Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

POV tag attached.

{{POV|POV tag attached. The entry is strongly anti-Russian, right down to the naming of the entry. Its primary failing is that it treats as facts an array of allegations regarding Russian intervention. Please understand that all allegations of Russian intervention should be stated as allegations, not facts. Also, please understand that the degree of Russian involvement is unclear in Crimea's revolt against the post-coup/revolution government in Ukraine, its declaration of independence, and its subsequent union with Russia. What is presently there needs to be rewritten as an allegation, and then the non-Western perspective on what happened also needs to be included, for balance. This should be the general procedure throughout the article. Please, emphatically, consider renaming entry as "2014 alleged Russian intervention in Ukraine." Or, even better, "2014 allegations of foreign intervention in Ukraine," and then we could add allegations of Western, U.S., IMF, and German involvement in Ukraine, both Maidan and post-Maidan. Such a new title might generate a wonderfully balanced and therefore NPOV entry.Haberstr (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources not editors' own personal feelings or ideologies. Removing the tag as spurious. Please give actual Wikipedia policy or guideline based reasons for the tag. Otherwise it's just simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek  08:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Sir, may I ask who is this "we"? Is this group of like-minded editors willing to abide by WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:CLOSE? If you communicate with that group informally, may I ask that you remind them of the following, from WP:CLOSE: "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." Thank you!Haberstr (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think it's anti-Russian, but since the Russian military officially denies any presence in Ukraine(referring to the troops there as 'volunteers' on vacation) , I would wonder if there is a better way to reflect that in the title. "Russian military intervention' suggests an official operation. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right. Roughly speaking, the title needs to be changed to either "Russian volunteers in the Ukraine conflict" or "Alleged Russian military intervention in Ukraine."Haberstr (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Majority if not all of the sources cited don't seem to be very reliable. It is all third-hand news reports (in hardly independent outlets) or statements lacking any proof, on both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.214.16.205 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

176.214.16.205, perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy before making sweeping generalisations. Wikipedia uses secondary sources, not primary sources as we are WP:NOTNEWS and do not indulge in WP:OR. Pray tell, which of the "majority" of sources don't "seem very reliable" according to you? Perhaps you need to bone up on what reliable sources are. If you have a comment/criticism of the content to make, please be precise as to which content and why the sources are questionable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Fellow editor, I kindly ask you to please review and follow the WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:CLOSE. The first step in a successful discussion here is WP:CIVILITY.Haberstr (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Haberstr: How many articles surrounding recent events in Ukraine are you proposing to tag for WP:POV based on pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT? You are engaging in tendentious editing. The only neutrality in question here is your own. Suddenly, every "... entry is strongly anti-Russian, right down to the naming of the entry.". Have you created a template for the talk page justification (per pro-Russian unrest and media portrayal)? Your concerns with content are not issues of neutrality, but indicative of a disruptive pattern. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ms. or Mr. Harpy, may I ask that you be less contentious in your discussion here? Please have initial good faith in my motivations, as I do in yours.Haberstr (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The comments here saying the POV tag is "I don't like that", are either based on ignorance or are downright lying. The article treats unfounded allegations and claims as facts. For example, 11 Russian soldiers captured some inside Ukraine's border is portrayed as a full scale "invasion" of Ukraine, the fact that it's about 11 soliders is buried behind a reference to Time magazine (which draws the unfounded generalization soliders -> invasion), and a much higher number of Ukrainian soldiers captured in Russia and now exchanged for the aforementioned 11 is not regarded as an "invasion" of Russia, or even mentioned. General phrases are used to convey impressions that are contrary to reality. As it stands this article is a pure expression of a single propaganda view, with frivolous citing of sources (e.g. the Time magazine, regarding the 11) that don't establish the alleged facts. The POV tag is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.150.50.9 (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Everyone: It is against Wikipedia policy to remove POV tags before a discussion AND CONSENSUS has been reached. In this case, it was removed without any discussion, and without any engagement at all with the POV criticisms I have mentioned in the long paragraph above. A good start to a collegial discussion would be any response at all to the statements I have made in my paragraph above. I am restoring the POV tag, and assume generously that someone has simply made a mistake, and doesn't know Wikipedia policy on this matter. Haberstr (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It is about more than 11 Russian soldiers; it is about hundreds and their equipment which has been photographed; some rebels have also admitted to getting Russian help. All of this is being reported in reliable sources which is all that we deal in here; you are free to disbelieve anything you read here, but that doesn't change the fact that this is the information that is out there. If you have evidence of Western interference or troops in Ukraine, feel free to begin your own article about it, or add the information to an appropriate existing article. I think the POV tag is invalid. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

