisk article could be put somewhere in the lead ,- I have taken the impression from reporting that that was very significant and overwhelming Sayerslle (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It is helpful (going forward) to make smaller incremental changes so that the least controversial ones are done first and it is possible to revert only the later revisions. Thanks.Wikidgood (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

interpretermag.com

This blog is used many times in the article. This is not a news blog as per WP:NEWSBLOG since this is not a column hosted in the website of newspapers, magazines, or news organizations.
As per the "About us" page of the blog, the blog translates media from Russian press and blogosphere into english. Translations of personal blogs can also be included in this. This is unacceptable as a reliable source as per WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:QUESTIONABLE.
Many of the statements for which this blog is used as a citation has other inline citations.
I am removing this blog from the article as it is not a reliable source. Where there are no other sources, I will insert the {{Citation needed}} tag so that more reliable sources can be inserted.
Blogs which can be accepted as reliable sources such as the channel 4 blog can be retained in the article as per WP:NEWSBLOG. --Drajay1976 (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a reliable source, hasn't been, and won't be. RGloucester — ☎ 17:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

please don't remove the information drajay - i'm confident that james miller and interpretermag are not inventing stuff so if you tag it , thats fine , lets find what you consider a RS for the info . interpretermag is not like RT for goodness sake. people with integrity write it. and can you remove the tag at the top as soon as possible ? it seems to me you are a bit determined to have a big bloody tag across the top. am I being unfair? Sayerslle (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a blog, hosted by a think tank (Institute of Modern Russia). That's not a reliable source. It doesn't matter if they have "integrity". It is not a reliable secondary source. We are not a WP:SOAPBOX for commentators and pundits. RGloucester — ☎ 17:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

has it been decided it is not a RS. wp certainly is surely , sometimes , a place for commentators - informed opinion in other words, no? academics and such. why despise that? are you putting interpretermag on the level of globalresearch ? Sayerslle (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:SOAP. It is not a reliable secondary sources. There is no place for "commentators". We are an encyclopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 18:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In specific circumstances, a commentator's quote can be mentioned on Wikipedia, particularly when the article is about the commentator himself or herself. But it's not a source for facts. Even if the commentator is the President or the Nobel Prize!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We can do without the shoebanging. WP:RS is a fluid guideline. Nothing is ALWAYS non WP:RS if in the context it is credible. Even if there is to be WP:iNTELLECTUALBlacklist there has to be more than just a cliue of editors blaring out IT'S NOT RS BECAUSE I SAY SO. Context matters. RT is a propaganda machine but there are times when it may scoop and the same goes for IMR. Wikidgood (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My points are (1) SUBSTANTIATE the allegation that they are or are not RS don't just "vote" and insist on your personal authority WP:SHOEBANGINGand (2) with regard to the statment "I am removing this blog from the article as it is not a reliable source" don't just categorically purge across the board you must justify EACH deletion on its own merits. Wikidgood (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wikidgood: Rather than make assumptions as to the 'fluidity' of what is RS, perhaps you should take some time out to actually examine the RSN regarding the use of RT, ITAR-TASS, VoR, etc. precisely as pertains to the context of the recent events in Ukraine. It is quite clear that RT is considered reliable for general purposes, but not regarding this context ( see here and here). Please take the time to read the full discussions with care. If you wish to use RT, the onus falls back on you to demonstrate that it is relevant and deemed worthy of inclusion per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. RT and other Russian sources are most certainly used for statements on behalf of the administration of the RF, or for statements directly attributed to pro-Russian forces. This means WP:INTEXT attribution is necessary for anything outside of the scope of official positions.

