Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 12

Removal of well sourced information
Re:. These are all reliable sources and how you personally feel about a Human Rights group is irrelevant. Restoring. Don't remove the text based on some WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Volunteer Marek  02:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I will say the same thing I told you at your talk page. First, I would ask you to refrain from accusing me of POV pushing. My personal feelings have nothing to do with this. Second, that's not how Wikipedia works when it comes to reliable sources. The reliable sources that you cite (Reuters) are actually the media which are relaying the claims. That does not make the claims themselves automatically reliable. Not to mention one of those media is Kyivpost which is non-neutral in this conflict and thus I highly doubt it can be called a reliable source in this specific regard. The claim of 2,000 is made by the top Ukrainian military spokesman (non-neutral), as for the 4,000 it is made by a HR activist, which is the claim relayed by the previously mentioned Kyivpost, and also by the very language of that HR activist it can be seen she is anti-Putin and anti-Kremlin thus she is also non-neutral. Wikipedia is based on reliability and neutrality. You have two non-neutral claims and one non-neutral media outlet. The claims would have been reliable if they were reported by a Reuters journalist or any other representative of the neutral and reliable media outlets, but that is not the case, they are relaying claims by one of the beligerents in the conflict as well as a claim by a person which is hostile towards the government of one of the beligerents. Need I go on? Besides the HR activist actually claimed in her original statement that 4,000 Russian soldiers and MERCENARIES (non-neutral language) died... So its not Russian Army casualties exclusively that are talked about, with which the infobox deals with only. EkoGraf (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * First, I did not accuse you of POV pushing. Second I'm glad you agree that these are reliable sources. Third, the fact that these reliable sources are relying the estimates of human rights organizations is because they regard them as credible. Fourth, it appears that your feelings do have something to do with it, as half your message is about your opinion of this human rights group.  Volunteer Marek   03:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * First, POV-pushing means to edit on your personal feelings, beliefs and views, so yes you accused me of POV-pushing. Second, I agreed that Reuters is reliable, not Kiyevpost in this specific regard. Third, saying the fact that these reliable sources are relying the estimates of human rights organizations is because they regard them as credible is your personal opinion. If Reuters relayed only claims by persons or entities that they consider credible than by that logic we should believe the Assad government when Reuters cited them as saying they never used poison gas. What is credible are the Reuters journalists, not the claims made by beligerents (the Ukrainian military spokesman) that they cite. Reuters reported on a statement made by a beligerent, they did not report it as something they themselves confirmed. Fourth, the length of my message is not a reflection of my personal feelings. Fifth, I am not expressing my personal opinion about that HR, I am simply stating facts and that is to point out the hostile statements made by the HR activists about Putin and his government which indicates a non-neutral attitude. EkoGraf (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * So, back to the main point - neutrality. For Wikipedia to stay neutral, neutral sources must be cited. In this regard the Ukrainian military spokesman and an HR activist making anti-Putin statements are certainly not neutral. EkoGraf (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, neutrality means that reliable sources are cited. These are reliable sources. I absolutely do not care about your original research in regard to the Human Rights group (or Kyivpost for that matter). If you got a problem with them, or Reuters, take it to WP:RSN. In the meantime, stop edit warring and removing sourced information. I'd appreciate it if you self reverted your last revert.  Volunteer Marek   04:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we agree, neutrality means that reliable sources are cited. However, in this case you are not citing a reliable source. You are citing a reliable media outlet (Reuters) citing the claim of a non-neutral source (the Ukrainian spokesman). Reuters is reliable that they will cite the claim properly (no dispute there), however, as for the credibility of the claim itself Reuters has made no effort to validate it. In fact, to the contrary of your statement that if Reuters reported it than it must be true, Reuters itself stated in the source It was not possible to independently confirm the figure. Which means Reuters has no proof the figure is valid. As for Kyivpost, if you are so dead set on using it, than that would mean we should use Russia Today as well since its the Russian equivalent of the Kyivpost in this conflict. As for the HR activist, per your own source and her own words she made claims At any point they can either kill me, or jail me, or send me to the nuthouse, cos I am crazy, like the official channels say.. Which means there is hostility between her and the Russian government, regardless of my personal feelings. So no, I will not revert myself. If a Reuters journalist reported the figure of 2,000 or a neutral HR activist the figure of 4,000 than we would be in agreement. But that is not the case. P.S. You just accused me of OR beside being a POV-pusher which is in violation of Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith from other editors. I'm sorry. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The source is Reuters. It is citing a WP:PRIMARY source. Reuters itself is a reliable WP:SECONDARY source. That's exactly how Wikipedia works. It would be fine to attribute the primary source properly but there's no reason for removal.
 * And again, I did not "accuse" you of being a POV pusher. I did "accuse" you of OR because that's exactly what you're doing. Believe it or not, saying that someone is engaging in OR is NOT a violation of "assume good faith" (which anyway, is not Wikipedia policy but rather a "behavioral guideline" and a particularly idiotic one at that). And yes, you are engaging in OR - for example in your own personal interpretation of the human rights activist's statement as "there is hostility between her and the Russian government". Seriously, if we followed that standard we'd be unable to use ANY independent sources, except for those which fawn over Putin and his policy. Just because a source is opposed to Russian government's policy does not make it "unreliable" or even "non-neutral", believe it or no.