RS sources disagree on whether there is evidence pointing to official "Russian military intervention" in Ukraine. I agree, and everyone agrees I think, that Russian volunteers are active in the conflict, and privately funded military supplies are being delivered to the eastern Ukraine rebels. The name of this WP entry is "Russian miltiary intervention," which indicates intervention by the Russian government. That is a controversial topic on which there is stark disagreement, and so we need to reflect both sides of the debate.Haberstr (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Your view seems to match the Russian stated position instead of some neutral viewpoint. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Fellow editor, rather than attacking me, please assume WP:GOODFAITH. If you do think my approach is not NPOV, please substantiate your position with evidence.Haberstr (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't attacking you for holding such a view, nor did I state you have anything other than good intentions; I merely was stating what I think from reading what you wrote. There is nothing wrong with your view matching the Russian one, but it does seem to. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

As the tag has now been removed by a different user, the burden would seem to be on you to prove it needs to be there. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes you were, without providing any specifics, you were stating that I was not neutral in viewpoint. The removal of the tag was in violation of WP policy written on the POV tag, and the burden is on the violator of the policy to justify the removal. I haven't seen any justification other than an attack on my good faith, and so I will restore the tag.Haberstr (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No I wasn't; but it doesn't really matter as I know what I did and for what reason. However, continually restoring an edit that has been reverted (especially by more than one person) could constitute an edit war and 3RR violation. It is not a violation of AGF to state that you agree with something when you clearly do. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No it wasn't in violation of policy. Your insertion of the POV tag appears to be based on the fact that you want us to use non-reliable sources in the article. That's turning things on their head. Volunteer Marek  15:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Bias in article has clearly been demonstrated. The POV tag should stay until these issues are resolved. I suggest using the talk page to address these issues. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ism schism Do you have other reliable sources to indicate that? 331dot (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@331dot I do: Paul Craig Roberts here and Robert Parry here and also Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity 2014 Memo.Mnt (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Bias in article has clearly been demonstrated. - no, no it hasn't. An assertion is not an argument. If your complaint is that the article does not use non-reliable sources then Wikipedia is not the right venue for you. Volunteer Marek  15:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in a "no it isn't" "yes it is" argument. When reading the article POV issues become obvious when "facts" are presented by unreliable sources - many occurrences in this article. This alone is a major POV issue with the article. Also, issues such as claims being made with no sources. These are basic issues that really need to be worked out - not argued - here on the talk page so that POV issues may be put to rest. You may keep arguing here - but that isn't going to make for a better article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in a "no it isn't" "yes it is" argument. - then don't start one, like you did above. Maybe you think that "POV issues become obvious", but without backing that up with reliable sources it's just hot air. Likewise can you point out where unreliable sources are used? Where claims are made without sources? That would actually be constructive. What I see is citations at end of almost every sentence and definitely at end of every paragraph. Volunteer Marek  15:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And apparently you took the above to mean "I get to sprinkle and spam spurious "verify credibility" (wtf is that anyway?) tags" throughout the article. You are being disruptive. Please stop. Volunteer Marek  22:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Does anybody else see anything wrong with this sentence?

"Several members of the international community have criticized Russia for its actions in post-revolutionary Ukraine, including the United States,[73] the United Kingdom,[74] France,[75] Germany,[76] Italy,[77] Poland,[78] Canada,[79] Japan,[80] the Netherlands,[81] South Korea,[82] Georgia,[83] Moldova,[84] Turkey,[85] Australia[86] and the European Union as a whole" There are about 200 nations in the world, how can 14 be considered "several"? Also, it should read "the governments of Germany, France, Italy, etc." because the public opinion is square against the US and its war mongering in Eastern Ukraine. Don't take my word for it: look at German, French Italian, etc. news sites and see how the comments are. Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC) (American, but not narrow minded)

