Talk:War in Donbas/Archive 9

Summary of the dispute
Could someone with an ounce of intelligence and concision explain the dispute that has currently embroiled this page? I can't read through all the rubbish. RGloucester — ☎ 00:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the issue. We have a claim by a somewhat unknown Russian media outlet (anti-Kremlin possibly) that 2,000 Russian soldiers died in Ukraine that was reported on/relayed by a few reliable sources (primarily the Forbes and Independent). The claim was promptly removed (allegedly by Kremlin minders). Since than several reports on twitter, reddit, Russia Today and even one tweet by a notable Bloomberg editor have declared the claim to be fake and explained its falseness. These have all been linked up above by our fellow editors. 2/3 of our fellow editors are now of the opinion that the claim of 2,000 dead Russian soldiers should not be included in the infobox while a few others (primarily VolunteerMarek) have argued for its inclusion. I first reminded that we already agreed to include in the infobox only figures of dead made known by highly reliable sources or self-admitted figures, and not potential propaganda. I tried to make a compromise by mentioning the 2,000 figure claim in the Casualties section of the article, where we put all other extravagant claims on casualties in this conflict. I also stood by MyMoloboaccount when he pointed out Wiki policy that even though the claim is being relayed by RS does not make the claim automatically reliable/verifiable. And I pointed out Wiki policy also dictates that when consensus can not be reached on an issue (such as here) no changes are to be made (leaving the older version of the article). Following this Marek started making insults and other comments in violation of WP: Civil and WP: Goodfaith. He has also constantly been asking for the links of our fellow editors even though they are right here on the talk page beside their comments. EkoGraf (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's only addressing one of the issues that seem to be affecting the article, but I'll run with this issue before addressing anything else: the issue of leaked reports on the number of Russian soldiers killed in the war...


 * I'm seeing a parallel between the claim last year by the "The Moscow Times" about having found documentation proving that Russia was directly involved in the war. Multiple RS reported on the claim, but good editing decisions were made about including the content based on the fact that RS were reporting on the report, not the veracity of the report. Using WP:COMMONSENSE, all that is established is that the initial claim can be verified, not the calibre or verifiability of the report. On that premise, it's a big 'no' for the infobox unless integrated with clear demarcation between RS sourced numbers and the 'according to' numbers at the least (although I see it as being for the body of the article, not the infobox).


 * While I don't give a damn about the integrity of articles like the Azov Battalion being held to ransom by POV editors who've built an article based on the repetition of information from about three sources, I do care about the integrity of articles covering the bigger picture. Clear misuse of policy as advocacy/COATRACK is just not on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * EkoGraf, judging by your explanation, it seems like this is something that definitely doesn't belong in the infobox. Whilst I could see this report being mentioned in Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis, along with the refutations of that report, the infobox of this article should only provide definitive numbers, not every speculation imaginable. As it is, the claim is unverifiable. If it is unverifiable, it shouldn't be in the infobox, where it lacks context. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's my same thought exactly. We have added the mention of the claim and its source in both the Casualties section of this article and in the article Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis. And I think that's fair compromise. But I'm against putting it into the infobox as you say due to lack of verifiability of the initial report. EkoGraf (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the 2,000 dead Russian troops report is likely true. Just like Russian troops invading Ukraine was true back in February of 2014.  That being said, verification is the standard - not truth.   Verification takes longer.  I'm ok with the compromise.  I would also be ok if you wanted to take it out completely.  I think too much weight is being put on the casualties in the article as well.  The casualties are not yet high enough to make a difference in the conflict one way or the other.  And there is clear evidence of Russian involvement without having to chase body bags.Hilltrot (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think that sources telling abut the 2000 number are less reliable than older sources that provide smaller numbers. The only thing we should do is to include a range of numbers, as usual. This is done in the current version after latest edit by EkoGraf. My very best wishes (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, Ekograf's explanation is lacking, to put it politely. The leak was reported on in not just the Independent and Forbes but also The Times, IBTimes, NBC News, and Rferl. But hey, according to EkoGraf it was only "relayed by a few reliable sources (primarily the Forbes and Independent)" (which is an attempt at downplaying the coverage in order to simply dismiss reliable sources).