 * I strongly suggest one more time that you self revert, rather than continue in your obstinacy, until this matter is resolved through discussion.  Volunteer Marek   05:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would also remove any sources that would fawn over Putin and his policy. I would remove RT as a source if it made a claim 4,000 Ukrainian soldiers were killed. And THAT is my standard, to the contrary of your insinuation that I'm for sources that look favorably at Putin. Independent sources are called independent because they have no hostile or positive attitude towards ether side in a conflict. And I do actually think as you yourself said that a source is opposed to Russian government's policy does not make it "unreliable" or even "non-neutral". However, Kyivpost being non-neutral when claiming Russian casualties is a no-brainer considering it has been the main Ukrainian anti-separatist/Russian media outlet during this conflict. Just as much as RT has been the main Russian anti-Kiev media outlet during this conflict (which is the reason why we are also not citing their Ukrainian casualty estimates). And yes, its Reuters. And in its article, Reuters itself says (and I repeat again) It was not possible to independently confirm the figure. Which means they could not verify it (give verification to the spokesman's claim). And Wikipedia requests verifiability. EkoGraf (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your comparison between Kyivpost and RT is out of place. One is an independent media organization with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy the other simply a propaganda tool, directed directly by the government for its own purposes. Apples and oranges. You also mischaracterize Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. It does not mean what you pretend it means. If you'd like, attribute the number to the Human Rights group.  Volunteer Marek   06:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * One is an independent media organization with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy You are aware Kyivpost calls the rebels on a regular basis terrorists and mercenaries, the Russian government the Russian regime and Putin a dictator? Contrary to those such as Reuters, BBC etc who call them in the neutral sense as rebels and separatists, the Russian government just that the Russian government and Putin the president. Kyivpost doesn't need to be controlled by the Ukrainian government to be biased against the rebels and Russia (which can be plainly seen from their language). EkoGraf (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is incorrect understanding of the policy. One could easily provide quotations from Reuters or NYT to prove these sources are not "neutral". There is no requirement for sources to be "neutral", they must be only "reliable", meaning a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and Kievpost reasonably satisfies this requirement. If in doubt, please ask at RS noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Seeing as "terrorist" is the official designation of the rebels, how there really are "mercenaries" fighting with the rebels and how Putin's presidency does have a lot of the trappings of a dictatorship that would not make KP "unreliable". And anyway, it would depend on context, which you completely fail to provide. If you got a problem with KP, then the appropriate place to discuss it is WP:RSN, not here. In the mean time, please stop removing sourced material and edit warring. You reverted. Three times. *You* should have started this discussion, not me.  Volunteer Marek   16:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Seeing as "terrorist" is the official designation of the rebels That designation is official only for the Ukrainian government and their supporters (example Kyivpost). No other official government or reliable media outlets call them that. how Putin's presidency does have a lot of the trappings of a dictatorship Your OR personal opinion (not acceptable). And no, I did not revert three times, I reverted two times . If you are referring to my first edit here it was not a full revert but an edit. But back to the point at hand. Regardless of whether Kyivpost is neutral (which it obviously isn't) or reliable, the reliability and neutrality of the HR activist that they are citing is primarily in question here. However, if you are yourself going to continue with this course of action than I would remind you that you are misrepresenting the source. Your source, that you are so adamant to use, does not cite 4,000 dead members of the Russian military (article called 2014 Russian military intervention). It cites 4,000 Russian soldiers and mercenaries for which the source makes no indication they are part of the official Russian military that is conducting the military intervention. EkoGraf (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Many sources counts Russian military "on vacation" or "retirement" ("mercenaries") as Russian soldiers. My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We write per the sources, and per the sources they are not fighting in the function of regular Russian soldiers but as volunteers per some and mercenaries per others in the ranks of separatist battalions and not as part of the regular Russian Army. Examples - Russian Orthodox Army and Vostok Battalion. EkoGraf (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I changed the wording so your figure stays and added one more source for another figure (3,500). However, I noted the number includes those you call mercenaries as well but I labeled them as separatists (neutral wording) because all fighters coming from outside of Ukraine are part of the separatist battalions. P.S. One more thing about Kyiv post, if its so reliable and neutral, how come here it claims the UN said 4,317 civilians died in the conflict, while that UN report itself  said 4,317 people (which includes combatants and civilians) died. Just food for thought. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks (as for KP you ask about, it could be a misquote or simple misreporting, I don't know).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * They must be misquoting/misreporting than on a regular basis since every time Kyivpost writes a new report on the number of fatalities in the conflict they quote the most latest UN figure as being civilians only. EkoGraf (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is propaganda
Simply reinserting the suppression of this block does not make the legitimate discussion of the facts of this article go away. The people who are reverting and now intimidating those who edit here will be the undoing of the wikipedia project itself. This article is not factual it is a fiction. Every attempt to address factual error is simply reverted and those who do so are harassed and threated.