14 is not 1 or 2. It's several!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The international community is composed of governments; it's unnecessary to state "governments" specifically. If the people of Germany, France, Italy, etc. are supportive of Russia and wish their government to reflect that position, they can vote to change it. "Several" is not all or a majority of nations(nor is that claimed), it is 'several'. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@331dot:Do you have any poll data from those countries? I myself don't feel represented by the government of my country (Portugal), but its positions represent my country's official position in the international stage, and that's what that sentence is about. However, in my opinion, if you have polls from those countries, given by reliable sources, you're free to edit them in another part of the article.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I have no polls, nor was I seeking to add any to this article; I was only responding to the comment about how the word 'government' was not necessary. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, then, I think we should put that "several countries in the international community" have stood behind Russia and criticized the US backing, supporting, financing, and arming Neo-Nazis and fascists (Svoboda, Azov Battalion, etc.) fighting Separatists in Eastern Ukraine. How about that? Should we add that part? --Mondschein English (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC) (American, yet anti-fascist, anti-Nazi and strongly opposed to racism and anti-Semitism)

I don't see what you want to include has to do with the subject of this article really - anyhow, heres a funny thing, as Max Miller (comedian) used to say , -apparently Golden Dawn is very pro-putin - also marine le Pen - if he is fighting fascists and Nazis why do fascists love him? theres article about it here - - I know you are a fascist but what am I Sayerslle (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I checked your profile and I saw you are both a Mets fan *AND* a NY Giants fan (how does it feel being blown away by the Lions, BTW??? LOL), therefore I should probably not even talk to you :-D, but I will anyway. Here is why I would like to add the (documented by RS) part explaining that several countries are on Russia's side: it is because if so much relevance is given to the fact that several/some/whatever countries have been criticizing Russia's alleged involvement in the civil war in the Ukraine, then equal relevance should be given to the fact there are several/some/whatever countries who support Russia's position on the same matter and/or believe in Russia's "innocence". Now, these countries who support Russia are not exactly America's friends, you know, Cuba, Iran, Bolivia, etc. but they are still countries, they are still inhabited by human beings, even if we do not like them, even if they have dark skin, etc.

About Golden Dawn and Marie Le Pen: they, and other right wingers, support Russia unfortunately for the wrong reasons, at least the wrong reasons in my mind: they are simply against the US and they unfortunately follow the ridiculously stupid and dangerous creed that says that the enemies of our enemies are our friends (see how well that creed worked for us with them Taliban maniacs, with Saddam Hussein -great friend in the 80's, armed, financed and given WMD's in order to antagonize Iran-, IS Jihadists in Iraq, etc.) Since we will never learn, apparently, now we are using the same creed in the Ukraine: "It doesn't matter if they Nazis and Anti-Semites: since they are against our mortal enemies, Russia, that is, those commie bas**rds, then they are our friends and we support them, arm them, finance them, etc. Make sense? --Mondschein English (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

but the article mentions criticism of russian inetrvention because that is what the article is about - it isn't about criticism of neo-Nazis or whatever, - if they support Russian intervention, these countries, that would be worth mentioning and relevant to the article - what do you mean 'those commie bas****s' - you mean like these - 'commies' -[2] - and , - maybe Eli will sort out whatever has gone wrong and Victor Cruz will get more involved. Sayerslle (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we can definitely leave out the part about the dubious backgrounds of Pro Kiev fighters, in this section, at least, but I think that since we have RS/Western Media talking about several/some countries being supportive of Russia and believing in Russia's "innocence", I think we should mention it right after the part about several countries criticizing Russia in order to keep a modicum of NPOV, wouldn't you think? - Well, there is also the fact that the first game of the season, the real season, that is, the pre-season means nothing and I don't even watch it, is always a bit difficult. On top od that the Lions usually play very well at the beginning of the season (but inevitably come apart after 6-7 games). Plus, given the halting way my Packers played, I should not really be talking... We shall see how things develop this year. --Mondschein English (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

For my part I support Mondschein's proposal to write "governments," since this is technically accurate, easy to do, and allows for the distinction between governments' positions and the opinions of the populations in each.

