Talk:War in Donbas/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Undefined references

@RGloucester: I notice that some of the references apparently are invoked, but never defined, meaning you say <ref name="foo">. Since you appear to be the one who added the references (or I guess you could have segmented certain things from other articles)... In any case, it would be nice if I could just know the URLs, otherwise, it will be necessary to hunt for new sources. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll transfer them. They came from the DPR article. RGloucester — ☎ 14:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay; thanks! That will be helpful. Dustin (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

To do list

To get this draft in shape, we need to do the following:

  • Expand the Mariupol section. I know more happened there, so let's fill it out.
  • Grammar and fact checking
  • Addition of an infobox (civil or military conflict?)
  • Fixing of references

RGloucester — ☎ 16:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I expanded the Mariupol section--Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
More information about the Ukrainian side as well as what's happening in Lugansk is definitely needed. Elaboration of the refugee situation is also a good point. Lunch for Two (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Move

Maybe this should be moved to 2014 insurgency in East Ukraine? The current title is too long imho. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Title is ridiculous. Should read East Ukraine. Reaper7 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
We need to be WP:PRECISE. The insurgency isn't in Kharkiv, which is part of eastern Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 14:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:PRECISE says an article name should be precise but not too precise. East Ukraine is precise. Donestsk and Luhansk is too precise. World War II had very little fighting in South America, for example. This doesn't mean we can't call it a world war. So why should Kharkiv not being in an insurgency mean we can't say 2014 insurgency in East Ukraine? DylanLacey (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Because it doesn't encompass fighting in Kharkiv, and to title it with "eastern Ukraine" would be misleading, blowing the conflict out of proportion. RGloucester — ☎ 20:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
You didn't really address my point. Not being excessively precise doesn't mislead. By your logic shouldn't World War II be renamed War in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Pacific II? DylanLacey (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
That's different, because it is a common name. This is a WP:NDESC title. RGloucester — ☎ 02:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
'East Ukraine' unambiguously defines the topical scope of the article without being too precise. What could 2014 insurgency in East Ukraine reasonably be confused with? It's already plenty precise. There are no other unrelated 2014 insurgencies in Ukraine, let alone in East Ukraine. Also, if you wish to discuss the common name issue, it is worthwhile to point out that the majority of media outlets refer to the location as East Ukraine, not Donetsk and Luhansk - in their titles. Donetsk and Luhansk can be referred to in the first sentence of the article, there's nothing wrong with that. The current title is unnecessarily long and doesn't reflect the common name. DylanLacey (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
We don't use "common names", or "journalist shorthand" if they are misleading. We use WP:NDESC, which is what this is. RGloucester — ☎ 16:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, Eastern Ukraine is made up of the provinces of Luhansk, Kharkiv, and Donetsk. The insurgency is only taking place in Luhansk and Donetsk, but there have been important incidents in Kharkiv, such as the RSA storming and eviction, and the assassination atempt if Gennady Kernes.—Arbutus the tree (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is only about the insurgency. There is no insurgency in Kharkiv. Hence, it is wrong to say "eastern Ukraine". Perhaps "Donets Basin" might be more concise, but I think that's less WP:NATURAL to English speakers.RGloucester — ☎ 16:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
We could rename the article to "Insurgency in the Donets Basin"--Arbutus the tree (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The title doesn't seem too long to me, and it is better able to identify the subject in being more descriptive the way I see it. Dustin (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Since you claim you want to be precise…the insurgency does not take place in Donetsk and Lugansk...but in Donetsk oblast and Lugansk oblast...so either add this to the title or just rename it as insurgency in Donbas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.220.119 (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

In English, it is called Donets Basin, not "Donbas". RGloucester — ☎ 00:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that there is no such thing as "East Ukraine". The proper term is eastern Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 04:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Since you once again claim that there is no 'Donbas' in English...perhaps DW http://www.dw.de/separatists-cause-economic-slump-in-donbas/a-17724764 ,Kyiv Post http://www.kyivpost.com/multimedia/photo/donbas-battalion-trains-for-war-as-newest-members-of-ukrainian-national-guard-351182.html ,ITAR-TASS http://en.itar-tass.com/world/737239 , BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27483719 and several other major or minor media network should hire you to teach them proper English...Also, do not forget to edit this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Donbass_Liberators ...to Donets Basin Liberators...oh my God — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.220.119 (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC) I had initially posted the above comment in the context of a draft page and I had not intended for it to be a proposal that people intended on voting on, but debate has started and all debate is healthy. The emphasis on Kharkiv's non-involvement in the insurgency is excessive in my opinion and I can't see why this in particular should be a reason not to use something like "East(ern) Ukraine" as a descriptor. I personally think that the title is overly precise and it would appear that many of the sources we have on this topic discuss it in terms of it being an East Ukrainian issue, even if there is no insurgency in Kharkiv oblast. I am however happy to wait for the dust to settle on this one, and as at Federal State of Novorossiya and Lugansk People's Republic, WP:COMMONNAME can be difficult to resolve, especially as many of sources relied upon use inconsistent naming practices themselves. Lunch for Two (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't even bring up the "Federal State of Novorossiya"... we do not need to end up with a not-so-good means of determining consensus like was done there. @Lunch for Two: Thanks for at least attempting to provide reasoning without using certain pieces such as "oh my God" (quoted from 85.73.220.119). Another thing I will add is that it is not always preferable to choose the most concise name; sometimes, that allows for the most arguing and bad-resolution outcomes (not saying that this will necessarily happen here, though). I will still remain open to persuasion, but certain persuasion such as by the aforementioned IP will fail with me. Dustin (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, these name debates can have a snowball type effect which means that people simply forget about improving the quality of the article and instead focus on who can collect highest number of favourable URLs. @Dustin V. S.: Lunch for Two (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I would not be opposed to "2014 insurgency in Donbass", "2014 conflict in Donbass", with the caveat that this should mean that the article Donets Basin should move to Donbass for consistency. As far as eastern Ukraine is concerned, I remain opposed. RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Towns and Cities

I have recently created a map that clearly shows cities under DPR, LPR and Ukrainian Control. I used a wikimedia commons image of the donetsk oblast nad labeled the cities in gimp, the file on commons says it is public domain and not copyrighted. Is this okay? Or do we already have stuff about this?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If you can present a reliable source for your map then I am happy to update the map I uploaded in May as it is currently used on a number of wiki pages. Lunch for Two (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are some sources Lunch for Two: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27018199 And other ones I used were the Kyiv Post, Al Jazzeria, BBC, CNN, Euronews, Globe and Mail, and CTV. --Arbutus the tree (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's the map if you want to see more: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Situation_in_the_Donetsk_Oblast.png

/response to the previous comment/ It's rather hard to illustrate current state of affairs. You'll need to update this map daily, as situation is changing every day, for example the map as of today - it's in Ukrainian, but hopefully understandable: http://www.slovoidilo.ua/uploads/news/ff8969658b1da527c9e50048a5dfea5b.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.172.136.199 (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I can understand the map. Northern Luhansk, Southern and Eastern Donetsk are under Ukrainian control, while central, most of northern donetsk, and southern luhansk is under separtist control.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Everything is up to date. Could it be used in the section "Donetsk Oblast" or at the top of the infobox at the beginning of the page. I am also creating one in the Lugansk (Luhansk) Oblast--Arbutus the tree (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

I will fix up the maps to reflect these recent developments. Lunch for Two (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I saw the Lugansk map, however, a strip of land in the south is under Ukrainian control, according to the wall street journal--Arbutus the tree (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC).
Post the source on here and I will change it. Lunch for Two (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Here it is:http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WO-AS758_UKRAIN_G_20140620174804.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbutus the tree (talk • contribs) 15:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed correction of stilted English

There has been an edit war over use of language in the article.[1][2] This has left the article with stilted English. It says repeatedly says "Armed Forces of Ukraine", which is a proper name - see the article on the Armed Forces of Ukraine. I think this should be changed to say "military" (a common noun). The latter is more natural English than repeatedly saying the "Armed Forces of Ukraine".--Toddy1 (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2014