Incidentally, could you please keep your shoe-banging down. Creating redlinks to guidelines or essays that don't exist, plus writing with your caps locked is considered to be yelling. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey I have news for you. There is absolutely no prohibition on creating redlinks which have some signification, which is obviously to suggest that there might be a use for a page on that topic. As for your remark "It is quite clear that RT is considered reliable for general purposes, but not regarding this context" that is pretty close to the precise point I was making. If the talk page creates the impression that someone is arbitrarily deeming a source non-WP:RS then expect more comments like my original. Wikidgood (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Iryna I mentioned RA, which is a puppet organ of a totalitarian state, en passant. Youseem to think I was interested in using them as if I thought they were generally RS, but I was only pointing out that even a clock which is stopped tells the time correctly twice a day. But this has little to do with this thread and my suggestions which were that however vehemently the Putin-worshippers may wish to dis-accredit IMR, it has vastly more legitimacy than RA. I can accept as you note RA as an expression of the Politically Correct Kremlin ideology and also some other factoids they may wish to present. (For instance, Putin's birthday is such and such, and he has a horsey, and his dog is black, etcetera ad nauseum). But your expansion of the RA tangent is a diggression. I do appreciate however your preference for a very civil, perhaps excessively civil, tone. And your idea of referring to past discussions in RSN is good but not particularly useful if you do not link to or reproduce earlier discussions. There are over 150 archives! And google presents a welter of false positives. Nevertheless, I have followed your suggestions and came up with a fairly useless discussion which presents an insufficiently precise set of links to evaluate. Remember that Institute of Modern Russia is basically friends of Khodorovsky, who puts his life on the line opposing the enforced state POV of the Kremlin. They should be entitled to the benefit of the doubt as much of what they translate comes from a variety of samizdat - critics who also risk long prison terms to put the truth out. It is apples and oranges to compare that kind of courageous devotion to veracity and intellectual freedom to the craven capitulation of 99.9 % of RA journalists. For what it's worth, as a point of diligence, here is the earlier archived discussion: Interpretermag -

I should like to know if it is permissible to use this source - is interpretermag.com [2] a reliable source? An article therein, the massacre that wasnt has expressed doubts over the authenticity of photos and vids purportedly related to Adra massacre. thanks Sayerslle (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Not reliable enough for this purpose. You can, on the other hand, keep its claims under close consideration when you evaluate other sources. Best to stick to sources of the quality of Reuters and the State Department even if it makes the article shorter. Use all the qualifications that those sources use ("according to reports"...). WP:RECENT applies. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC) o.k thanks - I took out the interpreter material and tried to add 'reported' and 'according to' - these qualifiers wont last long I believe - the Syrian civil war is a propaganda war as well as a military one of course. Sayerslle (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC) ODNB

End of message Wikidgood (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The list of Russian military divisions

The list of Russian military divisions secretly dispatched from Russia to Ukraine and used there was published in The investigation by RBC: Where Russian soldiers in Ukraine are from [5] (in Russian). Psychiatrick (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Translation? Wikidgood (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

interpretermag -rbc investigates russian troops deployed in Ukraine Sayerslle (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

RBC is a trivial anti-Putin media (like Gusinsky's NEWSru and RTVi) for the last years while it belongs to nickel оligarch Mikhail Prokhorov (Putin's competitor in 2012 Russian presidential election). Till 2009 the agency is very biased in its political news' delivery. 82.117.70.228 (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Allegations aint proofs