This page is a disgraceful pack of drivel. Wikipedia is corrupted. - Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.104.117 (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.

The title is misleading, better put it as "US allegations of Russian interventions in Ukraine".

Better still: 'The unfounded US allegations...' Never has anyone from the US been able to corroborate a single point, starting with Crimea and moving forward, all the while thousands have been slaughtered and over one million forced to flee their homes. To then guard this piece of shameful lies and warmongering propaganda - shows what Wikipedia is really about. Disgusting.

But I think that also changing the title would not help, becuase the whole test is a collection of unconfirmed and unilateral news. Most if not all the anti-Russian news are either been proven false, or not proved by evidence, or partially true.


 * True again.

Where are the other relevant news?

Where does the article deal with the Maidan square and the 100+ people killed by supposedly (according to US) government snipers, then discovered that the snipers were affiliated with the antigovernment "rebels"?


 * Precisely.

Where does the article deal with filo-nazi affiliations of the anti government "movement"?


 * Yes, where?

Where does the article deal with Odessa's massacre?


 * Wouldn't that be nice.

Where is US in sides of conflict?

Where is EU in sides of conflict?

Why there are only news in sources and no OSCE? - Preceding unsigned comment added by Machine88 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Only the most hawkish sites are used. The same sites who time and again propel the world to war. Disgusting.

Where does the article deal with the US allegation proved to be false?


 * Yes, where?

Where does the article deal with the son of Joe Biden (US vice president) employed as lawyer into one of major Ukraine energy companies?


 * This article is very childish propaganda.

Why does the article refer to Crimea as a Russian annexation and not as a regular referendum (as certified by UN officials) where roughly 90% of population decided to join Russia?


 * Other parts of this story claim that there were no election monitors in Crimea, which is an outright lie.


 * WP:SOAPBOX (also, every single one of the above statements is complete nonsense. Crimean referendum certified UN official? What crazy website did you read that at?).  Volunteer Marek   16:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * the filo-Nazi stuff - jews reject putin propaganda - 'Mr Putin's advisers "might have confused Ukraine with Russia where Jewish organisations registered a rise of anti-Semitism last year", - Sayerslle (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You rely on a single source? And the BBC no less? After all that's been disclosed about their manipulation of the news? You're the best argument possible for your opposition. Are you the person trying to keep this article locked up? Trying to write history from your POV and your POV alone?

"every single one of the above statements is complete nonsense" It's incredible the way you simply rejects everything, without refuting any of the statements. And denies the Svoboda likes with a BBC article (very fair, of course) saying it's Putin's propaganda. Disgusting! And you said the pro-russians shoul ask for specific editions rather than changing the whole article. It's quite difficult given it's 100% propaganda. But I have one sugestion. Keep your biased article but put a topic with the pro-russian point of view. It's the minimum a serious article must have.
 * Well, because it is nonsense. The claim that the Crimean referendum was "certified by UN officials" for example, but the rest too. It's hard to argue with or discuss nonsense, except to say it's nonsense. Not interested in discussion with someone who thinks the earth is flat.  Volunteer Marek   18:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You sir are way out of line.

I say it's nonsense because it's nonsense hahaha. Well, there is significant footage of the building's burning in Odessa and there is a leaked call about the snipers with Estonian foreign ministry. And both were noticed in western media. About the son of Joe Biden, it's fact, although I agree it's not something to be put in an article about war. I think the only nonsense is about the "certified by UN officials" (it was certified by some members of European parliament though) which you make sure to highlight.


 * Yes, it's propaganda. They use unverified claims and accusations by hostile parties in order to make provocative accusations. No one credible takes wikipedia articles seriously. And those that do have very little influence. This is just Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc all over. US/client states destroying countries and backing fascists/monarchist/junta's in addition to pushing massive propaganda campaigns. No different in Ukraine.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.14.203 (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This article is being held hostage by murderers and accomplices to murder and genocide.


 * Sorry, but if no one takes Wikipedia articles seriously, then why are you here reading them? Let alone editing them? Let alone arguing on talk pages about them? Clearly you take them seriously. I'm curious how you go about finding better sources then Wikipedia has already found for you on most topics? I am also curious, what do you think of the Russia Today (RT/Rupty) or RIA Novisti as sources? 75.132.243.31 (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Such snot is not worth of Wikipedia.

I think it's nonsense that it's only called a "military intervention." Because it's a war, a Russian war against Ukraine. Saying 'military intervention,' seems like it's downplaying the fact that it's a real war. To me, 'military intervention,' means something very short term and limited. This is a long, drawn out and fully fledged war. If not, what criteria doesn't it meet to call it that? 75.132.243.31 (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not a Russian war you pathetic troll.

"Stealth invasion"
Just moved that term down in the lead. I don't object to the term's use and to it's inclusion in the lead, but it's a term used by Ukrainian and western military officials, should be attributed, and placed in the "reactions" section of the lead. -Darouet (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to discuss here User:Iryna Harpy if you don't like my change, or feel that the wording I used, which copies that of the New York Times exactly, amounts to a "WP:WEASEL refactoring," as you so elegantly put it. Don't you think that omitting attribution might be more egregious than keeping it, in terms of WP:WEASEL? Also, why do you think that the "stealth invasion" term used by Ukrainian and Western military officials doesn't belong in the section of the lead describing responses of government officials? -Darouet (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) I've just restored it as it was attributed in multiple RS at the end of the sentence. You didn't simply move it down to the bottom of the lead but refactored the content by the use of WP:WEASEL, WP:OR distinctions using 'Ukrainian and Western' as qualifiers. While I do consider 'stealth invasion' significant per WP:TITLE (after all, Russian military intervention is the subject of this article, is it not?), I don't necessarily deem the term essential to the opening of the lead, but I don't appreciate massaging inferences (i.e., WP:TROJANs) into the content.