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

The result of the move request was: moved to 2014 insurgency in Donbass. No prejudice against a further RM to discuss whether "insurgency" or "conflict" should be used. Jenks24 (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk → 2014 insurgency in Eastern Ukraine – Insurgency not only in Lugansk and Donetsk, but in Luhansk Oblast and Donetsk Oblast also, generally in Eastern Ukraine. Confirmed by different reliable sources in the article. NickSt (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Strong Support The current title is over precise and leaves no room for activity outside these two regions. Reaper7 (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no insurgency outside these two regions. RGloucester — ☎ 20:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose – "Donetsk and Luhansk" is referring to the oblasts. Anyway, the insurgency isn't in "eastern Ukraine". It is only in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, also known as the "Donbass". There is no insurgency in Kharkiv, and so it is quite misleading to term it "eastern Ukraine", meaning that it fails WP:PRECISE. I'd also note that the "eastern" should not be capitalised. I would support 2014 insurgency in Donbass, or 2014 conflict in Donbass, as a more WP:CONCISE title than the present one. RGloucester — ☎ 17:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    I agree with name 2014 insurgency in Donbass (or 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts), but not with current "in Donetsk and Luhansk" cities only. NickSt (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The current name doesn't refer to the "cities only", which you'd know if you read the article. Donetsk and Luhansk are the common names for the regions in English. RGloucester — ☎ 17:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
No. Donetsk and Luhansk are cities. Regions are Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast. Read Administrative divisions of Ukraine. NickSt (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they are cities. The oblasts take their names from the cities, hence they are usually called "Donetsk and Luhansk". RGloucester — ☎ 18:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – (edit conflict) There is no reason for which eastern would be capitalized (it wouldn't be part of a proper noun than), and this is an issue of concise versus precise the way I see it. Dustin (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose major actions are only taking place In the Lugansk province and Donetsk province.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutral - disadvantage of the current name: "Donetsk and Luhansk" are only the cities; disadvantage of "Donbass": it also includes the Rostov Oblast in Russia; disadvantage of "Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts": it's a bit too long. Nevertheless, this one would be the most correct name, in my opinion.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Rostov is actually somewhat involved, if we include the Rostov Battalion and Don Cossacks, and apparent spillovers of violence into that region. Regardless, "Donbass" commonly is used to refer to the Ukrainian part. RGloucester — ☎ 19:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Somewhat NeutralDonetsk and Lugansk are the administrative centers of the regions. An oblast in named after the administrative center, but since it is spilling over into the Rostov Oblast, maybe it could be Donbass Insurgency or Insurgency in Eastern Ukraine--Arbutus the tree (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC).

Support The current name is a little too precise - it's not what the average person would say, and it's not an established technical terminology. I would prefer Eastern Ukraine. Gabrielthursday (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Ukraine consists of the three oblasts of Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kharkiv.
Areas with insurgency are coloured in orange.
This is a map of the "Donbass" area within Ukraine. Note that it corresponds with areas that have an insurgency.
It doesn't matter what the average person would say if what the average person says would be misleading. Note these two maps that I'll provide. "eastern Ukraine" is a defined geographic area (yes, "technical terminology") that includes Kharkiv. Kharkiv is outside the scope of this article, as there is no insurgency there. Therefore, this falls under WP:PRECISE. Titles must "unambiguously defined the scope of the article". "Eastern Ukraine" does not do this, as the scope does not include Kharkiv. Furthermore, WP:UCN says "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". We have no need to be inaccurate by using "eastern Ukraine". "Eastern Ukraine" gives WP:UNDUE weight to a potential insurgency in Kharkiv which doesn't and hasn't existed. There is no way that we can use "eastern Ukraine" in the title of this article. As I've said, if we want a slightly more WP:CONCISE title, "2014 insurgency in Donbass" would serve properly, as the Ukrainian Donbass consists of Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts. RGloucester — ☎ 15:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The title "2014 insurgency in Eastern Ukraine" would not be misleading. Such a title does not imply that the insurgency encompasses every inch of such territory, any more than the current title does (the insurgency has not encompassed the entirety of Donetsk & Luhansk). If you follow your own argument, the current title is misleading. Moreover, the current title suffers from being ambiguous, since it could as easily mean "The insurgency in two cities" as "The insurgencies in two oblasts". Apply WP:UCN which you helpfully highlight: we should avoid ambiguous titles. While the current title, under its intended interpretation is admittedly more precise, WP:PRECISE is intended to prevent confusion and distinctly identify the topic of the article. Given the equivocal nature of the current title, we clearly cannot say it is more precise than the alternative. The suggested "Donbass" variant suffers from the fact that not all the insurgent-affected areas of Eastern Ukraine are actually in the Donbass (the Donbass is only certain areas of the two oblasts and of Rostov oblast in Russia). As for your WP:UNDUE argument, I submit that isn't really an issue - what you point to is an implication nobody would actually take from such a title. One further problem with the current title is that, for those without an uncommon knowledge of Ukrainian geography, it doesn't actually signal what the subject of the article is. The proposed title does away with that problem. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It misleads the reader. Our job is to inform, not to mislead. Therefore, we must be precise. Please tell the Donbass People's Militia about problems with the word "Donbass". I'm sure they'll be happy to change their name to Eastern Ukrainian People's Militia. That'd mean that they'd be claiming more territory, so why not? It is not unlike Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which uses those words as an aspiration, rather than as a fact of their actual control. No wonder they chose the broad "Levant" instead of the narrow "Syria". The insurgency is not in eastern Ukraine. The insurgency is in two oblasts of Ukraine, which have active separatist republics which claim those two oblasts, and no more territory than those two oblasts. These two entities are the Lugansk People's Republic in Luhansk Oblast and the Donetsk People's Republic in Donetsk Oblast. They do not claim an "Eastern Ukraine", they do not claim Kharkiv, they have nothing to with Kharkiv, nor with "Eastern Ukraine". Only Luhansk and Donetsk. I'm not opposed to adding "oblast" if it is necessary. "Eastern Ukraine" is potentially the worst possible title. RGloucester — ☎ 21:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
"No, it doesn't" is not an argument, but a bare assertion. The insurgency is in Eastern Ukraine. More particularly, it is in two oblasts of Eastern Ukraine. This isn't terribly difficult logic.
Most people know of Ukraine. Most people do not know Donetsk and Luhansk are places in Ukraine. It would be better to have a title where those who are not already familiar with the topic will understand what it pertains to. My preferences would be "Eastern Ukraine" followed by "Donbass" followed by "Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts". Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Except that "eastern Ukraine" does not tell the reader what the topic pertains to. The topic doesn't pertain to eastern Ukraine. It pertains to Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, commonly known in Russian and sometimes in English as the "Donbass" area of Ukraine. Eastern Ukraine includes Kharkiv. Kharkiv is outside the scope of this article. Therefore, "eastern Ukraine" is misleading, and implies to readers that "eastern Ukraine" as an area is in the midst of conflict. This is not true. Kharkiv is not part of the conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 00:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
That's true in most ways, because Kharkiv hasn't seen as much violence as compared to others, and there isn't any insurgency. But in the beginning of this, the RSA was occupied by protests who would be evicted later, and clashes braking out on April 13 and later. Other important events likes the shooting of the Kharkiv mayor are also important too. It still has a large pro-Russian population as well.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Arbutus, you are well aware that that is already covered in the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine article. It isn't in the scope of this article. This article only deals with armed conflict, not with the protests and RSA occupations, which are dealt with elsewhere. Those events are NOT in the scope of this article. NOT. This article is only meant for what one could call the "conflict in Donbass", as I hear some Russians calling it. RGloucester — ☎ 00:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I see what's going on. Well in that case then, probably the "Donbass Insurgency" "Insurgency in Eastern Ukraine" or the "Donbass Conflict" might be the best titles.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutral: Perhaps there could be a section in this article called "spillover into Russia"?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Support: Change to "2014 insurgency in Donbas" (or Donbass) IF readers looking for insurgency in "Eastern Ukraine" or "Donetsk" and "Luhansk" can be redirected to that article, since a lot of readers are not familiarized with the term "Donbas" or "Donbass". (though Donbass as I said also includes the Rostov or part of the Rostov Oblast in Russia, but I nevertheless consider it acceptable, following RGloucester argument, following my previous post).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