What do we have on the other side? Well, let's see. According to Ekograf: "several reports on twitter" (since when does twitter publish "reports". What is that suppose to mean, a 140 character report? Must've been really in depth). Comments on "reddit". So apparently now we're letting anonymous commentators on reddit influence the editorial decisions we make on Wikipedia. Oooh boy, I can see this ending well. "Russia Today". No comment necessary. This time around they skipped mentioning blogposts on LiveJournal, another quality source.

But hey, EkoGraf assures us that, quote

the "source (Forbes, NBC News, The Times, IBT, etc. - VM) that has been contradicted and put into doubt by several other sources (reddit, twitter, RT, LiveJournal - VM)"

and that these sources (Forbes, NBC News, The Times, IBT, etc) have been, quote,

"has (sic) been contested by many" (reddit, twitter, RT, LiveJournal - VM).

That's right. Forbes, NBC News, The Times, IBT are trumped by anonymous comments on reddit and offhand opinions (excuse me, "reports") posted on twitter.

Even IF this should not be included in the infobox, the reasoning behind the arguments offered by EkoGraf and their buddies has been beyond atrocious and even dishonest (as in: keep talking about "several sources" without owning up to the fact that one is referring to junk like reddit and twitter).

Personally I agree with MVBW that we should present the full range of numbers. If something needs to be elaborated upon we can add a footnote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You again don't seem to understand what Iryna Harpy, RGloucester, me and half a dozen other editors are saying here. We are not putting into doubt the reliability of Forbes, NBC News, The Times, IBT, etc. And reddit, twitter and RT are also not putting into doubt the reliability of those news sites. What both we (Wikipedia editors) and them are putting into doubt is the reliability of the original claim by that Russian news site which was only relayed by all those other media outlets (doesn't matter how many of them are reporting it). Those media outlets did not confirm the figure themselves, they only reported what that news site claimed. And like virtually everyone has told you (and WP policy), even though a claim is reported on by an RS does not make that claim automatically verifiable. If all those same RS tomorrow reported (in the same manner) on the claim of a separatist commander that he killed 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers I am sure you would say its not reliable. PS I did not say just the Independent and Forbes I said primarily because (at least for me) those were the first 2 results I got when I googled it. I did not say others haven't reported on the claim as well. EkoGraf (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What you don't seem to understand is WP:RS. It's NOT YOUR JOB to "put into doubt the reliability of the original claim". That is the job of secondary sources. Forbes, NBC News, The Times, IBT. Not you. Them.
 * What you are doing is pure original research: "I don't believe in these numbers myself so I'm gonna use some asinine comments I found on Reddit to put into doubt the original source".
 * You might want to hold off on ascribing your opinion, and more importantly, your fallacious editing practice to others here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @EkoGraph. You guys are trying to make your own analysis how correct or how reliable certain numbers might be. This is something very natural for someone who does research in real life. However, you should not do it here per WP:NOR. Even if you were experts in this subject area, you still should not do it. You should simply look at the numbers given by RS and completely ignore everything that non-RS tell. How exactly authors of the RS publication came to such numbers is something of interest, but should not be challenged by you. Then you should simply provide a range of numbers given by RS. Yes, you can tell how these numbers have been obtained and emphasize most recent numbers (~2000) because the numbers of losses change with time during the ungoing warfare. This is all you should do. My very best wishes (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Our own analysis isn't necessary, because the relevant sources did it for us. In the IBTIMES, for example, says "It’s impossible to confirm the leaked figures", and that the figures "appear to be the accidental publication of secret figures on the numbers of deaths". You see? Sure, like I said, these claims can be discussed in the prose, which provides context. In the infobox, however, where they stand alone, it is simply misleading. RGloucester  — ☎ 12:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty much none of the numbers we use can be "independently confirmed". Why should we treat these numbers differently? Because someone on Reddit said so? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All numbers of military losses during active warfare are more or less controversial and can not be completely trusted. All or most of them can not independently confirmed. There are various claims and counter-claims by sides. And the numbers should not be "trusted" or "true" per policy. They must be only verifiable, i.e. reported in multiple RS and included with proper attribution. These data are no less (or possibly even more) verifiable than any other numbers that appear on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about the other numbers. They may well be questionable figures, too. That doesn't change the fact that the only thing verifiable about these figures is that they are unverifiable, which is what The Times, International Business Times, &c. say. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think those are very different things. You and the source you quoted tell about verifiability in "real life". i.e. as it comes in science, criminal investigations, etc. I am talking about WP:Verifiability which is something very different - essentially, a good sourcing. My very best wishes (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and what does the "good sourcing" say? It says that the numbers are "claims", "impossible to verify", &c. The sourcing does not support the contention that these numbers are "facts" that belong in the infobox. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, these numbers and majority of other numbers on WP pages are not "fact", but claims. That's why we provide a range of estimates (which by itself tells that exact number is unknown and possibly will never be known) and appropriate attribution/references. If appropriate, we can include something like "denied" or "disputed" in the infobox (if the number was officially denied, which I am not sure). But there is no any difference between published data provided in the infobox and in the body of page. None of these data are usually "fact". The bottom line: providing an appropriate (per multiple RS) range of numbers in the infobox will not misled reader.My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * RGloucester put it pretty nice. The reliable sources themselves who are reporting on the claim are saying they couldn't verify the numbers. EkoGraf (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Inclusion In my opinion both sides are making false claims as they have done this whole war, I think there are Russians in Ukraine but not as many as Ukraine is claiming. That being said, that is only my opinion, in order to be neutral we should not be placing things that are hotly disputed in the info-box. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the original source, this is a Russian estimate of Russian losses. Therefore, it can be included as a lower estimate of their losses. By the same token, one can include Ukrainian estimate of Ukrainian losses if this is something reported by RS. Would that be a "true" number? Probably not because all "sides" tend to under-represent their own losses. Can it be included with appropriate attribution? Yes, sure. We do it all the time on war-related pages. This is nothing special.My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Its a potential anti-Kremlin Russian estimate of Russian losses. The Ukrainian estimate of Ukrainian losses that we have in the infobox comes from pro-Kiev Ukrainian sources. EkoGraf (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Question. How does this source support the contention that 2,248 individuals have been killed on the Russian/Separatist side? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To this question I already answered in detail up above. But since you obviously didn't read what I said I will say it again. The figure of 2,248 dead separatists has three sources. 1st ref confirms the graveyard is that of separatists, 2nd ref confirms (up to that date) at least 2,213 graves (read the number on the grave), 3rd ref confirms (at a later date) an additional 35 separatist deaths. Thats 2,248 dead. You were reading only one source, and didn't read all three. EkoGraf (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Question. How does this source support the contention that 1557 members of the Ukrainian forces have been captured? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The source clearly says 2,852 people (both civilians and security forces) were released by the separatists and another 171 people (both civilians and security forces) were still being held by the separatists. In its breakdown, the source says of those released 1,018 were military, 37 volunteers, 257 national guards, 25 border guards and 100 police officers. That's 1,437 released combatants. As for those still being held (171) the source says more than 50 are civilians, which leaves at least 120 combatants still being held by the separatists. 1,437 and 120 gives 1,557. WP: CALC. EkoGraf (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