 * I'm happy to collaborate on a genuinely neutral presentation of this content, but have a disdain for potentially setting up COATRACKS intended to POV push readers in either direction... and, like it or not, Anglophone mass-media still holds the prominent position in terms of English language Wikipedia RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi - sorry, from the sources used, I only see that term in the NYTimes, and the Times attributes the term to Ukrainian and Western military officials (direct quote from the Times: "...in what Ukrainian and Western military officials are calling a stealth invasion.").
 * I know that editing is hot in these areas, so it's understandable that you and others (and me too, when I am here too long) might stop assuming good faith, but please check the reference before accusing me of "WP:WEASEL" or "WP:OR."
 * For my part, I'd appreciate just seeing a reference where the "stealth invasion" term isn't attributed to Ukrainian and Western military officials, and preferably a reference on par with the NYTimes. Unless I'm hugely misunderstanding the text of that source? Anything is possible! -Darouet (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to log off for the day, but will get back to this question first thing tomorrow. I'll be sure to verify the sources (i.e., that they aren't simply reflecting biased reiterations of the term emanating from one source in the first instance). There have certainly been spurious 'experts' and articles pushing UNDUE info based on bombastic and, frankly, disquieting opinion pieces that I've railed against on many of these articles on recent events in Ukraine. Apologies for lapsing into ignoring AGF. I'll do the right in reading through sources on a fresh head. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've restored the version with your original edit moving the reference down to the end of the lead, . Yes, I'd definitely fallen into patented idiot trap No. 1 of having seen 'stealth invasion' in context here to the point of feeling convinced that it has been used in any given number of articles that don't exist. It's definitely UNDUE for the opening paragraph of the lead. Cheers for being vigilant and pulling me up on my error. It certainly doesn't need quotation marks. I might even be predisposed towards inline attribution if it weren't from NYT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi - I really appreciate that - I would even say it makes me feel a little better about Wikipedia overall! I've been guilty of the same fault myself, at various times. Thanks for the correction and your work here. - Darouet (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we at least try not to be a mouthpiece for the western propaganda machine? LokiiT (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The purpose of intro is to only summarize content of this page, and "stealth invasion" serves that purpose. There is no requirement for every statement in introduction be directly supported by in line citations, but only be consistent with body of the text. My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I support the removal. The lead says "February", while the source uses the expression "stealth invasion" when talking about something that allegedly happened in August. And it's just one POV source. It's not like it's some widely accepted definition. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are arbitrary rules about the timing of the source when the page is about the entire event spanning from February to now. That sentence has been in the introduction for months now and there are many other links with the same. Tlsandy (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, trying to look more closely, it seems that the term first appears in early August when Russia sent its aid convoy into Eastern Ukraine. On 11 August, Andrew Kramer with the NYT reports that "Ukraine, the United States and European nations have repeatedly warned Russia against mounting a stealth invasion under the guise of humanitarian aid".


 * On 12 August the term is used with attribution to Ukrainian/western authorities and the NYTimes by the CSMoniter and RT . On 12 August Newsweek uses the term without specific attribution, but not appearing to own the phrase either.


 * Later, the term is used with or without attribution.