As I've said, I'll support a change to "insurgency in Donbass". RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that for now "insurgency in donbass" is the best option.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Support "Insurgency in Donbass" as well. Seryo93 (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Qualified Support I don't think it's a huge improvement, but it is an improvement over the current title. Gabrielthursday (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
May I request that we support "conflict in Donbass", as opposed to "insurgency"? It seems people are confused over the nature of this article, and I think it makes more sense to use "conflict". RGloucester — ☎ 16:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you may, but I think it would be useful that people looking for "Eastern Ukraine", "Donetsk" and "Luhansk" could be redirected or (in any other way) easily find the article, because I guess that most people are not familiarized with the term "Donbass" (though it's the most correct term).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid that "conflict" is less descriptive than "insurgency". Conflict is not necessarily military; an insurgency is. If you want a synonym, maybe "insurrection" would be appropriate? Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree, that's why I initially organised the article with "insurgency" (and prefer that title). However, people are clamouring for "conflict" over at Talk:2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. "Insurrection", I believe, falls under WP:LABEL. RGloucester — ☎ 19:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Insurgency is more accurate, but conflict also describes the situation, in my opinion. My support was more directed to renaming it as "in Donbass" instead as of "in Donetsk and Luhansk", with the precautions that I've expressed.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Concerning to the confusion about the term "insurgency", I honestly don't understand what may be causing that eventual confusion, since it's a very common word. Is it being described in the media more often as a conflict or as an insurgency? It's important to pay attention to that, before we assume that there may be a generalized confusion about the term insurgency to describe the situation.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Conflict is common, but it isn't clear what "conflict" is referring to. It can refer to poor relations between Russia and Ukraine, the Crimea incident, the insurgency in Donbass. That's why I favour "insurgency", as it is precise and concise. RGloucester — ☎ 19:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Right. I support "2014 insurgency in Donbass" with the precautions I've expressed above.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Insurgency means more of a militaristic situation, and conflict can sometimes be a stand-in word. A conflict doesn't need to be militaristic, while insurgencies are.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Support requested move. Insurgents fired at ukraine forces in Izum (Kharkiv oblast`) scores of times: http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/05/29/7027429/?attempt=1 http://podrobnosti.ua/podrobnosti/2014/06/03/978932.html http://tvi.ua/new/2014/06/08/trasu_izyum_slovyansk_perekryly_cherez_obstrily_boyovykiv__tymchuk (etc, etc) So insurgency cover Kharkiv oblast too. 94.45.129.180 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no independent verification of this, and anyway, those insurgents are not from Kharkiv. It says they are Donetsk insurgents. It vaguely says that the attack was "organised" in Kharkiv, but the attack took place in Donetsk Oblast. There is no indication as to what this means. Either way, one minor incident (if it happened) is not justification for saying "Insurgency" is in Kharkiv. RGloucester — ☎ 16:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current title is simple and clear. The Crimea is also part of Eastern Ukraine - so if you changed the article title as proposed, you would need incorporate the Russian takeover of the Crimea. So the proposed change is not properly thought out.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Why would you invent the Crimea is in the east of Ukraine??? What a strange thing to do? Please read the Crimea article or consult a map. We are trying to have a serious discussion here. 90.244.7.59 (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Dear IP editor from London. The Crimea is part of Eastern Ukraine, as is Odessa.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Crimea and Odessa are part of Southern Ukraine, not Eastern Ukraine.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In Wikipedia maps yes. In real life, they are part of Eastern Ukraine.—Toddy1 (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Odessa isn't ever considered "eastern" as far as I can tell. It isn't even "eastern" geographically. Crimea is sometimes considered "eastern" because it is in the eastern part of Ukraine, but is not "culturally" part of what is usually considered part of "eastern Ukraine" due to its unusual transfer to the Ukrainian SSR RGloucester — ☎ 15:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was agreed above in the survey to change the title to East Ukraine, so why do we have another title?

This is getting really tiresome, it was agreed to change the title to East Ukraine in the lengthy survey above. Can we please change the title to that. If member Gloucester needs Donbass as the title, take a survey on it. Reaper7 (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC) 10:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well in that case then, was there anyone else who supported the name "donbass" apart from that user?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I myself was for no change, but I still prefer "2014 insurgency in East Ukraine" over "2014 insurgency in Donbass", and I gave my reasons. Dustin (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the title, but, as I mentioned before (since most people are not familiarized with the term "Donbass"), how easy is for someone looking for "insurgency in Eastern Ukraine" to find this article?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't the only person to support the "Donbass" title, and administrators have discretion in deciding what they think is in line with policy. It is very easy for someone looking for "eastern Ukraine", as that redirects here. RGloucester — ☎ 16:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I totally agree with the present title!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
2014 Insurgency in Donbass had the advantage, because Eastern Ukraine, like mentioned before, includes Kharkiv (or Kharkov). However, Kharkov hasn't seen an insurgency. So the insurgency is taking place in Luhansk and Donetsk, and the Donbass is made up of Luhansk and Donetsk.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection of the page

Given the events that recently took place, namely the recapture of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, and the vandalism that has been persistent concerning to this conflict, I think it could be a good idea to extend the semi-protection status. Does anyone agree with me?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You'd need to apply at WP:RPP. No point discussing it here. RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mondolkiri1: What kind of vandalism in taking place?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

When it was not semi-protected, it was being vandalized all the time. Now it's still semi-protected. Tomorrow it won't be. Well, let's wait and see.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Maps as templates?