Some editors try to remove the word alleged I added to the "Russian intervention in Donbass" claim. Do I have to remember that adding "alleged" doesnt judge that the claim is true or false?. Because it seems to me that some try to remove it 'cause they think that means the claim is false. Until someone brings uncontrovertible evidence that Russian Army (of course as a whole, not individuals) intervened or Russia recognizes it, we must add the "alleged", per Wikipedia's NPOV policy and to avoid double standards with other conflicts. Otherwise, we will be passing a claim or allegation as a fact, and that's not WP's purpose...--HC PUNXKID 15:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:ALLEGED. It isn't neutral to make-up original research in defiance of reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 16:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Allegations are not the issue here, at least for me. Obviously, according to the sources provided there was and (I guess) there is a Russian intervention in Donbass. The issue (again, in my opinion), is if there should be a right of self-determination for the people in Donbass (either in the entire Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts or just a part of them). In my opinion there should be. But that should be a consideration for a separate article, actually, since the referendums that were taken could neither be taken as fair or independently verifiable. As a comparision... If a referendum would be taken in the Karaganda Oblast, in Kazakhstan, would it be fair or independently verifiable... since it's in the deep heart of Kazakhstan, I doubt that any of those 2 conditions would be verifiable. But the majority of the population in Karaganda Oblast in indeed Russian. Simply, Kazakhstan didn't create (no matter what we consider about its human rights issues) an anti-Russian polical atmosphere as it was created by Ukraine, for integrating Svoboda militants in its govt or for accepting Right Sector (Neo-Fascists) in its military ranks. Concluding, if I consider the Ukrainian govt at least partially responsible for this (supported by Eurocrats): Yes! If I think Russia is blameless: No!... This is an old-fashioned out of date crash of "civilizations", promoted by military corporate interests (I guess). I'm hoping that EU changes, since I can't influence the politics in USA! And I bet my dear neighbour HCPUNXDIP agrees with me. Mondolkiri1 (Mondolkiri1) 01:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to make sure I understand correctly: You really want to write, without any restraint, that the Federation has accepted their soldiers to fight in a foreign army while they are on holiday? So that would mean the separatists got that T-72BM tank by mailorder and the russian state has just made new laws to support the families of the guys "Killed on Holiday" in Ukraine because ...? No - I tried hard, but its impossible to free Russia from responsibility with reliable sources. And "double standards": we could very well remove all countries from the Spanish Civil War article who signed that pointless embargo - before they did send troops. Alexpl (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, take for example the 2014 Idlib city raid article. I brought 2-3 sources stating that ISIS was involved in the attack, but other users claim that was a journalistic error, mistaking a jihadist group for ISIS. I could argue 'till death with them that it wasnt, and that the sources I brought were neutral & reliable, etc..., but I simply accept that they add (alleged) to ISIS. Why cant u do the same? Aint that a double standard? Seems to me that some users in WP thought this is like a political chat, where u have to say the last word to prove you're right, or impose your POV, and that's not WP, WP is also about compromise. And, also, as I pointed before, look that in comparison I dont want to add that alleged to the Crimean part of the article, as in that case its crystal-clear that there was a Russian intervention (If Im not wrong, they even recognized later).--HC PUNXKID 23:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources have talked about Russian intervention in eastern Ukraine - - so wp reflects that, - its you that wants to impose your putinist pov - one of those 'who try to steer the conversation about Russia in one direction or the other by injecting interpretive doubt or confusion about major stories where none exists.' - Donetsk rebels -you want to treat the article like these Donetsk rebels treat real people imo , you want to kick it into your desired mis-shape. Sayerslle (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Are u hearing yourself? Where do you think u are in a political forum? How you would react if I had called you right sector bonehead or UPA assasin, as you had called me "putinist" without hesitation, when I only want to add the word alleged, as logic dictates? Im starting to get fed up seeing that a group of Ukrainian ultranationalist editors had hijacked all WP articles concerning the situation in Ukraine since 2013, and I would do whatever necessary to avoid WP transforming into some type of Ukrainian Metapedia.--HC PUNXKID 22:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

twitter is interesting at the moment - 'A massive column just outside Donetsk, we re firmly being asked not to film, take pictures.' -ahead of the election

'Maxim Eristavi‏@MaximEristavi [6] Ahead of the Nov 2nd rebel elections, the Eastern Ukraine ceasefire crumbles: 6 Ukraine soldiers killed in the last 24hrs' Sayerslle (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Article is highly anti-Russian

Delete the whole article due to wrong and faked information. For instance, 76th Airbourne division never entered Ukraine, it was proven. The soldiers are alive, they never entered any Ukranian territory. Anybody can speak with them face to face or in vk.com (all link to their pages can be found on google). Also, NAVI never took part in the conflict since no evidence was in any mass media. Also is fake. 18th Mechanized Brigade never entered Ukranian territory, it was proved by Chechen's leader R. Kadirov. The article should be renamed to "Ukranian civil war" or deleted at all due to high amount of mislead information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.93.212 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

they got medals I thought for 'heroism in combat' Sayerslle (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

the medals are for keeping peace and order in the Crimea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.93.212 (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources? Hollth (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

yes, listen to the speech of Shoigu. He clearly stated what for he rewarded the division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.87.93.212 (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

that's not a sodding RS - thats just you saying , yes is for peace. , honest , listen to minister, is for peace and love. and order. Russian order. and peace. - apparently he said this - 'I believe that the award to the division of the Order of Suvorov is symbolic. Service in the Airborne Troops inherently implies the highest professionalism and loyalty to Suvorov's science of winning not by numbers but by skill. The training conducted recently visibly demonstrated that Russia can and will count on you in resolving the responsible assignments in defending national interests," the Defense Ministery emphasized, speaking to the paratroopers.'Sayerslle (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

saw this tweet - 30 September - "Russia Defense Ministry citing privacy, refuses to answer legislator's query on reports of dead soldiers in #ukraine http://vedomosti.ru/~h3F " [7] Sayerslle (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Article is BIASED.