Also, the argument that characteristics of Ukrainian nationalist forces shouldn't be described here because "this article is about Putin and Russia" doesn't and never has held any water: the article is about the conflict, to which Russia is a principal party. Ukrainian nationalist forces are also a principal party. -Darouet (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

weave it into the article how you think best then with RS. if RS discuss 'characteristics of Ukrainian nationalist forces' and the Russian military intervention in Ukraine together then why don't you add it. Sayerslle (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The above suggestion constitutes original research. Volunteer Marek  20:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

These fascist vs fascist type of discussion suddenly reminds me Robert Mugabe vs Ian Smith in Zimbabwe (previously Rhodesia) or Julius Malema (a notorious black racist) vs AWB (founded by the notorious white racist Eugene Terreblanche) in South Africa. There are far-right groups/individuals on both sides. After all, Svoboda, until 20 March (already after Maidan), was an observer of an alliance of parties which included Jobbik (Hungary), BNP (UK), the National Democrats (Sweden) and other notorious European far-right parties. In the recent presidential election, Ukrainians rejected that sort of far-right populism, and I think that Petro Poroshenko has shown good intentions about uniting Ukraine again and being conciliatory. But he has to deal with antagonist radicals from both sides.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Sarcasm" in the lead

The lead right now employs quotation marks as a means of suggesting sarcasm or giving epithets to Russian or anti-Kiev forces. Needless to say, the tone that is created is not encyclopedic, and the attitude implied is clearly not neutral. I'm removing these, but if someone wants to make cogent arguments as to why sarcasm or epithets are important to the lead, please do so here. -Darouet (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

'little green men' is part of the language used in RS isn't it. and it emerged from the ground of the events themselves as I understand it, - 'the tone' should follow RS - you want to edit the history now? the words that were used? as a point of historical fact they were so called, were they not? - notcensored - Sayerslle (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Local people also called volunteers fighting for Kiev "fascists" - should we put that in the lead too? Sources don't have to be neutral, but we do, always. -Darouet (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Do reliable sources call them "fascists"?  Volunteer Marek  20:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of them are called neo-Nazis by reliable sources: it's no secret that there has been a far-right fringe in the pro-Kiev faction since early in this conflict, whatever significance you want to give them. What is the point of this, Marek: are you really proposing that the "green men" epithet is something that should be in the lead? From an editorial perspective, why? What service does that accomplish? -Darouet (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

'little green men' are a part of the vocabulary of the RS narrative description of events [3] - as for neo- Nazis that is all otherstuffexists kind of talk isn't it. if RS describe say the AZov battalion as far-right , and they do I believe, then that of course should be mentioned - but what has that to do with the lead in this article. Sayerslle (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Why does a partisan epithet adding no useful information belong in the lead, while a description of the Azov Battalion's politics doesn't? -Darouet (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

it entered the RS discussion this term - [4] - 'In early spring, Russian president Vladimir Putin deployed soldiers without insignia into the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea to ensure a quick annexation of the territory. After a month of denying their existence, the Russian president acknowledged that the thousands of well-armed fighters, who had previously been referred to as “little green men”, were in fact Russian troops.' -

as for the Azov Battalion - well - this is about Russian intervention in Ukraine - if the azov battalion were the subject , call them whatever RS call them - but what has that to do with the lead in this article? are you insisting the azov battalion being far-right or something, has to be shoved in the lead of this article somehow because the Russian regime forces are not being addressed reverently enough for you? Sayerslle (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The person who made the "vacation claim" was the leader of the militia. The quotes are there not as sarcasm, but because it's a quote. Volunteer Marek  22:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC) What Sayerslle said. Volunteer Marek  22:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think either of you will change your minds here, so I'll go to the neutral point of view noticeboard and ask for opinions there. -Darouet (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