Those maps take up so much space, would it not be better to transclude them as templates? Dustin (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? To create a subpage and then transclude it? That's usually frowned upon, but I can do it if you feel it is needed. RGloucester — ☎ 21:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester: I mean in Template namespace. Dustin (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
It is a template, transcluded already. Actually a series of different ones…Take a look at Template:Location map+. RGloucester — ☎ 22:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I mean one where you are just transcluding an individual map to be used on a single page. Random ex., but see this; that's how it would be done here. Dustin (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to. The two maps that I added, for Donetsk and Luhansk, are not images, but template modules themselves. RGloucester — ☎ 22:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
That map at the link I gave was mostly coded, not an image. Dustin (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
That type of transclusion is what I was talking about, and is generally frowned upon. It is usual to leave the coding on the article, per the WP:TG: "Templates should not be used to store article content. Such content belongs in the article pages themselves". RGloucester — ☎ 22:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
(I only just saw this) - Since it isn't prose, I believe the situation here is different. I won't be able to say much else for a while. Remerge if you still disagree; it was only a demonstration. Dustin (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
That is called "hard coding", and isn't usually done. I've made that mistake in the past, and been taken to AFD over it multiple times. Templates should not be transcluded into other templates, essentially. RGloucester — ☎ 22:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Not to be overly questioning, but could you please link whatever page says that? It was not purely a test, but a harmless demonstration with zero negative effects on the space in Wikipedia, so I don't think that criterion would apply for speedy deletion, at least. Dustin (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Read H:T. Templates are meant to be used only in cases where their information is useful on many pages. A template with one transclusion isn't meant to exist. RGloucester — ☎ 22:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
There should be another namespace for this then. Dustin (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Would there be any problem with transcluding a talk page subpage, even if it was unusual? My main issue with this is when I edit the entire article, having all of that coding there causes certain issues when editing which make it take longer. I'll give those reasons if you ask, but I didn't want to take the time here. Dustin (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I can make a subpage, give me a moment. RGloucester — ☎ 23:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I think this might be against guidelines as well, as this doesn't seem to be an allowed use per WP:SUB, and also because it seems to violate the disallowed use: "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopaedia". RGloucester — ☎ 23:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Wait a sec, I have some maps I created about the conflict that don't take up as much room. However, I only have one for the Donetsk Oblast, allthough currently i am making on for Luhansk. Would this go aganist Wikipedia's guidelines, though?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
This might work. Rather than having 2 large maps, they are merged together, like the federal states of new russia map that shows both Luhansk and Donetsk, including the districts and cities could be included on there.—Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem isn't the amount of space, but the code. He is referring to the code. These maps are translated from the Russian Wikipedia. I had one that had merged Donetsk and Luhansk, but that made it hard to see where the individual buildings are. That's why I separated them. I think they look good, and make it easy for one to see the locations of the various buildings. RGloucester — ☎ 01:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Something that shouldn't exist, at this point. Consensus was that it should be merged back to the article after the "crisis" settled down". RGloucester — ☎ 05:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that there isn't a way around this massive waste of article space. This should be looked into more closely. Dustin (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't really understand your complaint. It doesn't "waste" any space in the article. One doesn't see the code unless one is editing. It is no more a waste than any of the other code in the source. RGloucester — ☎ 05:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The only thing that could be done is to tweak the resolution, but that would make the maps illegible, Dustin (and would only mean making them slightly smaller). Your pinhead pushpin map proposal is of no value unless it is accompanied by a massive legend which would be far less intuitive for the reader (i.e., match the pinhead colour with the value). Saving space should not be a priority when the alternative is visually meaningless. —Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
He's not talking about the maps as viewed, if I understand him, but about the underlying code. Apparently the large amounts of code cause problems for him while editing. RGloucester — ☎ 06:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand how the coding is a problem. In the first instance, where it begins and ends is easily visible. If editing a section, he can edit the actual section and doesn't need to even see the coding for the maps (they're in their own sections and don't interfere with text in other sections). Would it help to put in hidden comments for 'Map coding beings here' and 'Map coding ends here'? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a "pinhead" proposal, that was rather rude, I was being serious. If nothing can be done, so be it, but I might bring up a proposal at some point at WP:Village pump/Proposals. Another, less significant issue along with what I previously mentioned is that when editing the article as a whole using the main edit button, it takes more time to load. Dustin (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, dear! I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, Dustin. I most certainly was not calling you a pinhead (which you are definitely not)! The example you provided was a pushpin map, and pushpins are used to point out a single point on a regional map. Overloading a map with pushpins (stating that a vast number of pinheads crowded into a smaller map) was my fault: I should have used the term 'pushpins'. Pushpins use the same coding for mapping out coordinates, so it wouldn't save on coding.
As regards editing from the full editing view, I find that's only useful for various AWB, reflink, DAB and similar functions. It shouldn't take any longer to load that any average section. In terms of bytes, most of the text is dedicated to markup for references. Apologies for any inadvertent insult. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, thanks for clearing things up! It's not a major issue and I don't care if that template I created ends up being deleted; the only universal issue is upload time for new revisions. I've not got much more to say about this; it isn't that important, I just find that including large sections of code such as this results in the aforementioned issues (the extra time for uploading new revisions would only apply when editing multiple sections at once via the main edit button to the right of the article title), and it makes it more difficult to judge the amount of actual prose (that's not so much of an editing issue though). Thanks again for explaining your previous statement. Dustin (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Cheers, Dustin. Ultimately, I'd consider the maps to be excellent visual aids. In the end, I think it's a matter of having to compromise other aspects in favour of the clarity of information. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Recapture of cities in the Northern Donetsk Oblast

I've been updating the infobox with the list of cities that have been recaptured by the Ukrainian Army in the Northern part of the Donetsk Oblast (as now I've also been updating the map). But it's becoming a long list to include in the infobox now, if we mention every city that was recaptured. Should it be changed to "recapture of Northern Donetsk Oblast" or something like that?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that, for the moment, any further recaptures can be merged into the third bullet point (along with appropriate citations). If it begins getting any more convoluted (with recaptures back and forth), a different strategy can be considered at that point. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The cities that have been recaptured are Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka, Kostyantynivka, and Artemivsk.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

U.S. assistance to Ukraine

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/21/fact-sheet-us-crisis-support-package-ukraine

http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/en/148/570250/--Baba Mica (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yampil

could i add a info-box military conflict to the battle of yampil section? An fork article was created about that, but it was a good idea it was deleted.—Arbutus the tree (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No need for a separate infobox. Just stick with prose. RGloucester — ☎ 19:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk combat maps should be combined

The two maps are showing the same conflict (the Ukrainian central government against the "Federal State of Novorossiya", or in any case groups of closely-allied rebels) so it would really make much more sense for them to be combined into one wider map, while keeping the scale the same (yes, this would mean that people would need to scroll sideways).

I ask for anyone who knows how to do this to consider doing it.

By the way, I've made a few changes that I think make it easier to edit and verify the current maps (moving references to the specific place locations, putting place names into alphabetical order). Going forward, I think that there may be some good ideas in Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map and Template:Iraqi insurgency detailed map that we could use here, particularly the conflict symbols, and their policy of only allowing sources from the losing side to verify territorial changes. Esn (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The map was originally a map of all-Ukraine, but I split it up to make it easier to see. The big map was extremely hard to see. I wouldn't support the "scrolling sideways" at all. Furthermore, keeping them separate makes sense, as these are two separate entities (the New Russia "state" has no clear role, at present, as both republics continue to exist as they do now). Whether they are "closely-allied" isn't clear, as there have been clashes over whether the LPR would concede to joining New Russia. I do like the changes you made with regard to the references. I was going to do that, but I was worried about clutter on the map. It seems to look okay, for now. As far as "policy", that cannot be dictated specifically on or for this page. We can use any reliable source, as long as it is verifiable. RGloucester — ☎ 20:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, if I may add, I find the two examples you provided extremely confusing and overly-complicated. I think it is best to keep it simple. RGloucester — ☎ 20:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
What specifically do you find confusing about them? I quite like the use of larger/smaller colored circles for cities (instead of triangles), the animated conflict symbols (in cities where fighting is currently happening), and the special symbol for cities that are (partly or wholly) besieged. They also have separate symbols for airports and border crossings, which I think are important. One thing I do not like about those maps is that they don't have references on the maps themselves, so you are forced to search in the edit histories (which is why I'm glad that I was able to put in the references on the Ukraine maps before they got too complicated, and that they seem to look okay). Esn (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
All right, I'll postpone my request for combining the maps until it's more clear that Donetsk and Luhansk are acting under a central command (which may happen later on, or may not). If that happens, the choice will be between a map that is too squished to be easy-to-read (like the previous all-Ukraine map) or a map that makes the user scroll sideways. If that happens, my vote would be for the latter. Esn (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I would not be opposed to a combined map of Donetsk/Luhansk oblasts, presuming that this could be done without making it look cluttered. The "scroll sideways" option is not a good one, so I'd prefer that scale be reduced, if needed. As far as the Syria/Iraq maps, I find them to have too much information in them. With a map, one wants to know what's going on "at-a-glance", whereas those maps require study to get the feel for what they represent. They have large legends, many symbols, and they cover huge areas. I prefer a simple map that is "at-a-glance" and serves as a supporting visual aid to the text, rather than something that appears to be a substitute for good prose. RGloucester — ☎ 22:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Would you support having specific symbols for border crossings? I think any such symbol would be pretty intuitive to understand (I suggest using the same symbol as in the Syria/Iraq maps, which is a bridge), plus border control is obviously very important in this conflict (as in others). Esn (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed, necessarily, as long as the map doesn't end up looking cluttered. RGloucester — ☎ 23:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm just trying to figure out how it works now. I think that the Iraq and Syria maps use , but I haven't been able to figure out yet how exactly the syntax should look. By the way, sorry for putting Mykolaivka in the wrong place - I must've made a mistake when copying the coordinates. In the interest of having things look less cluttered, it might help (a little) to have a single colour for the opposition forces, just like there's a single colour for the government forces. Government forces are blue (as in the Flag of Ukraine), so perhaps the opposition forces should be orange (i.e. ) (as in the Ribbon of Saint George). Esn (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that makes decent sense. The Help:Help desk is very useful for figuring out how to work templates. That's how I figured it out to start with. I'm not very good with the fancy parameters myself, though. RGloucester — ☎ 23:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Strength of the two sides

Regarding this edit, I think that to write "(opposition claims)" below the number is entirely appropriate, and perfectly in keeping with other current war articles (i.e. Battle of Aleppo (2012–present)). Fog of war is in effect, and it would be silly to completely trust what one side of the conflict says about their own strength. If anyone can find contradictory numbers about what Kiev believes is the real strength of the rebels (whether greater or smaller), that would be perfect, then we can put them both in.