There is no Russian intervention in Ukraine as confirmed by the Russian Government.

If you want to elaborate an article with such a BIASED ANTI-Russian title, do so in another website.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an IMPARTIAL source of information and American and Western claims of Military involvement of Russia in the conflict are unfundamented and unconclusive.

They are mere accusations by conspiracy theorists and do not represent the truth as far as we are all concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.205.205.163 (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe the article should be renamed "civil war in Ukraine" to avoid using Wikipedia as a way of spreading American and anti-Russian propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.205.205.163 (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about reliable sources, not 'the truth' - the truth is the preserve of Putin lovers and 'anti-globalists' maybe, it is too lofty an ideal for this article, if you want the truth you have to read and watch globalresearch , PressTV, RIANovosti, consortiumnews, mintpress, , the truth is out there, - Wikipedia doesn't aim as high as that, maybe, it should just stick to reliable sources - -I mean, look, heres more western rubbish about Russian regime spin, about mass graves, when a Latvian bloke has confirmed the story - he is an anti-globalist and pro-Putin, but that's not relevant, the point is he deals in the truth , like the Russian regime, -, in the meantime Wikipedia can just reflect the wicked confusion as reported in Reliable sources . Moscow spins Sayerslle (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

In case Wikipedia is about reliable sources, not "the truth", the whole article should be removed and rewritten with links to reliable sources IMHO. Using web-resources of propaganda - not news (as their name would claim) and some resources, that are making a simple translation from the above-mentioned propaganda ones, instead of doing an independent report or investigation (I'm talking about media other than Ukrainian) are the base for all allegations in this article, which are seem like reliable source of information for the unsuspecting reader and being a proof for the article credibility.

As an example: the first website I looked into, which is mentioned in this article as a reference - slon.ru. The reference is this: http://slon.ru/fast/russia/v-pskove-proshli-zakrytye-pokhorony-mestnykh-desantnikov-1147710.xhtml In this article there is a mention of Pskov military servicement, died in Ukraine when their squad came under artillery fre by Ukrainian forces. As an evidence they provide names and VK accounts of those soldiers, and those accounts are reportedly were last accessed and online on around the same date 16-17th of August. The reference for the source of this information on the website is this: http://kado4nikov.livejournal.com/18424.html. I have visited several of those accounts: they are much like accounts on facebook, but in russian. I was not too surprised to see those accounts live and well, one was accessed today, another - 21 minutes ago. For the reference: now I'm writing on October 6th, 21:38 Tokyo time. New photos, status changes and so on suggest that those soldiers alive and well, which completely ruing credibility of the referring article, and in turn - the reference to slon.ru, provided in this article.

Furthermore: translations in the article aim to discredit one side in the eyes of the reader. Russian word "негр" can be translated as Negro or black person, and in only one case out of 100 would mean "nigger" in the context. The reason for that is simple: there was no slavery in Russia, and africans are pretty rare: usually as students or some residents. In school on geography lessons, african people are referred as "негры", asians and europeans as "евразийсы" and so on, and it does not have a tip of racism in the term. Translating words of commander Givi as a racist remark towards captured or faced soldier with a black skin during the airport fighting shows the article's author propagandistic intentions.