here is another article from august 2014 this time - "For some observers, the large convoy moving with obvious top-level coordination and accompanied by numerous vehicles with official Russian military plates brought back memories of the "little green men" involved in the annexation of Crimea back in March. Wearing green uniforms without insignia, those men claimed to be local volunteers, although they were clearly highly trained Russian special operatives. - Despite denying their presence all through the annexation, Putin later admitted that Russian military units had been involved. [5] - so what are you going to say at the npov! noticeboard -' some editors want to use language regularly used in RS but I don't like it as I think it is a bit disrespectful to the putin regime - blah blah blah' - - time to read some George Orwell again, ffs. Sayerslle (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I just complained on the noticeboard. The "quote" isn't a quote at all: it comes from the Washington Post, not the Russian government or the rebel commander, who is the only one quoted saying anything about vacation in these sources. However, due to your repeated reversions and despite access to the sources you provided yourself, the text now falsely attributes the term "on vacation" to the Russian government. -Darouet (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I gave it a shot. Hopefully my solution will make everybody happy, but, if not, please just revert it without shooting, shouting, or whatever: just give a reason so that I understand why the proposal is no good. Let's please remember that Wikipedia is a project based upon cooperation and consensus, not continuous bickering and dissent. I may not know all the trillion rules that govern the English Language Wikipedia, but that much I know and it makes good sense to me. Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I like Sayerslle's version. Well done! --Mondschein English (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Speculation in lede

"while reports have emerged that conscripts may have been forced to sign contracts before being sent to Ukraine.[www.tol.org/client/article/24451-the-russian-invasion-and-the-deaths-putin-didnt-mention.html] Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

What's your point?  Volunteer Marek  15:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Since when is speculation appropriate for a lede? This is clearly POV! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

What you are calling "speculation" Wikipedia normally calls "information from reliable sources". What's POV is trying to remove this info. Volunteer Marek  17:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be the case that a journalist has garnered certain information from the Union of Committees of Soldiers’ Mothers, -' the fact that the mothers of the soldiers captured by the Ukrainian military knew nothing about their sons fighting in Ukraine, demonstrates the full cynicism of Putin’s “appeal” and professed concern for anxious family members.' - 'Melnikova reports that one young man sent his mother a text message saying that his commander had gathered soldiers together and told them to sign a contract to go to Luhansk. After talking to the parents of conscripts from a Ryazan paratrooper division, Melnikova believes that as many as 250 conscripts may have been forced to sign contracts to be sent to Ukraine next week.' its a story from a journalist reprinted by what appears to be a RS - information emerging from people at the very heart of the story, and having suffered losses seems appropriate to me to be in the article, in the lead or wherever - the capture of the Russian paratroopers has been one of the most widely commented on episodes and this is related to that surely. from a pro-Ukraine govt source there is this 'detainees said that first the conscript soldiers are threatened and forced to sign contracts, then they are taken to Rostov oblast for training, and then thrown into Ukraine within a couple of days: “They threw us there like meat.” “Most frequently only officers know the truth.' - Sayerslle (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It was very vague, but is actually Valentina Melnikova. Still, it's very POV, especially for the lede. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Union of Committees of Soldiers' Mothers sounds like it might be a possible article topic. Ah: it exists, as Union of the Committees of Soldiers' Mothers of Russia -- I've created a redirect. -- Impsswoon (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Having this in the lede is like having Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity in the lede. Also, the source is partisan and questionable for the lead, [[6]]. As is, this is clearly pushing POV pushing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

are you saying , in a kind of parodic action of a repressive environment,, you want to erase the existence of any questions about what is going on, are you saying mothers of soldiers - are too partisan? - the lead should seek to represent aspects of reality as presented in Rs - not every aspect of that reality will be utterly neuter or neutral - in a puny way I hear what you are arguing as a part of a drive to suppress information, and to shut even RS up - its not healthy- "Journalist, author, and Chechen war ­veteran Arkady Babchenko has observed what he believes to be both helplessness and apathy on the part of the Russian public in the face of their soldiers’ involvement in the Ukrainian conflict. - “People are acting like it’s 1937,” says Babchenko, referring to the bloodiest year of the Stalinist Terror. “It’s not but there is a fear that lives in people, planted by years of Putin’s rule.” - I see you as a part of that desire to shut everything up in a way - [7] RS are reporting on this and so should wp and not be intimidated by the waves of epigones of putin regime. Sayerslle (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that giving a source such as this a space in the lead in UNDUE. If you have a good source, go with it. This one is subpar for a lede, and as such makes for an out of balance, POV lede, in an article that already is out if balance with POV. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Valentina Melnikova, head of the Russian Union of Committees of Soldiers’ Mothers, said that conscripts may have been forced to sign contracts before being sent to Ukraine. She also stated that the Russian authorities were threatening the relatives of soldiers who had been killed in Ukraine, and forcing them to keep silent about their deaths. She believes that the Kremlin has tried to systematically intimidate and silence human rights workers who have raised question about Russian soldiers' deaths in Ukraine, in a war which officially Russia denies being involved in.