Also, the "strength" of the Kiev government has been rapidly changing as well, with their internal recruitment drives. There are also claims (from the rebels, denied by Kiev) of foreign mercenaries and volunteers. Does anyone know of any source which gives an estimate of the number of Kiev-supporting forces currently fighting in Donbass? Esn (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

That's why I personally oppose including such figures at all. They serve no purpose, and are impossible to verify. However, using "claimed" is entirely inappropriate. Either we report what reliable sources say, or we report that other sources contest them. We do not undermine the sources with our own original research about "claiming". WP:CLAIMED is clear. RGloucester — ☎ 01:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe that there are any truly reliable sources during war, particularly a war between great powers - only afterwards (remember the media coverage of America's invasion of Iraq? Or Libya, for that matter?). The best we can do is mention what passes for "reliable" from both sides; let the reader see both stories and independently come to the conclusion that the truth is likely somewhere in the middle. In any case, information doesn't have to be true in order for it to be notable - statements of propaganda are also notable. In wartime, most official statements are propaganda. Esn (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Notable, yes. However, we don't say that anyone "claimed" anything. We merely say that they said it. We don't add spin, or weight, which is what "claimed" does. We allow the reader to interpret what is said, and provide citations so they can look at the source themselves. I'd also say that WP:VALID, part of our NPOV policy, is against the notion that we merely "balance out" POV by saying "According to x, y, but z disputes x's figures".RGloucester — ☎
WP:VALID is about not giving undue weight to marginal conspiracy theories; however, please note also WP:BALANCE, and that in war-time, each side (and the "reliable sources" on that side) tend to say that the beliefs of the other side in the war are ridiculous conspiracy theories. They also often go further and paint the journalistic writers of that side as wholly unreliable as well - and then it gets pretty difficult for us in Wikipedia. We have to start judging the track record of the sources over time, and what subject matters they can be safely used on. That's why that certain agreement that I mentioned earlier came about in the Syrian Civil War articles - the most mainstream media could be the most error-prone, and the only sources with detailed information were typically partisan, and had to be carefully vetted and checked against opposing (and equally partisan) sources. Esn (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
That's called "cross-referencing", and is a standard practice in verifying references. That is not my concern, nor is my concern with the reality of information war. However, perhaps you differ on what you consider a reliable source. The idea that the "most mainstream media" is error-prone is quite dangerous, and seems in opposition to policy. These, our standard reliable sources, are the best that we have. Partisan fringe sources should be used sparingly, and only when they can be verified in mainstream reports. We are not a venue for WP:FRINGE theories. RGloucester — ☎ 05:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
My point was that the longer a war goes on, the more it can be said that there is no single "mainstream". It becomes no longer a matter of mainstream vs. fringe, but that one side's "mainstream" becomes the other side's "fringe" (maybe to a lesser degree than the really partisan sources, but nevertheless). Our duty remains to try to find sources from the ever-narrowing middle ground that both sides agree contains legitimate sources, but since the information that can be gotten from them becomes less and less, it becomes ever more-necessary to sometimes use a source that one or the other side considers unacceptable, particularly if some of the organizations from the shrinking "acceptable-to-both-sides mainstream" talk about it. In that case, I do think it's our duty to make the source of such information clear for readers. Hence my intent to both include the "20,000" number, and make it clear where it comes from. Esn (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Just as a quick side note, the Wikipedia articles in the various languages already show a different "mainstream". In the Ukrainian article, the infobox shows Ukraine fighting a direct war against Russia, rather than against the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics (who are several slots down the list). Esn (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What happens on other Wikipedias isn't really relevant here. It isn't our job to satisfy "both sides", or to find sources acceptable to "both sides". It is our job to report what reliable (mainstream) sources (as determined by our guidelines, and WP:RS/N) say, whatever that might be. It isn't our job to right great wrongs. There is no room for original research] here. RGloucester — ☎ 05:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Sigh... You talk about guidelines, but their interpretation is made by people, who are going to disagree about what those guidelines mean - more and more, as a war goes on. From the link you posted, I see that you yourself were involved in one such argument, in which many participants wrote responses disagreeing with your view that RT was fundamentally more unreliable than its Western equivalents. As you were recently closely involved in one such power struggle over the definition of "mainstream" (one which ended without consensus), I'm not precisely sure why you're disagreeing with me. (for the record, I tend to agree that RT can be sensationalist and clumsy, and try to use more "stodgy" sources if available) Esn (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As for "satisfying both sides"... forgive me for waxing idealistic for a bit, but: it is Wikipedia's purpose to bring people together - more specifically to bring everyone's knowledge together in a way that everyone else can understand. All of Wikipedia's other guidelines are merely means to that end, for that is the ultimate purpose of this entire enterprise.


And this goal becomes so much more important in times of strife and wartime!

Esn (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"Human knowledge" isn't unverifiable tabloid nonsense. We provide WP:V, not "truth". Wikipedia is not collection of every possible fact imaginable. It is an encyclopaedia with thresholds for inclusion. RGloucester — ☎ 14:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Status of Siversk

What is the source for Siversk being taken over by government forces? The latest sources I could find from both Russian and Ukrainian sides ([3] and [4]) say that it's under the rebels' control, though being attacked. Also, in a recent interview, Strelkov mentions deploying men there ("13 fighters of that group made it out successfully and redeployed to Seversk").

In general, sources should be provided for all of the cities on the map, so there's no confusion. Esn (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Siversk came under government control today--Arbutus the tree (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"Alleged" belligerents?

Why is there sourceless "Russia (alleged)" side as one of the belligerents but no "USA (alleged)" or "EU (alleged)"? This looks like a NPOV violation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.46.125.190 (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


"Belligerents" section

RGloucester, please let me know which particular groups' inclusion you are opposed to (from this edit). I removed the Italians from the Novorossiya side because there were no really good sources and it seemed to be only three people. I kept the "Foreign Neo-Nazi volunteers" on the Kiev side because Al-Jazeera is a reliable mainstream source. I kept various other changes (such as moving Chechens and Cossacks into the Russian bulletin, since they are after all part of Russia). I'm not against making the infobox simpler, but if that's done, I do think that all groups (including small ones) should be either mentioned elsewhere in the article, or in the infobox in a collapsible section.

Moreover, I object to your manner of your reverts. You reverted the inclusion of many sources for the groups listed in the article, leaving it an infobox without references. You reverted the inclusion of some new groups (i.e. Belarusians).

Tell me, please, which groups are considered significant and which are not, and what the criteria for significance is. Are Uzbeks more significant than Belarusians, since you apparently support the inclusion of the former but not the latter? (excuse me, but I'm getting frustrated) Esn (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I have a few concerns. First of all, as I quoted in the edit summary, MOS:INFOBOX provides guidance on how to use infoboxes as a tool to help the reader. To quote again:

"summarises key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose".