there is propaganda around , that's certain - I read that guards 'have also been posted at the cemetery where the paratroopers are buried. Journalists who have sought to cover recent funerals were chased away by thugs with rocks and screws.' -is that true? he brought up the subject of colour in his remarks didn't he? -its reliably sourced = its not easy to report freely in Russia about Russian actions is it - what is givi saying here btw- someone tweeted - 'If there are doctors who deal with drug addicts out there, what would you say about Donestk field commander 'Givi'? givi speaks - is this more propaganda? 'Russian paratrooper helped save Ukrainian troops from the 'Ilovaysk cauldron'"[8] Sayerslle (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This article needs deleted. There never has been any proof of Russian intervention. Every single instance of supposed "active duty Russians" in Ukraine has been debunked many times over. Wikipedia should not be used as a gossip rag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.139.67 (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy and bias are two different matters. No doubt there are a lot of inadequacies, that is reason for improvement not deletion. There is an underlying bias, and that is presenting a Russian invasion as something less. "Termed a stealth invasion" Who calls it that? Russian military forces invaded and seized control of the region, and Russia swiftly annexed the land. It may have been relatively bloodless, it was not stealthy. This was an invasion, just as Germany's occupation of Sudetenland in 1938 was an invasion, and the Soviet Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan was an invasion. Only apologists for Hitler and Communism respectively claim these were not invasions.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

In turn one can argue term 'invasion', used in the article. According to wikipedia, "An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity". Because the independance-proclaiming referendum was held and decided the independent status of Crimean Autonomous Republic, further military presence of Russian troops could not be described as invasion, and the prior presence of Russian troops was under a lease agreement between Russia and Ukraine, allowing Russia to keep a military presence in Crimea up to 30,000 men. As there was no exceeding that limit, there was no aggressive entrance, which means there was no invasion. Dmitryukr (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

so the ' seizure of the Crimean parliament and airport, the blockading of Ukrainian military facilities, '- was part of an agreement with Ukraine? - (the justification you've give for the presence of Russian troops in crimea was Andranik Migranyani's [9] he runs a pro-Kremlin think-tank apparently - it would be problematic imo to abolish the use of the word 'invasion' on the say so of a Kremlin pov. )bbc uses the word 'invasion', john simpson -smooth invasion - and then theres the eastern part of Ukraine etc - (holidays/losing their way notwithstanding) - tensions still high - Sayerslle (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not really relevant whether anyone thinks the article is anti this or pro that. What counts is any specific edit you can propose that is more consistent with WP:NPOV. Wikidgood (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Title of page

Just a heads up indicating that the article is very unstructured: I find it hard to decide whether the title is justified in this article because of its length and unstructuredness. Where is 'Russian' 'military intervention' justified? I am not trying to start politics here, but how does Wikipedia decide this? 77.175.64.145 (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your point is well taken so I took the liberty of cleaning up some of the (at best) sophomoric sentence structures, redundancies, etc. Of course I was terrorized by revert (LOL) and that ubiquitous harpy person is coercing me into doing all the homework/scudwork/detailing to support this edit <sigh> Well the devil is in the details but of course I just KNOW that it was notjuuust Brits who were on this sneaky RF thang...guess we will have to drum up the RS's to prove it...Wikidgood (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow! That was fast work, and thanks much for this edit which hit the nail on the head. I wonder though if there was a separate NATO intelligence report in addition to the Yanks and the Brits but yes indeed we are co-lab-bor-atin' nicely here, what a pleasant surprise! And nothing about this should really upset Russophiles we are just polishing without any POV injection...Wikipedia can be awesomeWikidgood (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for citation

Just for the record... As posted on User:Lklundin editor's talk page.

Hi. I have no problem with your editorial style and you are obviously well informed on many topics pertinent to this edit. Rather than put up a citation tag though I thought it would be more diplomatic to ask if you could please cite this interesting material. Thank you! Wikidgood (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and you can never show what is not in reality Russian President verbally told about the participation of Russian troops in the Crimean crisis (without a fight). No country has been able to give non-verbal confirmation of participation in the war of the Russian army in Ukraine. In several cases, were shown copies of poor quality satellite images in the amount of several pieces. On which there is no date and place where the pictures were made, as well as what to photograph. Independently that you see in these pictures is almost impossible. This situation persists for six months. All NATO reconnaissance system can not show the real evidence. Only a few photocopies of very low definition.