 * It appears that the term originated with Ukrainian and western military officials, and I think it should be attributed. I also think it should appear in a section describing reactions: it may be a fact that Russian soldiers or military equipment have crossed from Russia into Eastern Ukraine, and that fact can be described plainly. The term "stealth invasion" however is more appropriate to commentary from Ukrainian and western military officials, and not to Wikipedia itself. -Darouet (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems the phrase is used even earlier - by FP at least - in April? -Darouet (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it only matters that the term was used in multiple WP:RS and properly summarizes events described on this page. Any better suggestions? Unconventional warfare? Was it used in publications in connection to these events? My very best wishes (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The term was used in FP in April in the context of "While a Russian invasion of Ukraine is far from certain, recent events in Ukraine mirror events in the lead up to the stealth invasion of Crimea." It was picked up from May by a number of op-ed pieces in the Financial Times (their FT View section), The Economist and other sources I wouldn't characterise as RS, but as conservative (that is, WP:BIASED) sources and written by 'conservative' journalists. The most balanced article, abstaining from heavily coloured, loaded language, using the term in May would be the "What Putin learned from the U.S. invasion of Iraq" (Al Jazeera). Even here, the notion of 'stealth invasion' is qualified as "There are even reports of stealth military operations by Russian forces within Ukraine." The article is certainly worth a read, and actually contextualises that what is essentially WP:RECENTISM (and we do need to be aware of the fact of no quality scholarly RS being available as yet) as being a component part of global economic power struggles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is just a couple of words, an expression. It could be written even by any wikipedian - just to summarize content of page; we do it all the time and everywhere. There is no requirement to this to be established terminology. However, being an expression used in many publication makes it more reasonable to be used. Is it neutral? Yes. It simply tells that, yes, there was an invasion (as described on this page), but it was not recognized by Russia as invasion, apparently even in Crimea. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it were to be used without RS, it wouldn't be considered just an expression any of us could employ as it falls under WP:WORDS and WP:SYNTH, particularly right at the top of the lead. Given that a broader search demonstrated that it has been used fairly consistently since the events of February to characterise various aspects of events in Ukraine, it isn't down to any of us to parse whether it was mimicry, loaded language, a couple of sources I don't consider to be RS (whereas the community does), or anything that could be objected to on a personal level. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * so far did not publicly demonstrated any real proof (only the words)=Stealth invasion. can you not be stupid and show something? at least photoshop .... max 1 photo, not it possible that + so difficult? 89.105.158.243 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's important to remember that reliable sources may sometimes be important sources of commentary or perspective, but are not necessarily "neutral." The term "stealth invasion" seems quite obviously partisan, and I have trouble imagining any source with no sympathies on either side of the conflict using it. For these reasons, and because the term is often invoked with attribution, I still maintain that the phrase should be used in the reactions section of the lead, not the first sentence. I can raise the issue at the POV noticeboard and if nobody there thinks it's an issue, I'll drop it. -Darouet (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As noted above, I'm extremely dubious about using it in the first paragraph of the lead due to its being a partisan descriptor. Please let me know if you take it to the POV noticeboard as I do consider it to be unnecessarily leading (if you'll pardon the pun) for the reader. Actually, on re-reading it, it is qualified as having being 'termed' a stealth invasion. Going on the fact that it is well substantiated by RS, I think the POV board would be a waste of time and energy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, you can see my post at the noticeboard here. I agree with your struck comments. It's true it should be qualified as having been "termed," but that's a reaction to the events and not a dispassionate description, which is why I am saying that the term shouldn't appear until the reactions section of the lead. -Darouet (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "seems quite obviously partisan". Said who? No, it's not. Is any other published term in RS that defines these events better? If not, this should stay. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I think that the article text without the epithet "stealth invasion" describes the situation perfectly: "In late February 2014, Russia began to send unmarked troops and military equipment into Ukraine, following the February 2014 Ukrainian revolution and Euromaidan movement, including the contentious ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych." The term stealth invasion is an editorial addendum that adds no knowledge of what's occurred, but casts judgment on events. Judgment is fine for people reacting to events, fine for readers who may respond in one way or another, but isn't necessary for the encyclopedia article. -Darouet (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I personally believe the term is perfectly normal. This is merely a statement of fact about the intervention or invasion that was not admitted by the side which committed intervention. But it does not matter what you or me think. It only matters what sources tell, and they tell exactly that. You did not answer my question: is any other (better) term in the literature to define these events? My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You claim it doesn't matter how you evaluate the term, only "what sources tell." Fine: on google I see that I return 56 million hits when I search using the terms Ukraine, Russia, conflict, 2014. That number drops to 7,000 when I include the term "stealth invasion," meaning that only 0.013% of pages describing the 2014 conflict between Ukraine and Russia use the phrase "stealth invasion," whereas 99.988% don't. When I do a similar search in major world newspapers with LexisNexis Academic, over 1000 results are returned without the term "stealth invasion" (the maximum possible for LexisNexis), while only 12 results are returned with the term "stealth invasion." That means that less than 1.2% of articles use the term, and probably far fewer, if searches didn't max out at 1000.
 * If you actually follow your own criteria, you should obviously remove the phrase from the initial description of the name, as it is obviously WP:FRINGE, not WP:COMMONNAME.
 * Furthermore, I did answer your question: I said that the "article text without the epithet 'stealth invasion' describes the situation perfectly." I therefore proposed that we use the simple description:
 * This more accurately follows the literature available (99% or more) than the "stealth invasion" term used by western and Ukrainian military officials, and occasionally by some media, often with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The term is fine and is well substantiated by RS and gives a good description of the events. Tlsandy (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Yes, it's fine. This is simply an expression/wording used in a number of sources that are not "fringe". Therefore, it can be used in a wikipedia article. It nicely summarizes content of this page. As about WP:Common name, this is about titles of pages. Yes, creating something like page Stealth invasion would be questionable and required discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not fine: the phrase is used by a very small number (.01-1%) of sources, often with attribution to Ukrainian and western military officials. I can see from your posts above that you both like the phrase and agree with those officials, but the phrase is neither common nor neutral and should not be used until the reactions section of the lead. Again, this is not a question of whether any sources use the term, but rather if it should be used at the outset of the article. -Darouet (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Less than 0.0001% of sources uses word "protein". So what? My very best wishes (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am speechless. -Darouet (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that that is a completely inappropriate search by which to judge usage by. Anyway, if it's in the article, might as well link it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't a linking question: we shouldn't be using this phrase in the first sentence of the article. -Darouet (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not understand how you reached that conclusion, when reliable sources commonly describe the invasion this way. If not sources, what else do you base your conclusion on? bobrayner (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bob, since you haven't read my posts above, I can update you: less than 1% of relevant reliable sources describe what you call "the invasion" (Russian military activity in the Donbass) as a "stealth invasion", and when they do so, they often attribute the phrase. The phrase is an epithet used to describe this military activity, but a rare one, and belongs in the reactions section of the article, if in the lead at all. -Darouet (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This wording nicely summarizes content of the page and therefore should be in the first phrase. It was not me who included this. It was used in a number of RS. There is no requirement for any specific wording (and this is just a wording) be used in majority of sources. This is not a title of the page (WP:common name) or a claim. No, this is not epithet. My very best wishes (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This wording nicely summarizes content of the page and therefore should be in the first phrase. It was not me who included this. It was used in a number of RS. There is no requirement for any specific wording (and this is just a wording) be used in majority of sources. This is not a title of the page (WP:common name) or a claim. No, this is not epithet. My very best wishes (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The wording is a brief, highly partisan "summary," the perfect example of an "epithet," and used very, very rarely in any sources. The wording is also unnecessary because it takes a complicated situation - the intervention by Russia into a conflict involving historical and cultural antagonism, civil discord, and a disputed change of government - and attempts to summarize it from one minority perspective. Reading the first sentence without the "stealth invasion" term, what critical information will readers lack? Why do they need an editorial response, unless we're trying to influence their views from the very first sentence? -Darouet (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To answer your question (what readers will lack?), this wording provides more clear and concise summary of the page. May be something like hybrid warfare could also work, but this is something debatable. There is a consensus in sources that unconventional warfare has been implemented, and this wording is an easily understandable description of the situation.My very best wishes (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't you find some sources using the term "unconventional warfare" (the term doesn't currently appear in the article), and put this into reactions, e.g., "some sources have described Russia's actions as a form of unconventional warfare." Right now, the term "hybrid warfare" appears in the article once, and it's a term used by the Ukrainian parliamentary chair. As to "clear and concise," the sentence without the "stealth invasion" editorial commentary is far clearer and more concise. -Darouet (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Center for Eurasian Strategic Intelligence is a scam
http://www.bne.eu/content/story/baltic-blog-think-tank-out-thought