References

• The above is UNDUE for a lede, and is part of POV pushing in the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

from the reuters report - where does it say this is just her opinion? are you incompetent or am I mis-reading the article - -"Russian authorities have worked to systematically silence humans rights workers' complaints over soldiers' deaths, intimidating those who question the Kremlin's denials that its soldiers are in Ukraine." thats not written up as her opinion imo.thanks. Sayerslle (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

My take on the matter is that Ism Schism is looking at the issue the wrong way around. The WP:LEAD is an article in itself and needs some serious trimming. In that context, there is far too much WP:UNDUE content for a lead, and that much of it belongs in the body. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggested merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014) should be merged into this article. -- Impsswoon (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The same events are discussed in both the articles. --Drajay1976 (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Same subject, two different articles. EkoGraf (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article is large, messy, and unfocused enough. It is entirely appropriate per WP:SPINOFF to have a separate article dealing with Russia's part in the War in Donbass itself. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support – The present situation is unmanageable. We have multiple articles being edited by different sets of editors, each with the same scope. No one seems to know what information goes where, and duplication is prevalent across our articles. Let's simplify this mess, please! RGloucester — ☎ 16:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is just a POV fork of this article and the War in Donbass article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Both articles should be about the same thing and to create (another article) 2014 Russian military intervention in the War in Donbass seems redundant (that would make Wikipedia only more confusing). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The articles cover the same subject, and it's confusing to have two of them, as RGloucester says. "This article is large [and] messy" is a bad reason for making the overall situation messier by making a separate article about the same subject; clean up this article instead. -sche (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support As said before, it's the same subject.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support - For the sake of bringing together variations on identical subject matter as presented by different POV groups, merging will at least provide an opportunity to work out where spin off articles and splits are appropriate. The number of articles surrounding the self-same subject matter has spun out of control. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support - for all the reasons mentioned. --IJBall (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support to either here or War in Donbass. Anything to help clean up the mush of confusing and duplicate articles related to the same issues.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support All of the information in that article can go either into this one or into the War in Donbass article.--71.110.129.100 (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) deals with Russia's direct military involvement in Donbass, not separatism or Crimea. Considering that Russian military intervention in Ukraine deals with a whole host of different issues and is a burgeoning monstrosity, which includes Crimea and Separatism, it is entirely appropriately to have a separate article on events relating to Russia sending regulars into mainland Ukraine and international responses to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vysotsky2 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — Vysotsky2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The only valid argument I find there is that we'd have to use 2 different sections concerning to international reactions, one concerning to Crimea and another concerning to Donbass. Concerning to "Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) deals with Russia's direct military involvement in Donbass, not separatism of Crimea", it's not a very valid argument, since 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine already has content about the intervention in Donbass, as well. If for some reason, Russia would also invade the Kharkiv Oblast or the Odessa Oblast, would that also justify additional forks concerning to those hypothetic interventions? They're all in Ukraine and they all have happened in 2014. There is already a big amount of forks concerning to the events in Ukraine. Having an unnecessary and redundant one should be absolutely avoided.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2014(UTC)