89.105.158.243 (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

no need to demonstrate it, the whole article is written ---. To say (but there is no evidence)

Yes it is a fact. and 2. the fact of NATO intelligence system has ZERO evidence invasion of Russia in Ukraine. 89.105.158.243 (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

you conduct a war changes options. waive any dialogue. here and on the talk page of article. in fact that there are evidence except for word of honor Jen Psak? NOTHING. or just the whole NATO intelligence agents of the Kremlin 89.105.158.243 (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If RS report on stuff wp can relay that - bbc Russian troops Ukraine according to images etc - its not about 'truth' - the 'truth' - you can hear about that at RT , or PressTV - you can get it pure and undiluted there I believe- something like that. Sayerslle (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 1) The dialogue should be conducted not here, but on the talk page 2) you understand that all your media blatantly lie, and there is no evidence of attack of the Russian Federation to Ukraine 3) But you really want to believe that 2) it is a mistake 4) BUT !!! there is no evidence against 2). try to find clues except that I showed in the source (but not). 5) In this entire article is not at all no evidence. Besides Putin's words (but of Crimea) 6) I do not say in the article that all your media fool around. I write exactly that - all NATO intelligence de facto failed to publish any evidence (confirmation). 89.105.158.243 (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

you are adding too much verbiage imo, in a poorly expressed paragraph, -half a sentence is needed to say Russian regime rubbished the satellite evidence. Sayerslle (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Your satellite images = 1 blank photoshop picture insignificant quality children's drawing is much more accurate.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28972878 In this picture just do that? is Ukrainian or rossisykie? you can even see what is there? tanks and self-propelled guns can be? what model? why only 1 picture ?? you mad? can not prove the war six months of the tens of thousands of soldiers with one paltry image. 6 months is nothing except this picture. you really want to lie, but your imagination is negligible. if pee in the bushes 1 time and then it would be more evidence.

89.105.158.243 (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 (talk)

http://www.kp.ru/online/news/1891038/ Washington received information from representatives of Ukraine that Russia has deployed heavy artillery and tanks on the territory of Donbass, but confirm these reports from independent sources US authorities can not. So said Friday at a briefing State Department spokesman Jen the United States Psak.89.105.158.243 (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

89.105.158.243, this is a WP:TALK page, not a not a soapbox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Crimea

Crimea was always militarily invaded by Russian troops under the Kharkiv Pact of 21 April 2010 and now is no longer a part of Ukraine after the 2014 referendum in Crimea. If the Ukrainians want to have Crimea, they have to wage a war against the Russian troops in Crimea. But there are no shellings and explosions in Crimea which is not a belligerent but an absolutely peaceful region kept out of the war. Why the article provides misleading information that Crimea is a belligerent? --Psychiatrick (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Volunteer Marek 16:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The above user is evidently confused about Wikipedia, see also the user page being abused as WP:SOAP for WP:FRINGE. Lklundin (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am guilty because I do not understand why you are confusing belligerents and Crimea? Does someone wage a war in Crimea and who wages the war against who in Crimea? The point is that most inhabitants of Crimea are native Russian speakers and Russian citizens including my relatives after the 2014 referendum in Crimea. By the way, Barak Obama believes and tries to persuade the whole Western world that Americans should be on the right side of history and willing to fight and die in Ukraine for its sovereignty. You all might think you are good and we are bad. But if you try to integrate as much European countries as possible into the NATO, we have the right to try to liberate Europe from the NATO. Because you have your own continent, so do we. Psychiatrick (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Psychiatrick: Perhaps you need to ask youself if you are so close to this conflict that you cannot contribute to its description in a sufficiently objective manner. Contributing to Wikipedia should not be quided by a personal conviction of who is good and who is bad. And the perception that there is a concept such as continent ownership is really not useful, nor is the concept that 'we' (the Russians?) are under any circumstances entitled (?) to liberate Europe from NATO (or anyone else). On that last topic, I believe in general that anyone has the right to take a look at their neighbours and decide for themselves who they want to associate themselves with. And I have a feeling that people in several former WAPA-countries and former Soviet republics might agree with me here. When it comes to international relations, I believe the concept is referred to as: 'The right of nations to self-determination'. (Hey, did I just quote Lenin?) At this point a Russian might want to step back for a bit of introspection: If your neighbours seem not so keen on associating with you, then perhaps you should take a look at history and ask yourself: Have I been a good neighbor or is there perhaps a reason why my neighbours do not want to associate with me?. To conclude and get back on topic: What counts here is just the quoting of reliable sources. You have evidently made significant contributions to Wikipedia in the past - on other topics. Perhaps that is a better way for you to contribute also in the future. Lklundin (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lklundin: I support the self-determination of the both sides of the conflict. The inhabitants of Crimea and the Eastern Ukraine no longer want to be a part of Ukraine led by Western-oriented politicians. Russia helps these inhabitants to be separated from the Western Ukraine by supplying them with provisions and armaments while the West helps the inhabitants of the Western Ukraine to be separated from the Eastern Ukraine by supplying them with provisions and money (that are spent to buy armaments for the war as well). See the link. That is why the battle in Ukraine is conducted between the West and Russia. The both sides of Ukraine are on the right side of history, according to Russia. According to Obama and the USA, the only side of Ukraine is on the right side of history while the other one is wrong and bad. Psychiatrick (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Russophilic objects to WP.Eng handling might do a lot better with specific edit proposals rather than these global condemnations that we are POV. There may very well be some improvement possible from that perspective but we see little but grousing complaints whining and outlandishly POV edits we have no choice but to revert. Wikidgood (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