Please remove their references and all content derived from them (which is actually quite extensive). Twistedtc (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The linked Shekhovtsov blog post is pretty humorous. It seems however that our article cites the "think tank" only once? -Darouet (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, only the once. It also conforms to WP:BIASED in using INLINE attribution. The only question, therefore, would be whether it's been given undue weight. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, you have to check to eliminate media articles, and it would appear that claims made by CESI are being spread far and rapidly. Anyone can make a think tank once they come up with an official-sounding name. Twistedtc (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia works. If you have doubts as to CESI being a reliable source, you should post a query on the Reliable source noticeboard pointing out where it is being used and why it is WP:UNDUE in the context it's used in in this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Occupation vs. blockade
I did my research regarding RSs and none states that the Russian forces have "occupied" Crimean bases, except for cases when Ukrainian sources insisted on "hostile takeovers" of their bases. Ukrainian sources aren't NPOV and we all know that. So the correct word to use would be "blockaded", because this is what the Ukrainian soldiers did to the Black Sea Fleet access via Simferopol when Russian forces have advanced further. Ukrainian generals were allowed to walk, talk and make cellphone calls during the blockade, but weren't allowed to leave the bases. Watch YT videos and you'll see these statements to be factual. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Occupation' is far more neutral than the other options available: see New York Times, Fox news. What, exactly, does 'blockade' mean in this context? The the Ukrainian troops were descended upon by 30,000 Russian troops and 'blockaded' from leaving until they were evicted? Sorry, it doesn't even make senses. Please explain how blockade trumps occupation where RS did report tense standoffs and incidents before the press became a buffer between both sides, and shooting incidents even after Ukrainian forces laid down their weapons applies. You're looking at footage after the initial occupation. The limited footage you see on YT is exactly that. Does it cover the entire swoop and every incident? If it truly did, we might have some answers for the 2014 Simferopol incident article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Russian troops blockaded Ukrainian military bases overnight, only incapacitating the guarding personnel. When the reinforcements came in by the morning, they were refused entry to their own bases. In my world, we're talking about "blockade" rather than "occupation". But, just as in the case with "forcible" (i.e. being produced by "using force"), one can play on the words and resort to calling a blockage an occupation, but I'm still implying the former term to be less offensive and more precise. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

archieve to this Talk-Page not linked
it's probaly because this article was renamed "2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine" from "2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine", nevertheless, could the archives to this talk-page please be relinked to this talk page? Thank you. --87.123.60.101 (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * RGloucester has requested administrative help in getting all the archives and other subpages put where they belong. Right now, I've found thirteen pages that need to be moved:


 * 1) Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 1
 * 2) Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 2
 * 3) Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 3
 * 4) Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 4
 * 5) Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 5
 * 6) Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 6
 * 7) Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 7
 * 8) Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 8
 * 9) Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 9
 * 10) Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 10
 * 11) Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 11
 * 12) Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Archive 12
 * 13) Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine/Sandbox
 * Am I missing anything, and/or is there a good reason to leave any of these at their current locations? Note that Talk:Russian invasion of Crimea, Talk:Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014), and Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) all exist, although I didn't see any archives for them.  Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead
The lead is becoming increasingly editorial, so I'm going to try and clean it up. If people want me to explain my reasoning for specific changes in more detail I can do so here. Also, I am unsure about the convention of inline situations. Is there a reason the Daily Beast and Associated Press are explicitly stated in the second to last paragraph? 2001:44B8:258:B300:609D:6827:8210:3EF9 (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Didn't realise I wasn't logged in. Anyway, I just did a bit of a clean up. I removed a lot of editorial bits (although there are still lots of other editorials bits in there) and tried to reduce long sentences to make it easier to read. There are a few sentences that look out of place once all the editorial parts are removed and need to be put in context in a non editorial fashion. (e.g. M.A. Flight 17) Hollth (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've hidden two sentences because they were clearly editorial, but I didm't want to delete any sources/information that might have been in them. Thoughts on the following two sentences? The first one didm't seem like it had anything in it that wasn't already in the lead. The second didn't belong because it was a quote and the purpose of it (evidence that Russia is active in Ukraine) is again already dealt with in the lede.