My main concern, firstly, is that a large infobox isn't helpful to the reader. It is just a pile of information without text to support it, and infoboxes are not meant to be lists, if we take the guidelines into account. Infoboxes show only the most notable participants. The "key facts", if one will, such as the fact that the DPR and LPR are participating, along with various paramilitaries. Minor participants do not belong in the infobox. The participation of ten-or-so Chetniks, for example, doesn't warrant a place in the infobox. They should be described in the prose. The infobox, as I've said, is not a substitute for prose. Furthermore, the idea of including many groups in the infobox that are not mentioned in the prose is abhorrent to the purpose of inboxes, that is, to summarise. We must work in line with policy on WP:DUE weight. What's more, all such claims must be verifiable and cross-referenced, and I saw many that were not verifiable. I'm not justifying whatever is in the infobox at present. I was merely opposed to the addition of numerous other entities, in line with our guidelines on infoboxes. Also, per WP:INFOBOXREF, citations are not needed in infoboxes for content that appears in the body of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 04:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Esn, I would suggest you read WP:BALASPS, WP:GEVAL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. Mr. Gloucester is not the only editor involved in the development of this article. I fact, should you check through the history of the article itself (as well as prior discussions on this talk page), you may note that there are a number of participants cite-checking, researching and ensuring balanced an neutral presentation of information without resorting to information overload. If you have concerns, by all means post these queries and concerns here. There will be any number of contributors capable of addressing your queries. It is reassuring to see that you've admitted to being frustrated. Under such circumstances, WP:NPA will be overlooked in this one instance. In future, please abide by commenting on the content, not the user. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to convert the information from my edit that was deleted into prose, in the future (unless someone else does it first). Then the task will be to figure out which groups are important enough to be in the infobox. I'm not entirely sure that the criticism applies to me so much as to the editors of the Russian-language Wikipedia - all I did was directly translate what was in their infobox, then tried to weed out some of the less relevant things. Esn (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Prose? Are you involved in trying to do poetic justice to the article? Wikipedia projects are related, but that certainly doesn't mean that the articles are interchangeable. English Wikipedia follows policy and guidelines. It can not be assumed that articles in other Wikipedias are doing the same, or are being scrutinised for bias. I'm not able to vouch for discussions regarding WP:RS on Russian Wikipedia, Ukrainian Wikipedia, Polish Wikipedia... or any other Wikipedias that may have a vested interest in their interpretation of RS. Perhaps you'd do better to check the sources according to veritability before investing time in writing content for this article which will be ultimately rejected unless supported by other sources, and are not dedicated to speculative readings of the situation. The best rule of thumb is actual reportage of events, incidents and attributable official statements on behalf of a government official or spokesperson for a recognised group involved. Various RSN and related discussions you've pointed out should give you an idea of the fact that application of intelligent readings and interpretations of news media RS apply on a case by case (article by article/subject by subject) basis, most particularly when dealing with current affairs. If you feel frustrated by being proscribed in contributing to these articles, you may be a better candidate for WikiNews. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Bild+Faz Article on US. Mercenaries.

Why is there a section here on this? The Bild article, does not even mention the mercenaries. As for the other article they cite themselves and a report which they do not link. In fact the entire article has no outside links or mention of sources. The Bild article should not be here, as this article is related to the direct invlovment in the Insurgency and ATO. The Faz article should not be here beacuse it is obvious that they used nothing but heresay in making it. I will not even go into the use of Bild as a Wikipedia:RS. Can someone explain this to me please. Avion365 (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Removed per 'it shouldn't have been added here in the first instance'. Please see lengthy discussion of the sources on the Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine page. Please see my evaluation after reading the 3 cited sources [5]. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Luhansk city

I'm going to create a draft about the clashes in Luhansk city, and i have reliable sources. But there hasn't been any huge fighting, although there reports of shelling. Anyway if things do escalate, would this be okay?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

So long as you're sure it's article-worthy... Dustin (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Please don't make yet another battle fork article. We have plenty of space in this article for a Luhansk city section. We all appreciate your contributions, but it would better for the encyclopaedia if we kept everything centralised, per our guidelines on new articles. RGloucester — ☎ 21:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester:, to start with, I never even created the Battle of Yampil and Seversk article, that was by someone else. I think i'm just going to wait and see--Arbutus the tree (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Arbutus the tree:: Where did you come up with the Battle of Yampil and Seversk article from RGloucester's comment above? In any case, it doesn't hurt to wait! =) Dustin (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@Dustin V. S.: well, recently, A fork article called the Battle of Yampil and Seversk was created, and since I have created fork articles in the past (i don't do it anymore), i thought it was about that.—Arbutus the tree (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it wasn't about that. We have to be careful. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we don't "plan" for notability, or for an "increase in hostilities". At present, there is no indication that we need such an article, and we've got plenty space here. That's all I'm saying, and like I said, I greatly appreciate your contributions. RGloucester — ☎ 21:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
There doesn't necessarily have to be any crystal-balling involved at all; in waiting, you can better judge at some point in the future if the topic has become notable. Dustin (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Okay, thanks for letting me know.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I looked at the news at there has been heavy fighting in Luhansk. Would a draft be appropriatte now?—Arbutus the tree (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Just because there is fighting in Luhansk doesn't mean we need a separate article. There is no need to a separate article, just write it here. RGloucester — ☎ 16:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
@Arbutus the tree: Please try to understand that new articles need to be thought out with care. It's understood that you're anxious to cover everything thoroughly, however we need to proscribe articles for two important reasons: 1) not everything is going to escalate (per WP:CRYSTAL into something that actually meets with even basic Wikipedia notability standards, and Wikipedia is not a news source; B) A plethora of articles (well, just stubs with no reportage on the incident after it occurred) have been created which I'm seeking out and trying to merge with main articles. In practical terms, there are a number of articles now covering the same spectrum of events, but have been taken over by contributors with heavy biases because they can't get a look-in into the main articles. Having to mop up (which inevitably means undesirable disputes over multiple articles) is a daunting task. That's not to say that contributors started the articles in bad faith, but once it's out of your sandbox, you've relinquished WP:OWNership. Anyone can develop and alter them, and they have certainly been doing so. Cheers for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Thank you for letting me know. I'll know that for the future.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding regarding the complexity. It's better to keep things centralised until it becomes obvious to everyone that a separate article is warranted. It also assists us all in keeping track of the articles surrounding the main articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Ceasefire fighting

It seems that we are missing a section on the fighting during the ceasefire or a section about the ceasefire entirely, is there a reason for this or can we add it?Avion365 (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

A section about the ceasefire exists at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine#Fifteen-point peace plan. RGloucester — ☎ 03:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I know about that, but my point is why do we seem to skip over the fighting that happened. Certainly this article is for the military aspects, yet we miss a major part of the military actions that happened, during the conflict.Avion365 (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, per WP:NOTNEWS, not every little event is notable, and I'm not aware of any significant incidents that warrant inclusion. We know the ceasefire was broken frequently, but the incidents were minor (other than the Sloviansk helicopter incident, covered in Siege of Sloviansk). However, if you can provide sources, perhaps we can take a look. RGloucester — ☎ 06:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there a military and material support of the USA Ukrainian government and Ukrainian army?

Is there a military and material support of the USA Ukrainian government and Ukrainian army? It is very important in this conflict. Is there any reliable information? The political and military U.S. officials make no secret of their support for the Ukrainian government and the military.—Baba Mica (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The infobox isn't meant to for anyone other than direct participants in the conflict. If we followed your logic, we'd have to include tens of countries in the infobox. That's not how it works. The infobox is not a substitute for the prose of the article. American monetary support can be mentioned in the body of the article, however, this is already done at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, and is perhaps more suitable for that article, as the support has been only in either money, or in non-lethal equipment. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Foreign support the Ukrainian government

I left a lot of references and evidence of international support for the Ukrainian government. No one can convince me that it does not exist. I do not see any violation of the rules of Wikipedia, because I have all the support of the evidence and found the information on the websites of certain state and government. In my opinion Wikipedia is becoming an area of political bickering, and not the free encyclopedia. I suggest to add support for the Ukrainian government and the military in the template. --Baba Mica (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That is a topic already addressed in the "Response" section of the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. If you have something to add, do it there.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
To shift the topic pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine?--Baba Mica (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
No, the international responses!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It doesn't belong in the infobox. Those are international responses, and are already covered at the appropriate article. The infobox is only for DIRECT parties to the conflict, which none of those are. The nonsense about "Polish death squads" comes from an unreliable source and can't be verified. RGloucester — ☎ 14:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There are pictures, videos and articles of Academi (formerly Blackwater involvement in Ukraine in support for the Ukrainian government, yet it seems that no one can add it. I have tried to add truths in several articles of Wikipedia, based on references and facts but lately it always seems that anything against a certain political agenda is out of the question. I do agree that Wikipedia is becoming more and more political in favor of Western and Sunni islam politics rather than a free encyclopedia. Sorry that is the truth and I am not donating anything until it changes. There is really no point on having another one non free media in total support of a certain political agenda, that forbiddens anything else and pretends to be free. Is not Wikipedia anymore. Here are some sources on the involvement of Academi (formerly Blackwater involvement in Ukraine in support for the Ukrainian government. A government that came from a 5 billion sponsored by the west coup from neonazis by the way, that Wikipedia is calling a revolution.