oh yeah the wealthy pro Russian regimists are so anti-western - cash keeps flowing at playground for russias rich Sayerslle (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

interview

'Where did they get the armoured vehicles and the artillery systems? Nowadays people who wage a fight and consider it righteous will always get weapons. This is the first point.

But I would like to stress that this is not the issue. The issue itself is entirely different. The issue is that we can't have a one-sided view of the problem.' Moscow Connection says it is wrong to quote from this segnment of an interview putin gave- the comments follow directly - he says I am taking a completely out of context sentence and cobbling it together. I don't think so. Sayerslle (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

real evidence of the invasion of Ukraine in Russia

http://www.rg.ru/2014/06/13/reg-ufo/bmp-anons.html many photos and have a video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHr_azLmcWg inspection on site (video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br-B-5oe0X8 News Release (video) it is in the archives of the channel (you can find) + here you can see the details of how the car tracks traveled across the grass from Ukraine to Russia, leaving a huge footprint, and how this machine then loaded on a truck. but for 6 months and dozens of cars USA have nothing, only 1 photo (but can not see anything)

so much data for 1 case + but only 1 photo (can not see anything) for 6 months and thousands of soldiers (who's the idiot?)

http://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D0%B1%D0%BC%D0%BF%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%83%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%20%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D1%83%20%D1%81%20%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B9%20%D0%B2%20%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9%20%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE

this query will give thousands of photos and videos, and stories of witnesses, and a variety of media were there in person.

why when 1 machine 1 times violated the border so much real evidence? (it would be in reality) Why six months, thousands of soldiers trample the lands of Ukraine but there is no real evidence. (IMHO the US very much want to order to more rudely laughed about US) I once again repeat, there is no evidence of invasion, although the US lied about the thousands of soldiers who are fighting for six months. and try to find a refutation for --- real evidence of the invasion of Ukraine in Russia -- this is impossible, but the evidence invasion of Russia in Ukraine, it's just ridiculous. it = 0 facts.

a little bonus

http://xn--80adikbddgczflvhhagwf.xn--p1ai/novosti/ukrainskaya-bmp-narushila-granitsu-s-rf-v-rostovskoy-oblasti/
here you can read a distance of 150 meters, not 1500 and not 15.

89.105.158.243 (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, not reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 18:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

http://aco.nato.int/statement-on-russian-main-battle-tanks.aspx

delete article as no proofs

as it is written in Russian there is 2000 t-64 tank, but Ukraine has 4000 T-64 tank, which is why he should be photographed from Russia? also in the photo is a lie that looks like the T-64, they are all the same, but the T-64 MBT, what's this? how many of them are there? they just do not! posomtrite least Wikipedia article T-64 tank I propose to remove this article because the article does not contain the proofs, the article consists of the words of politicians. many other politicians say the opposite. but it's not in the article, the article only 1 point of view absolutely. http://deita.ru/news/politics/03.09.2014/4740461-dzhen-psaki-ne-smogla-dokazat-rossiyskoe-voennoe-vtorzhenie-v-ukrainu/

third day of September, that is six months from the start of the war, Psak still has no evidence. so why should we believe Psak ??? pskai speaks yes but no. it is a disease of the brain?