 * 1) In the aftermath of heavy defeat of Ukrainian forces in early September, it was evident Russia had sent soldiers and armour across the border, with locals acknowledging the role of Putin and Russian soldiers in effecting a reversal of fortunes, causing Ukrainian offensive to be stifled.


 * 2) "Separatists have always insisted they are armed with equipment captured from Ukrainian forces, but the sheer scale and quality of their armaments have strained the credibility of that claim."

Hollth (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * when a channel 4 report, that is a RS - report- reports something, and when locals say something , then that  is  RS material that can be used at wp , no? - Now you know the TRUTH, you know that it is nothing but the  worst sort of  propaganda that Russian soldiers and armour are or ever were in eastern Ukraine, and you despise the  views of experienced journalists and those who actually bleedin well live there - because you have the TRUTH , but wp is about RS and not the TRUTH. - for the truth as you must know one reads globalresearch, one watches Ruptly and RT - but this is a place where RS propaganda should have a chance to breathe imo. and not get trolled and spa-ed to death- also you seemed to bugger up the bit about the demos near the top of the lead , saying it was euromaidan demos in donbass or something ? - are you trying to create nonsense - bloody nihilists - heres a youtube video about the chaotic news peddlers, I guess yu are a tremor of that movement kind of thing chaotic news -Sayerslle (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that rant has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Those sentences add nothing that is a) not already in the lede and b) are not encyclopaedic. This has nothing to do with truth or RS. There has been even more editorial stuff introduced into the lede that I will be removing. You are correct I did mess up the link with the demonstrations. I should have linked that to pro-Russian unrest. 2001:44B8:258:B300:7574:3623:C5E7:5D64 (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop the wp:idontlikeit reverts. The changes I am putting in are backed up by policy. I will be removing wp:words and un-encyclopaedic phrases . I will be hiding the sentence again until you can justify what new, summarising information it contains, as per wp:lede and until it can be made encyclopaedic in tone. Hollth (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * its admirable - you know all the rules - with you 20 odd edits but you know all the bleedin rules - you keep hiding the most important events of august September last year sems to me -  pov/spa warriors - ffs. Sayerslle (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In its current form it is not appropriate in tone and does not summarise the contents of this particular page. Ilovaisk is a specific example, i.e. not summarising. The paragraph preceding that sentence already discusses Russians being active in Ukraine, thus, that part is redundant. This page does not discuss a reversal of fortunes, nor a defeat of Ukrainian forces in September. So, again, these are not summarising this page. That sentence does not meet the criteria to be included in the lead.
 * so you take out the Battle of Midway from the lead to the WW2 article kind of thing? a specific example, so not summarizing? - sounds like complete drivel to me.you obviously got a relentless desire to make the lead anodyne - why not  show exactly what you think is ideal for a lead at that article, then  if that is praised, -well, it'll show you really know how to write leads Sayerslle (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comparing an article that has a huge amount of scholarly articles about its subject and one that has none. Secondly the way in which they are in the lead is completely different. It is not 'Battle of Midway where x,y,z happened'. It is merely linked to its own page. Considering there is only one or two sentences regarding the event in the body of the article, no it is not summarising. It isn't in the summary of the War in Donbass either and, unless I'm mistaken, we are only summarising that summary.Hollth (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So - every article is different you're saying, right. yes. you are mistaken imo that it is summarising that summary at war in Donbass. this is about  what the article title says it is about and is not summarizing any other article leads in its lead. this article focuses  only on the foreign policy of putin/lavrov regime and Russian soldiers and Russian intervention and influence and military hardware nato sees increase of Russian tanks artillery advanced  air defence systems in Ukraine  2014-15 - that article has a wider  concern I guess. the RS are united in asserting the importance of Russian actions august 2014 -( and are seeing a similar situation now) (#mariupol under attack - 'how will rt_com spin this then, protection for the residents they themselves are shelling' -)- if there is not much in the main body of the article that needs to be addressed - it may have been there and removed by putinist pov accounts - the place is swarming with them dontcha know. and their sole raison d'etre is to make articles pro-Putin -or else  Dog in the Manger, just trash it up ,  and make the article impossible to read coherently -(You are correct I did mess up the link with the demonstrations)-(yeah, right)  you look at their content contribution and its usually like 40 edits -all on one or two articles. that's how it is im afraid. Sayerslle (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new information to the body, not the lead. The lead should not have information that is not contained in the body. Hollth (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * yu took out the 'Nazi coup' bit - for today anyhow, - thats what this article will be in time - re-named 'Nazi coup and Ukrainian Nazi war on crimea and donbass 2014-2015 ' - ffs. mindless.Sayerslle (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Try to avoid using subjective and ambiguous terms. Phrases like 'one of the first' 'dozens of' are vague and ought to be avoided. Additionally, 'awkward questions' is not neutral, 'questions' is neutral. For that reason I'm reverting one edit to not include the non neutral 'awkward questions'. (I'm leaving the edit further in the body because that has some positives as well.) I'm also removing the lorries being painted white because it is not in the source and the source references the wrong event. I have no qualms with that being included in the lead provided it is correctly sourced. Hollth (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link that backs up the August events that you added to the lead. Feel free to add it again if you wish. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/14/russian-military-vehicles-enter-ukraine-aid-convoy-stops-short-border Hollth (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * yu could change the ref yourself rather than leave it reading so oddly, but, whatever, - as for 'awkward' I'll listen again but i'm pretty sure they were described as such in RS - you are confusing an idea of 'neutral' with  tearing away at reliable sources  so that they slur over things - that is, in effect, yu introduce a bias of your own -  - sometimes  it is reported in RS that  certain questions are 'awkward'  and if they are  not 'awkward questions' on Wikipedia , you are writing your own history to suit yur own pov. (I do know the point you are making - when I first edited wp I used to write 'the actress  is best known for her sensitive portrayal of' etc and 'sensitive' would get removed , and you are making the same kind of point here - but I think you are wrong in this case - awkward is not my 'subjective' term at all - its in the source.   remember putin joked about how uniforms etc could be bought anywhere - but later,  it turned out, yes, they were  Russian special forces or whatever - so you see, those questions were  awkward at that time and yes they are so described in RS, not in my subjectivity.  Sayerslle (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