I may not have made my opinion clear. The War in Donbas concerns separatism. The Crimea crisis concerns Crimea. The Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) concerns direct Russian military involvement in mainland Ukraine. The overarching article that touches on the varying degree of Russian involvement in all of these events is Russian military intervention in Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.128.146 (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above: Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are two separate issues and there was NO Russian invasion of Crimea, not even an alleged one, like the one in Eastern Ukraine. Russian soldiers were already there per previous deals between Russia and the Ukraine, and they were simply told to be on alert in case some Neo-Nazis and/or the Yatsenyuk guy, or whatever his name is, would not like the results of the referendum, i.e. of the will of the people, and tried something stupid, i.e. violent. That is all. Let's separate the two issues. --Mondschein English (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Crimea not being an invasion, but that's precisely the point: there is no agreement on whether Crimea was an invasion. Similarly, there is no agreement on whether War in Donbass before August 2014 was an invasion. Many believe it to be a civil war. However, it is widely reported that Russian regular troops entered Ukraine in August 2014, which is the definition of invasion. As such, these events must have separate articles. In fact, one could argue that they were distinct events, and just because they happened in short span of time, doesn't mean they need to be pigeonholed in same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vysotsky2 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Essentially, you're arguing for a third article duplicating information dealt with in the other two articles, Vysotsky2. What we're trying to avoid is WP:COATRACK articles of this ilk that are contingent on POV and WP:OR speculation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The articles reflect a different event/phase of the conflict and thus have different scopes. For example, suppose the United States decided to annex a part of Cuba that had the Guantanamo base on it after a revolution in Cuba because they feared that the new government was going to kick the Cubans out. After annexing that part of Cuba, America decided to send in Cubans and arm the separatists in a different part of Cuba. Lets call that the Bay of Pigs, but unlike the Bay of Pigs, a war erupts and lasts several months. Lets call that the Bay of Pigs War. When the Cuban government started gaining the upper hand and defeat of the separatists seemed inevitable, America decided to send in American armed forces into Cuba. The question is, how many articles should be devoted to these events? In my humble opinion, there should be 3 articles for each conflict, one for each event: the annexation of Guantanamo, American support of separatists in the Bay of Pigs War, and the official American invasion. Lastly, there should be a fourth article which aptly describes American military intervention in general, which encompasses all three events in general terms. First, that's the most accurate way to portray the events AND that's the best way to fix the articles since that is the closest to what we have now. All articles will be of different scope and not POV. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vysotsky2 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a load of WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. The scenarios you're offering are only relevant in retrospect with scholarly RS backing up the assertions. We may all have an opinion as to what the circumstances are, but they're simply personal opinions. Could you supply any RS demonstrating that any of this is applicable (other than in op-ed pieces in non-mainstream media)? Also, I seriously think you should read WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support The articles go hand in hand, the wording of invasion sounds like it is against WP:NPOV anyways. -Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Far more complicated than an invasion by one long time separate country on another, and definitely against NPOV. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support --Mondschein English (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support – TL565 (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move to Russo-Ukrainian War

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

– Support The conflict is described by sources as a war between Russia and Ukraine, and while the Donbas War article covers separatism and Russian military support, this article can be used to discuss the overal conflict and direct war between the two states, as is beginning to be recognized internationally and bilaterally. Russian military intervention in Ukraine does not describe the conflict well because of several reasons:

• The conflict is also spilling into the Russian oblast of Rostov and on sea, so not only inside Ukraine.
• There are heavy conducts of warfare between the Ukrainean army and Russian regular army (both inside Ukraine and by Shelling over the border) --> you can't call a war of this scale an 'intervention'.
• The annexation of territory and occuping territory with the objective of creating a 'new Russia'(Novorussia) within Ukraine is more than an 'intervention'.
• The 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine escallated into a Russo-Ukrainian war. It is obvious that without Russias involvment there wouldn't be much of a war, only violent protests and occupation of state-buildings.
• Conforming naming with other Russian 'military interventions' like the Russo-Georgian war. --Niele (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

– Oppose but its only Tuesday and things may change. For now google hits for the last week are 33K for "Russo Ukrainian "military intervention"" and 12K for "Russo Ukrainian war". Also Russia are the aggressor and the present title may be quite apt. Gregkaye (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Alternative proposition. Rename to 2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea and restore info about Crimean intervention only. About new Donbass invasion see another article: Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014). NickSt (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, User:NickSt. The previous deletion discussion established that this is not about Crimea only. That ship has long since sailed. RGloucester — ☎ 16:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Absolutely not. We have War in Donbass already, and "Russo-Ukrainian War" is pure WP:OR. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • War in Donbass is about the part of the Russo-Ukrainean war inside Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts. The Russo-Ukrainean war involves the Russian invasion of the Krim, fighting on the sea of Azov, crossborder shelling, Kherson regions,...--Niele (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose if this is moved, it should have a year attached 2014 Russo-Ukrainian War, since this is not the only war between Kievan Rus/Ruthenia/Ukraine and Muskovy/Great Rus/Russia ; "Russo-Ukrainian War" should be a disambiguation page or set index. -- 70.51.201.202 (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – WP:OR agenda pushing at its finest. The main article for the war is War in Donbass. This article is about Russian intervention in that war and in Crimea. WP:SOAP. RGloucester — ☎ 19:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• By now there are 92.800 search results on google for the term "Russo-Ukrainian war" OR "Russian-Ukrainian War" or "war between russia and ukraine" or "war between ukraine and russia". See Search link--Niele (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I got ten results. Anyway, those phrases you tacked on could refer to anything. RGloucester — ☎ 00:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose It's not, yet, an accurate description of small Russian interventions in a conflict between Ukraine and local non-state actors (even if they have ties to Russia). For that reason, this isn't yet a war with such a name. Our articles, while not perfect, demonstrate this. Depending on how matters go, this move may be needed some weeks or months down the road, though… —innotata 01:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutral title needed (now Pro-Russian POV)