So you've synthesized three+ sources in your own original research (never mind that you appear to be confused between the words "at least" and "exactly") to arrive at conclusions which are not actually established by the sources.

Yet, when we have a source which explicitly states a number you want to throw it away because someone on Reddit said so. Right.

Hey, can we get a source which "confirms" Ekograf's numbers? Because I think "Ekograf's numbers cannot be independently verified".Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not because someone on Reddit said so, but because the original claim was made by a possibly anti-Kremlin news site. And unlike that figure, this figure (captured Ukrainians) came from the Ukrainians themselves. There's nothing to independently verify, the numbers are in the source and its a self-admitted figure by the Ukrainians themselves. And we agreed months ago that we would include in the infobox self-admitted figures (example - Ukrainian dead reported by Ukrainian dead) or those provided by independent parties. EkoGraf (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the clear WP:OR going into all these tabulations, and given the suspect nature of the data, I suggest removing all numbers from the infobox, except those directly recorded by the likes of the UNHRC or the OSCE. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the current sourcing of certain numbers in the infobox is terrible. This should be fixed by providing and using better sources, such as Forbs and others mentioned in discussion above. My very best wishes (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with RGloucester here. At least this way we're being consistent in our standard. What I object to is a situation where we reject a number reported in secondary reliable sources because someone on twitter or reddit didn't like it, but keep one Wikipedia's editors own original research. It's suppose to work the other way. But at least removing anything that sketchy follows policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And in what way is the UN sketchy or the official Ukrainian number of servicemen dead which RGloucester also removed? EkoGraf (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing OR or SYNTH about it. Its all in accordance with WP: CALC. However I am willing to make a compromise/compromise proposal. I removed the source on the later single-day death toll for the separatists and left the two sources on the graveyard (with the figure from the grave plate). No SYNTH or OR, both sources are about the same subject. As for the number of captured, I have put the overall number of soldiers and civilians captured (released and still in captivity) as per the Ukrainians in the cited source. I put the number of civilians in brackets beside it as per the same cited source again. In addition I added a new source, per the UN of the overall number of dead, and how many of them are civilians. EkoGraf (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh please! This is total OR and SYNTH! This is not WP:CALC. WP:CALC is for non-controversial simple straight forward calculations (see the examples there). Here you are taking at least three different sources, interpreting the primary data found there (like a number on a grave stone), manipulating the numbers, and coming up with your own conclusions. And this is even "good" OR, it's fairly crappy original research. For example, if a source says "at least X soldiers here and at least Y soldiers there" in your original research this becomes exactly X+Y. Do you understand the difference between "greater than" and "greater or equal to"? Same thing for "no more than".  You are also completely ignoring the possibilities that whatever sources you are SYNTHESIZING are not exhaustive. You found one number in one source, you found another number in another source, and then yet another number in the third source and you proceed with the assumption that this is all there is. Nonsense. Like I said, not just OR, bad crappy OR.
 * Let me explain WP:CALC to you. You seem to think that WP:CALC means something like "if original research involves math then it's not original research". That's not what it means. It means that simple, uncontroversial math can be not-original research. But non-simple, controversial math based on primary source is still original research and synthesis.
 * The irony of it all is still the fact that in one instance where we actually have secondary sources reporting an actual number you want to reject it because of comments on Reddit. You've got things backward friend.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Call it whatever you wish. Fact is you got now just ONE source (an image) for a separatist graveyard with number plates running up to at least 2,213, and you got another ONE source for Ukrainian captured (and I believe the Ukrainian security service did an exhaustive research before they made it public). EkoGraf (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I call it WP:SYNTH and WP:OR because that's what it is.
 * How do you know that grave marker says "2213" and not "2215"? How do you know that the cross in the picture happens to be one with the highest number? How do you know that this is the only cemetery for the Russians/Separatists? Hell, the story underneath the photo explicitly states there are bodies buried in other places! How do you know these are only soldiers and not civilians?
 * You don't. You're just assuming and conducting your own original research based on primary sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Progress

 * Here's what I think, on this matter. I'm sure you fellows noticed my removal of all casualties figures from the infobox. This was done for a few reasons. First of all, the figures are heavily disputed. Heavily disputed figures should not be emblazoned at the top of the article. Second of all, inaccurate OR figures are of no use to the reader. Rather than edit-warring over what figures should be in the box, removing them all makes clean sense, at least until we know what to put in there.


 * Now, of course, I do think we should have some figures. What figures? I certainly don't think that Wikipedia editors should be tabulating casualties by synthesising various sources. That's inappropriate. It is up to secondary sources to do the tabulating, and anything else is OR, as Marek said above. I believe that the only figures we should use are those released by the "official" parties. That's to say, the Ukrainian government for Ukrainian government casualties, the separatists for separatist casualties, UNHCR for refugees/IDPs, OHCHR for civilian casualties, &c. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are also appropriate. In so doing, we should only quote WHOLE ESTIMATES. Meaning, we should not add different reports together. In my opinion, the best source for casualties numbers is from the OHCHR. They provide relatively frequent reports on the situation, with casualties estimates. Up until Minsk II, the reports were issued on a monthly basis. They are less frequent now. The last one is was in June, but expect another one to come out soon. They can all be found here. Let's take a look at the most recent one. Go to the "Casualties" section, on page seven. It is fairly detailed, and such numbers should be the basis for the infobox stats. They are the best we're going to get, without entering into OR. Each estimate should be attributed, so if there is a conflicting estimate, or an estimate from an interesting party, that estimate should be labelled. However, there must be NO TABULATION. Rushing to agglomerate news reports so that we can have "up-to-date" figures is directly contrary to the principles of the encylopaedia. We need to use the most reliable figures available, verifiable figures, put together by secondary sources. If they are slightly out-of-date, that's okay, as inaccurate and synthesised figures are more useless than out-of-date accurate figures.