breakdown of prison system
I deleted recent edits that added information on prisons because it seemed to me  too far off topic but perhaps it does belong, maybe in a section  taking in 'Consequences of Russian military intervention' or something. not sure. Sayerslle (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is valid info and seem to be sourced, but it probably belongs to another page, possibly to 2013–15 Ukrainian crisis. My very best wishes (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If it is valid, it probably would have to be a stand alone page. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidence needed that Russia controls the separatists
If we are to have the separatists as bullet points under Russia in the infobox, there need to be citations proving that Russia controls the separatists, rather than aids and influences them. Otherwise, it is highly misleading to paint Russia as controlling the separatists, if this is not the case. It's like suggesting that Iraqi Kurdistan is part of the United States, because the U.S. aids them. DylanLacey (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand what your intent is here, but the scope of the article is that of overt action (as regards Crimea) and covert support (the extent of which is unknown, but has been identified as existing in spades) for the pro-Russian separatists. What is needed for the infobox is a method of disambiguating the overt military intervention from the covert intervention in Donbass in the most succinct way possible, not by obfuscating any relationship between the continuing pro-Russian separatist warfare and the RF government in the manner suggested by your bold edit. Following BRD, we should be able to find a solution befitting the WP:TITLE of the article and the RS on which it is based. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a 'Supported by Russia' label on the DPR and LPR? Expressing that Russia intervened in the East in support of the separatists?

🇷🇺 Russia Supported by Russia Donetsk People's Republic Lugansk People's Republic DylanLacey (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Republic of Crimea


 * I agree with version by Iryna, but I think that Crimea should probably be excluded. Yes, it was annexed by Russia, but it did not take any part (as a territorial entity) in the ongoing war. My very best wishes (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Iryna's version. There is no need to make this more complicated than it needs to be. I do think that Crimea should be included.

Perhaps something like this: 🇷🇺 Russia In Crimea: Republic of Crimea In Donbass: Donetsk People's Republic Lugansk People's Republic
 * How's that look? RGloucester  — ☎ 05:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * DylanLacey's suggestion is workable, but I think RGloucester's version is more in keeping with the WP:KISS principle without looking too pointy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * as usual, User:RGloucester has done a good job and I find his version to be a very appropriate solution.  Azx2  07:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Illarionov
1. There are, like, 50 "advisers" now, it's not too important of a post. 2. He was an adviser in economy, not politics or military operations. 3. He was an "adviser" 10 years ago. 4. It's too obvious that everything he says is just speculations. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Breach of Neutrality
There isn't any proof that Kremlin slienced Human Rights workers only NATO spies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.11.177 (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * source? there isn't any proof according to putinists about anything bad the Russian regime ever done ever is there really lets face it? ever so cuddly int he putin? and when there is proof of assad regime crimes, torture, etc, lavrov and co just say 'call that proof?' - all a bit pointless dealing with that regime mentality. anyhow notforum- it needs reliable sources to back up what you say. meanwhile Russian marines Russian tv at Donetsk airport Sayerslle (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, yeah. This article is Western propaganda, ridden with Ukrainian-based sources. Was that what you wanted to hear? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

maybe if I make a picture of a hamburger from McDonald's on Red Square in Moscow ........... it would mean that the US seize the Kremlin ??????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calo yronili (talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * https://twitter.com ??????? hahhaah!!!!!

Ukraine conflict vehicle tracking Source refers to the twitter, it is unacceptable.
https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/2015/02/03/ukraine-conflict-vehicle-tracking-launch/ Source refers to the twitter, it is unacceptable the whole world will laugh at the new chemical weapons by Iraq. Everyone hates the US

you can not taking any photos, write next to about that that supposedly is Ukraine + and you everything believe = you have everyone hates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calo yronili (talk • contribs) 06:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What matters is whether the source is reliable. Twitter is the primary source here. This is a secondary source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The volunteer Marek I have seen the photo to twitter you want to kill Michelle Obama) you are arrest (a joke) + (but you believe in twitter is still much?) where there is a wiki rules on to Twitter Full reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.80.18 (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)