http://rt.com/news/158212-academi-blackwater-ukraine-military/

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/05/19/363309/us-blackwater-mercenaries-in-ukraine/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576490/Are-Blackwater-active-Ukraine-Videos-spark-talk-U-S-mercenary-outfit-deployed-Donetsk.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talk • contribs) 19:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox war faction

Would it be okay to add an infobox war faction for the groups within the domestic insurgents?—Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It is generally frowned upon to have more than one infobox per article (MOS:INFOBOX). This is especially true given that the factions in question are already covered in concise paragraphs. Clutter should be avoided when possible. Think about what helps the reader, not just about what one can add to the article. RGloucester — ☎ 00:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion

  • Oppose merge Article easily passes notability, and is a subject that clearly needs a stand alone article as it is about a complex subject that needs to be expounded upon in detail. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Im confused what is the proposed merge here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge per Ism schism. EkoGraf (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Huge defeat of Ukrainian forces in the South

There is a cascading news about large part of Ukrainian forces being surrounded in the southern area and cut off from the rest of the ATO force, while being pounded by rebel artillery, news is accompanied by numerous videos showing rebel howitzers and newly captured tanks entering villages and fortifications in the area. I believe looking at previous events that this news will filter to the West in 4-5 days, as of now even some pro-Maidan news sources reported huge losses and withdrawal of National Guard and Ukrainian Army. Sample video of newly captured howitzers and tanks(I believe capture of howitzers is new development_ [6] Just to let you know. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, what "non-Western" sources indicate this? Also, we must make sure that reliable sources publish such information before making any sort of mention. Dustin (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
It is unhelpful to be left with YouTube links, which we can't use. We need reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 22:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

So far BBC reported only heavy fighting in the areas mentioned, like said we will have to wait around 5 days before the news eventually emerges in the West.Although some unreliable pro-Maidan sources like Kyiv Post mentioned encirclement already.—MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide the appropriate Kyiv Post article? RGloucester — ☎ 00:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's any hurry. Even English language Russian outlets (RT and RiaNovosti) are lagging behind what's appearing in Russian language blogs and Novorossian Web sites. – Herzen (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

More Info is emerging about Ukranian aircraft destroyed, by alleged Russian missiles. A article about Ukranian Aircraft Destroyed during 2014 Eastern Unrest/Crisis/Whatever its needed, giving a breakdown, and indicating witch aircraft is reported loss by the Insurgents or by Russian fire.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines crash

New article at Malaysia Airlines MH 17. Bondegezou (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

map

I noticed that the map's july update was reverted, and there has been some important events, such as Ukrainian forces took south eastern luhansk. Just sayin though, in needs to updated to it's current form--Arbutus the tree (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit request

In Post-ceasefire government offensive section there is an unnecessary preposition of. "Ahead of a planned government offensive on the insurgent-occupied city of Donetsk, key roads leading into the city of were blocked on 7 July." > "Ahead of a planned government offensive on the insurgent-occupied city of Donetsk, key roads leading into the city were blocked on 7 July." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adûnâi (talk • contribs) 12:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

There is also a not needed article the before Russia later. "DPR-affiliated insurgents blamed the Ukrainian government for disaster, whereas the government blamed the Russia and the insurgents." > "DPR-affiliated insurgents blamed the Ukrainian government for disaster, whereas the government blamed Russia and the insurgents." Adûnâi (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


Border Crossings

For the map, could we have some type of symbol the repersents border crossings? Ukrainian forces made gains to took some important ones.—Arbutus the tree (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Arbutus the tree: I've added in border post capability. The symbol looks like this: . RGloucester — ☎ 04:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The downside of this symbol is that it's not possible to show who controls the post (unlike the bridge symbol used in the Syria & Iraq maps, where a colored dot can be place between the lines). Esn (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

New Article or section regarding Aviation incidents/shoot downs - accidentes needed.

Besides the Ilushing and the MH17 lost over Donbass, its urgently needed an article about all the aviation incidents in this war, including all those MI shoot down and all those claims made by the rebels, of Su-25 and Antonov cargo planes. More shot donws are reported weekly(2 SU-25 today), and since the battle box now excludes tha number of aircraft destroyed, a table its needed.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see List of Ukrainian aircraft losses during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 15:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

ukraine tropps shelled

Perhaps a draft could be made about the russian troops allegedly shelling ukrainian troops? As long as it wouldn't be considered a fork or has nobility, and it has coverage, could it be possible?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Ukraine Primeminister describes insurgency as war 3 times today

Petro Poroshenko (President of Ukraine) also describes the conflict as war every week. So do the rebels and various other belligerents. Links are easy to find. Why does one wiki editor concentrate religiously on the use of the word insurgency?

Support to rename the 'insurgency' to war.

  • Support for the above reasons. Reaper7 (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What Mr Poroshenko says is irrelevant, as he is a primary source. What matters is if reliable secondary sources call it a war. At present, they still seem to be holding off. RGloucester — ☎ 13:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment - quick search for Ukrainian Civil War in Google, plenty of recent articles such as:
    • [7]
    • [8]
    • [9]
    • The last reference even refers to eastern Ukraine as "war-torn".GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The first one does use civil war. The Kyiv Post one expressly denies that there is a "civil war". The third one doesn't even use the word, except in reference to Syria. RGloucester — ☎ 21:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
No, but it does say there is a war of some description, even if it is not a civil one. The third reference says Ukraine is "war-torn", so does say there is a war on really. I've changed my viewpoint on the name now (see below), but still think a name change is needed. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for above reasons. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment in such a case, I think the appropriate title should be Ukrainian Civil War GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment further research suggests that perhaps Russia-Ukraine war would be more appropriate a name, in the same vein as the Russia-Georgia war naming. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Nice bit of WP:OR. Sources? RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It isn't an appropriate title, unless reliable secondary sources are using it. They are not. RGloucester — ☎ 21:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If you were to call this a civil war, that means that the Chechen wars would also have to be renamed civil wars. How about "2014 war in Donbass", or "2014 Ukrainian Anti-Terrorist Operation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note that a formal move request has been established in the section directly below. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the pro Russia camp is called insurgents?

As far as I can see, there are two camps, the pro Russia camp and the pro EU camp. In my opinion, no one side should be called insurgents.-- 192.252.167.133 00:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"An insurgency is an armed rebellion against a constituted authority". The insurgents are rebelling against the Ukrainian government with armed force. That makes them insurgents. RGloucester — ☎ 00:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

And what makes the Ukrainian government the authority? As far as I can tell, Viktor Yanukovych is the legal president of Ukraine, because 1. he has not died 2. he has not resigned 3 he has not being impeached under the Ukrainian Constitution.-- 192.252.167.133 00:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The definition I quoted said nothing about "legal authority". It said "constituted authority". RGloucester — ☎ 00:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Novorossiya is also authority, is it not? -- 192.252.167.133 00:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Not according to the international community's definition of authority, otherwise they would've been recognised. RGloucester — ☎ 01:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Recognized by whom exactly? One should realize the UN hardly has any power these days.-- 192.252.167.133 13:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • States at large, as per the large body of international law? RGloucester — ☎ 15:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I also think that "insurgents" is not a good word. Probably there are some insurgents mixed in this. But more importantly the majority appears to be some mercenaries (someone would call them wolunteers) from some other countries fighting something like a war. And one has to add that they maintain something behaving quite officially like a quasi-independent state. Generally one would be stricken how much appreciation the leader of separatists got from one Maleysian official receiving black boxes and speaking to the leader per excellency. And in this example it was in fact intarnational recognition. I know it was not an official recognition of them as a state. (IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Also the prime minister of Malaysia talk a lot with the leaders of separatists. Rebels also do have someone like a prime minister, Alexander Borodai. And even they are issuing not only propaganda, but also some documents. And that Maleysian official who recieved black boxes even signed them...83.20.163.21 12:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Foreign groups from both sides must be described in the article