 * I apologise for not replying sooner. I haven't got much time to frolic about here at that moment. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. If we set a high standard for the figures in the infobox, as I believe we should (or even a minimum standard that they're not OR and SYNTH) then we should remove all but the official ones. If for some reason we choose to get sloppy with Wikipedia policies, choose a low standard, and put in Ekograf's "research" into the infobox, I see absolute NO EXCUSE for excluding the 2000 number which, unlike, again, Ekograf's "research", actually has SECONDARY sources to back it up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And please do tell in what way is the last version by Irina and me OR or SYNTH since you have constantly been removing it? You removed the UN figure several times, and also removed the official numbers of Ukrainian dead and missing along with their singular sources. Not to mention the number of Russian dead per the US State Department. As for the militant dead, source is there, image is there in the source to be plainly seen, compromise wording has been put forth on the figure. There is no OR or SYNTH here. Each figure has a singular source which contains the said figure. EkoGraf (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am only going to respond to the second part of your comment, the part beginning with "As for the militant dead" as that is the core of the dispute.
 * You are still refusing to understand that the construction of these numbers - by you and you alone, they are not present in the sources - is original research. It has been explained to you several times now why this is original research. Your idea of compromise is a very strange one - "I do what I want but make an inconsequential minor change so that I can claim that I'm compromising".
 * You are synthesizing several sources and conducting your own faulty research based on primary sources (the photograph).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Or to be painfully explicit (this is so obvious that I didn't think it needed to be said but since you're playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games...): What you have is a source which is a photograph of a cemetery with a cross with a number "2133" on it. You do NOT have a source which says "2213 separatists/Russians have been killed". Indeed, the fact that the source does not draw that conclusion from the photograph is telling in itself - it means your OR is unwarranted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You AGAIN removed it my sentence. As well as my edit about the numbers of volunteers. And you again reverted to an older sentence on the number of missing that I updated. And you AGAIN removed the number of Ukrainian military dead, Ukrainian military missing and Russian military dead (per State Department). I ask for the 3rd or 4th time, what is your excuse for the removal of all that sourced information which has nothing to do with your complaints about the numbers of militant dead??? If you are having a problem about the number of militant dead (since thats been your main topic) than remove that, but stop removing other singullary sourced information. EkoGraf (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * At this point you are making inaccurate statements and simply ignoring questions put forward to you. You are accusing me of synthesizing several sources but the last version by Irina and me does not have even one figure that has several sources beside it. Not even one. And I am asking you for the possibly fifth time the reason you removed the State Department figure and the official Ukrainian figure on their military dead and missing along with their singular sources. And I am going to continue asking you until I get an answer which does not include its SYNTH based on several sources because none of them has several sources beside them, only singular sources. EkoGraf (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not lying, and you can stuff it. You *are* synthesizing several sources as you pretty much admit above by discussing the three sources you used to "construct" your figure. The fact that later you kept the figure and removed two of the sources does not cease to make it a synthesis (it's just a hidden, bad faithed, synthesis). You know that this is obvious, right? So why make false accusations which are easily disproven?
 * Before we had:
 * "Ekograf's synthesis and OR"[1][2][3].
 * Then editors pointed out that "Ekograf's synthesis and OR" was a synthesis and OR based on sources [1], [2], and [3].
 * You then removed two of the references so that then we had
 * "Exactly the same Ekograf's synthesis and OR as before"[1].
 * You called that a "compromise" and claimed it was no longer synthesis and or.
 * Bang head against the wall*.
 * Please stop insulting my intelligence.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: Ekograf's original comment read "At this point you are lying. They then changed it but in the meantime that's what I responded to, hitting couple edit conflicts along the way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I did change it from lying, because despite the whole situation I am trying to hold my cool and not behave as you did when you accused me of bullshitting or like now to stuff myself (read WP: Civil). Back to the issue, you are still claiming synthesis but I'm not seeing multiple sources beside the figures you removed and are still refusing to give a reason that you removed them (Ukrainian military dead and missing). So, reason? PS Despite your assertion, the same synthesis was not left with my last edit, my original synthesis was 2,248 dead separatists. When I left the last figure with just ONE source it was 2,213, as per the image in the source. So you are again making an incorrect statement. But I don't really care about the militant dead. I want my answer to your removal of the Ukrainian military dead and missing along with their sources. EkoGraf (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see we finally got one issue out of the way. You reinserted my sentence on the State Department figure. At this point I don't really care about the number of militant dead. Remove it for all eternity if it pleases you. But that still leaves your revert to an older/out-dated sentence on the missing, your revert of my edit on the number of volunteers as well as your removal of the number of dead and missing Ukrainian servicemen which have singular sources beside them that plainly give the figures. EkoGraf (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