The word 'intevention' is an WP:EUPHEMISM for the war between Russia and Ukraine and is pro-Russian POV. While the word 'invasion' was a WP:Dysphemism for the war between Russia and Ukraine was pro-Ukrainian POV. Now the both articles are merged, it should also be renamed a neutral name like 2014 Russo-Ukrainian War Using the term 'intervention' has a connotation to it that it was a legit action , and creates the incorrect impression that Russia wasn't one of the participants from the start of this war. Also anexing a province with the use of the Russian military and fighting a direct war with the Ukrainian military is NOT an intervention but a simple and clear 'war'.--Niele (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"Russo-Ukrainian War" is a made-up term that has no place on Wikipedia until it is firmly established in reliable sources. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR and tendentious agenda pushing across many pages, at this point. Please stop promoting this "Russo-Ukrainian War" nonsense that is not backed by sources. Furthermore, there is already a requested move on this page, one that you opened, and that has no consensus. We don't need yet another section on the same matter. RGloucester — ☎ 19:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It definitely isn't an intervention. These arguments will continue to abound until there is a proper label for this conflict. Otherwise, new articles are bound to pop up and new changes will be proposed, because this conflict is as much as a Russian military intervention as Nazi Germany's war with Soviet Union is a military intervention. It honestly defies logic to call an invasion a military intervention. Just because the politicians are afraid to call it for what it is, Ukraine is afraid to call it for what it is because Russia might escalate, and obviously Russia is afraid to call it for what it is, doesn't make it any less so. You keep arguing for this encyclopedia being an encyclopedia. We must be immune to politics, in that case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vysotsky2 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, but guess what? That's not what we are discussing here. We are discussing "Russo-Ukrainian War", which isn't used. If you'd like to rename this article "invasion", then please start a requested move. As of now, that is not what either me or Kudzu were discussing. RGloucester — ☎ 16:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

'nonsens', so you call this war nonsens and not sourced? Unbelievable... I just try to prevent agenda pusching of users like you who try to hide as much as possible the participation of Russia in this war against the many neutral evidence and many sources for it and keep wikipedia free of real propaganda. When you merged the pages Military intervention and Russian invasion you chose not to find a neutral middle-ground term but chose again to downplay by using the euphemism term intervention instead of invasion or war. This while the wikicomunity first decided not to delete the page Russian invasion of Ukraine. But in reality the page is gone... so again smart POV-pusching to downlplay the participation of Russia... welldone!

The claim I invented the term 'Russo-Ukrainean war' is completly false lie and bogus. There existed a page on wikipedia with this name, made by other users. The term was Russo-Ukrainian War was used even before the conflict escalated to a war. And is the most used term in Ukraine self and in Dutch. And is also frequently used in English.--Niele (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

POV tag and issues list

There are many POV discussions and issues with this article. The above section discussed the POV issues in the lede.[8] Also, on this talk page there is a discussion on potential anti-Russian POV.[9] There is also a discussion on POV as sarcasm.[10] Before these discussion was a section specifically dealing with the need for a POV tag. [11] These issues need to be discussed and resolved before removing the POV tag. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how many times you repeat the fact that YOUDONTLIKEIT, it's still just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with a good bit of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT thrown in. It's not a sufficient reason to tag up the article. As I said already, applying a POV tag to an article which is not POV, is POV-pushing itself. Volunteer Marek  05:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

My concern is made obvious by the continued discussion on existing POV. If you don't want to acknowledge it, that 'a fine with me. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Repeating "I don't like it, I don't like it, I don't like it" isn't really a "discussion". Volunteer Marek  17:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)