Currently, only foreign groups from the insurgent side are discussed in the article. Foreign groups from the pro-Ukrainian side have also been reported on in mainstream sources, and while some of these reports have attracted criticism from other journalists (such as the reported Academi involvement), others have been accepted as accurate. In the interest of evenhandedness, these groups and volunteers should be mentioned. The Russian article section on this can be useful here (starting from the third paragraph, if there is a consensus to not mention the Academi reports in the English article). Esn (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The link is to ru:Вооружённый конфликт на востоке Украины (2014)#Участие иностранных граждан. I looked in vain for anything of value.—Toddy1 (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
You know, Toddy, you have a very wry-style of English. You could go into deadpan comedy. Nevertheless, I agree with Toddy on this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 16:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
How about the Al Jazeera report talking about the volunteers from the EU? Esn (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you find a print version? My computer won't let me watch the video. RGloucester — ☎ 20:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so. It's also on Youtube here. Can you watch any other video, or is it the Al Jazeera website that's causing the trouble? Esn (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Esn - maybe you could point us to some articles in the Financial Times that could act as a source - the FT has good coverage of Ukraine.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you just say what you really think, Toddy1, instead of hiding behind sarcasm? But to answer your actual question, rather than the implied one, because I didn't find any articles in the Financial Times about this particular issue. Esn (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore: Toddy1, if you are seeking to propose that reports from the global news network Al Jazeera should not be used in articles about Ukraine, then you should say that publicly and let the debate commence. Are you going to do that? Esn (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
You mean the FT prints news, and background information, and isn't any use when you are looking for a non-Russian source to buttress Russian propaganda lies.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • For that video, both on Youtube and AJ, it says that "it isn't available in my country". Oh dear! Regardless, print is to be preferred as a source. RGloucester — ☎ 23:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, how about this one? Is there a Wikipedia policy which says that print is to be preferred as a source? Even if there is, I think it wouldn't apply in a case where only a video report (in this case, from a major news network) exists, or if the print sources are just 3rd hand re-tellings of the video report. Esn (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
YouTube is not a reliable source.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not YouTube, Toddy1. It's an Al Jazeera news report qualified by "Al Jazeera's David Chater reports from Mariupol." in the article. The fact that it's up on YouTube does not disqualify it as a reliable and verifiable source: it just happens that it's linked to their official YouTube channel. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Verbatim article report:

"Neo-fascists train to fight Ukrainian rebels
Volunteers believing in national socialism are joining a battalion raised by the interior ministry.

One special forces group, fighting separatists in Eastern Ukraine, is bringing together many self-declared neo-fascists.

The volunteers joining the so-called Azov battalion, raised by Ukraine's interior ministry, includes men from Russia, Sweden and Italy who believe in national socialism.

Al Jazeera's David Chater reports from Mariupol. Last updated: 09 Jun 2014 17:03" --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I've seen something in the Kyiv Post about foreign "recruits" for the Azov Battalion, but I don't remember where the article was. Some of these "battalions" do seem unsavoury. Regardless, I can look for the KP article. RGloucester — ☎ 00:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The main problem with the report is that it was filed in early June. Chater doesn't mention any numbers of recruits, and his footage shows literally a handful being trained in a very, very large training area. In and of itself, it doesn't attest to anything more than a minuscule presence. I'm going to do a search for updated information which might indicate whether a significant number have gone through training and are actually fighting in situ. —Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: There is this, from yesterday. Not sure if it can be verified, though. I generally consider AJ to be reliable. RGloucester — ☎ 00:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
AJ has become a primary source for Australian international reportage. Even the most conservative of the commercial channels use their reports, as do printed and other outlets. I doubt that it could be seriously contested as an RS, particularly given that this is not reportage on the Middle East. —Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd say it is worthy of a mention, under the "pro-government paramilitaries" section. I'd oppose any changes to the infobox, though, as then numbers seem quite small. RGloucester — ☎ 01:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with that take on the subject. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure thing. Since more than half of that section is now about foreign volunteers, I've renamed it to "Pro-government paramilitaries and foreign volunteers". I've also moved the previous "foreign groups" tree to become a sub-tree of "Domestic insurgents", since all of the groups listed there are on the pro-Russian insurgent side (edit comparison). Esn (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Rostov-on-Don as a staging area

It seems to me that this is hard to dispute, meaning it could just be stated instead of attributed. In this video there is a large amount of Russian kit that is traveling northbound towards Rostov-on-Don, given the sign that goes by for Vodyanaya Balka, which is about 60 km south of Rostov-on-Don, followed by a mileage sign to Rostov and Moscow.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:Original research? Youtube videos are not reliable sources. Regardless, we have a section on this matter already. It is 2014 insurgency in Donbass#Training facility. RGloucester — ☎ 23:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The article currently cites to interpretermag.com at one point. Say what one will about this source, but the analysis there is sound. For example, the analysis here about Russian firing over the border. While we find claims like "While no evidence of a Russian military buildup at Ukrainian border regions was registered" at RT.com, the satellite evidence contradicts Russian sources, as does wiretap evidence. You can see that this video is consistent with Google Maps placing it in Russia.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Too many sections

This is not a huge issue but per the MOS we should condense the sections as there are way too many or split some of them off to reduce the article's WP:SIZE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, ultimately. However, I think there is a better approach. As we have no deadline here, it makes sense to wait until the conflict finishes before condensing. That's what we did for Russo-Georgian War. Doing it this way allows us to continue to add information now, but allows us to later parse out what was truly notable and what was not. RGloucester — ☎ 21:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It would not be so bad, if the table of contents was pruned down. At the moment it is far too long. I tried to prune it down by putting in a limiting template. But for some reason, this was reverted.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I apologise for that, Toddy. I did it because the it had moved the infobox down to the bottom of the article on my screen. I will try and reinsert it now. RGloucester — ☎ 21:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks much better, I will look at condensing the sections when things die down a bit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk)

Edit conflict

@Black Future: Sorry for reverting your edit. Was trying to get rid of the vandal IP's crap. RGloucester — ☎ 21:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

But if his edit was correct, you'd also have to check the biography content in Denis Pushilin, since there's no indication there saying he's Russian! He was born in Ukraine, he has run for the Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2012, so on. Has he switched his nationality to Russian, meanwhile? Or had he 2 nationalities and renounced the Ukrainian nationality?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't commenting on the content of his edit, merely that I accidentally reverted it. According to this Reuters article, Pushilin was a Donetsk local. RGloucester — ☎ 21:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I apologize and see I mixed him up with someone else. Thanks for the correction. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 05:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk

@Soffredo: I've warned you about discretionary sanctions. Please stop edit warring. "Donetsk" and "Luhansk" are not short-form names for the republics. They can refer to many other things. Multiple editors have told you stop. Please stop. RGloucester — ☎ 00:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian Tank Incursion

I'd like to challenge a more experienced editor to examine the following statement found in this section:

" Anton Heraschenko, an advisor to Arsen Avakov, confirmed at a briefing in Kiev that the tanks were once in the possession of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Crimea, and that they had been transferred by sea to Russia before crossing the border into Ukraine."

As neither of these people seemed to have been mentioned previously in the article, I had to search for their identities. Closer examination showed they were both employed or aligned to the Ukrainian government in Kiev. My concern is that neither position's position is outlined except in relation to the other. While Anton might "confirm" the origin of his government's military equipment it seems egregious that he could state, to a fact, that the equipment had traveled through the sovereign territory of another country and then across a border. Examination of the english article cited gives no hard evidence, only a claim from the former. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scout1Treia (talk • contribs) 15:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian Tank Incursion

I'd like to challenge a more experienced editor to examine the following statement found in this section:

" Anton Heraschenko, an advisor to Arsen Avakov, confirmed at a briefing in Kiev that the tanks were once in the possession of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Crimea, and that they had been transferred by sea to Russia before crossing the border into Ukraine."

As neither of these people seemed to have been mentioned previously in the article, I had to search for their identities. Closer examination showed they were both employed or aligned to the Ukrainian government in Kiev. My concern is that neither position's position is outlined except in relation to the other. While Anton might "confirm" the origin of his government's military equipment it seems egregious that he could state, to a fact, that the equipment had traveled through the sovereign territory of another country and then across a border. Examination of the english article cited gives no hard evidence, only a claim from the former. Scout1Treia (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you indicate the sources, please?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_in_Donbas/Archive_1&oldid=1181675199"