At this point, given the highly contentious aspect of these numbers I think we should work out which casualty/missing/etc. numbers we can actually put in the infobox on the talk page first. What's there right now (as of my last edit) is the stuff that's well sourced and uncontroversial. If you want to add something in, please explain what and why it belongs. And let others participate in that discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I don't care about the militant dead anymore. However, I am, for the sixth time, asking in what way is the number of Ukrainian military dead and missing (that you removed) not well sourced and uncontroversial? You have one source citing the Ukrainians saying as of late July that 273 were missing and you have the second source (site of the National Museum of Ukraine) listing a total of 2,540 dead by mid-August. EkoGraf (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The question with that is whether we want to put only Ukrainian casualties in the infobox if we don't have reliable numbers for the other side. I would like to hear from somebody other than you about that. Note that these numbers were removed by RGloucester originally (although I agree with that removal). We do need to preserve balance.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So wait, let me get this straight, just because we don't have a credible overall number of rebel dead we should ignore the comprehensive figure provided by the Ukrainian side on the number of their dead and remove it altogether? Note, RGloucester removed all figures (including the UN figure) on the basis they are all disputed, and are not serving any purpose. I think you and I both agree they serve a purpose. And up to this point I have seen only the militant figure disputed, and I have not seen a dispute over the UN figure (which you reinserted thanks) and the Ukrainian military dead/missing figures. And also, I think the State Departments figure is not in dispute or the credibility of their claim. Thus, I am politely asking that my and Irina's last version of the Ukrainian column on their dead and missing, along with their sources, be reinserted. As for the opposite rebel column put in 400-500 Russian soldiers dead per state department as I did in my last version, as for the militant dead leave it as Unknown number of militants killed. Or if you want we can put the last known estimate by the rebels themselves that was provided back in early February. EkoGraf (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * PS Irina also, despite agreeing with RGloucester's decision to remove in principle, albeit temporarily, did not agree with the reasoning expressed to warrant a removal of properly sourced information (which did happen) and requested RGloucester revert himself. I also would have perhaps agreed with RGloucester removal on a temporary basis, if he had removed only the disputed figure (the militants), but I couldn't agree with the removal of the other properly sourced figures. EkoGraf (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a proposal for the Russian column. Instead of Unknown number of militants killed we use this source where the Forbes contributor is citing in all 1,455 Russian soldier/militant deaths/missing from the Cargo 200 activist organisation and speculating in his view the overall number of Russian soldier/militant deaths/missing to be on par with the latest count of 2,500 dead Ukrainians. So my proposal is to put 1,455-2,500 Russian soldiers and militants killed or missing. Of course we make a note from whom the figure is coming. (Note he also speculates in a few versions that the 2,000 dead report we been arguing may be also false/incorrect) I know this source is dodgy as much as the other one for 2,000, and even casts some doubt on the other one, but I'm trying to find some middle ground. As for the Ukrainian column, 2,540 dead and 273 missing is properly sourced, and like RGloucester said if we have a Ukrainian source for Ukrainian casualties we put it in. EkoGraf (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's just provide range of numbers - as reflected in multiple RS. No, one should not combine Russian army soldiers and militants in the same number. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see you reinserted again the 2,000 figure despite most being against its inclusion and removed the source/ref for the State Department. The Forbes source I just cited asserted several versions/speculations where the claim might be false/incorrect. Even if 2,000 was true not all of them had been fighting as regular Army soldiers, but as militants/volunteers. This has already been talked about a lot in reliable media outlets. And the same Forbes source cited the possibility of up to 2,500 dead both soldiers and militants. If the sources cited a combined figure than we have to put it as a combined figure. If you put 1,455-2,500 Russian soldiers and militants or even 2,000-2,500 Russian soldiers and militants with the Forbes source I cited above I would have no problem with it and we can bring this matter to a close. Won't make an edit at this point, will wait what others say. EkoGraf (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (a) No, I