September 3, 2014, 12:15 pm Data. US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psak stated that the United States authorities do not have independent confirmation that the Russian troops crossed the border of Ukraine. Psak also noted that it did not have nothing new to confirm this information on behalf of the United States, reported IA "Date" with reference to ITAR-TASS.

http://gordonua.com/news/war/Sputnikovye-snimki-NATO-podtverzhdayut-prisustvie-rossiyskih-voysk-na-territorii-Ukrainy-38633.html

it is not evidence, there is generally not seen that coming, or worth, and where and when. You can watch half an hour and did not understand it a truck or a bus or a tank.

US politicians are lying about the thousands of soldiers, but where are they? Crimea seen them all (although there were hundreds) and then thousands, many months have passed, but no prisoner or PHOTO. I propose to remove this article because the article does not contain the proofs, the article consists of the words of politicians. many other politicians say the opposite. but it's not in the article, the article only 1 point of view absolutely.

http://gordonua.com/news/war/Sputnikovye-snimki-NATO-podtverzhdayut-prisustvie-rossiyskih-voysk-na-territorii-Ukrainy-38633.html even say that this gun (but can not see anything), but it is said that they are in Russia (not in Ukraine!) and that if the gun is worth in Canada? attack Canada? (hahaha). from the Ukrainian sidealso worth a gun, why not lie about an attack from the Ukraine? (hahha), you just do not have any evidence, although it took six months, you are ridiculous if you believe. can you believe Obama that he is a good president? in fact there are 2 pictures .... (hahha) no matter what it took many years, it is important that there are 2 photos :)

http://www.janes.com/article/40139/ukraine-captures-russian-t-64-mbt-near-donetsk

Is this proof? Why, why this tank should be of tanks home guard? why not from the tanks of Ukraine? why he is from Russia? it is written in the text? and why not a photo and vidio? Why not show these numbers are referenced. why NATO says that the F-16 was not shot down over Yugoslavia when his tail and cockpit for 15 years are in the museum in Yugoslavia on public display. and this is not one photo of the tail something.

why in the US say that the aircraft radar E-2 was not shot down by the Taliban in Afghanistan and fell into the sea, for technical reasons? because it was possible to make the photo)))))))))) 1 photo.may be necessary to make a photo of that Alaska was not sold in the US? you are ready to believe so strongly in 1 photo? if you have proof something show them, and do not talk nonsense! (89.105.158.243 , это WP: РАЗГОВОР страницы, не не мыльница . - Ирина Гарпия ( разговор ) 1:01, 9 ноября 2014 (UTC)) there is no evidence that means there is no evidence, you can even in the arms of Psak tell me that - I'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 (talk) 89.105.158.243 (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Not clear on what your point is. But see WP:NOTAFORUM. Volunteer Marek 18:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek you are not clear what I'm saying? 2 words it can be very difficult for you? No proof! No evidence means as is known in the English language - there is no evidence. you are are no longer the most important shot in the world order to lie and to wash any questions, just because there you a have no proof.89.105.158.243 (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Volunteer Marek As the old lawyer’s line says, if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law; if neither are on your side, pound the table. I’d add: and demand “civility.” - Paul Krugman, NY Times column [1]. (your page on the website) That's exactly what the US is trying to do is to lie about the invasion of Russia in Ukraine. For God's sake give at least one fact, and I myself will add it to this article. 89.105.158.243 (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, not reliable sources, you're in the wrong place. Volunteer Marek 18:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

from where T-72 T-80 tanks and other volunteer corps have

http://www.mk.ru/social/2014/06/20/opolchency-donbassa-obyavili-nabor-dobrovolcev-v-tankovuyu-diviziyu.html If you are in doubt. easy to check, look at Google. base for storage + weapon + Ukrainian army. 89.105.158.243 (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)