did not remove reference to State Department. It still appears on the page (ref. 661), and this is an important reference to provide the range of numbers indicated in the infobox. (b) This is not just Forbs, but a number of RS already quoted on this page. (c) No, combining soldiers of regular army from one country and irregulars from another country is not a good approach. It is precisely the point (per sources) that Russian army, rather than rebels, had losses. My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When I said you removed the reference for the State Department, I meant you removed the reference in the infobox. At the moment, both 400 and the disputed 2,000 are not referenced/cited in the infobox. We are not combining soldiers from one country and irregulars from another country. As the source I linked says, they are BOTH Russian and registered by the Cargo 200 organization which tracks those who are sent back to Russia, so the combined total in the source is for both Russian regulars and irregulars coming from Russia. EkoGraf (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to provide refs in the introduction and infobox if the sources are already provided in the body of page. Who said these numbers include volunteers who are not officially affiliated with Russian Ministry of Defense? According to news reports, "Business Life — reported that as of early February nearly 2,000 families had received compensation of around $43,000 for relatives slain fighting in eastern Ukraine. Another 3,200 families had received $21,500 as compensation for soldiers wounded in battle". This only covers servicemen of regular army because only they receive compensations from the Ministry of Defense. Families of numerous "volunteers" who went to the Ukraine on their own risk do not receive any state compensations for injury and death to my knowledge. If you want to prove it wrong, please provide some references, specifically about the volunteers. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the source I linked . Cargo 200 provides names, photos, addresses, and military records (where available) of Russian regular and mercenary casualties. It separates Russian armed forces and mercenaries as “killed,” “missing in action,” or “taken prisoner.” Cargo 200 shows 167 regular troops “killed” and 187 “MIA” and 305 mercenaries “killed” and 796 “MIA.” Thus the source I linked you counts both regular and irregular Russians. The author further estimates the number to be in reality possibly around 2,500. He also in essence says that 2,000 includes the irregulars as well by saying the Cargo 200 figure of both regulars and irregulars is a third of the 2,000 figure. Also, I remind once again that there has been no consensus to include the 2,000 figure in the infobox, not to mention the Forbes source I link speculates in several versions that the 2,000 claim (and all RS call it just a claim) may as well be false/incorrect. I am again proposing to instead of using the 2,000 figure, we put the Cargo 200 lower estimate and the Forbes author higher estimate of both regulars and irregulars. EkoGraf (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is just another source that provides numbers falling in the range currently included in the infobox. "Cargo 200" was created by a group of people who are trying to trace losses by Russian army in Ukraine. Here is their Facebook page. Yes, as Forbes tells, ”Cargo 200 shows 167 regular troops “killed” and 187 “MIA” and 305 mercenaries “killed” and 796 “MIA.” But Cargo 200 collects only a very small part of cases: basically only those who have been reported to them by relatives or which could be easily traced by other means. People do not report them cases because this is now a state secret.  That's why the number (167) is much smaller than ~2000 that appears in other recent sources. Once again, the "mercenaries" go undercover and therefore their relatives do not receive state compensations in the case  of their death (2000 are people whose families received compensations). The source you quoted does not tell anything specific about receiving compensations by the mercenaries. My very best wishes (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Still haven't seen a reason to not use the source for the collective number from Cargo 200 of both regulars and irregulars. And the source does say that according to the author he is estimating the number of both regulars and irregulars dead to be around 2,500. So not seeing a reason not to use the lower and upper estimate from Cargo 200 and the author for regulars and irregulars. The 2,000 figure would be in there inbetween. Those irregulars are btw regular armies but they are told to shed their uniforms before crossing the border and pretend to be volunteers. This has already been talked about a lot in the RS media outlets. But at least I have not seen a source which says they don't receive compensation, maybe I missed it. Provide it please if you can. EkoGraf (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * People from "cargo 200" never claimed that data on their site represent total number of Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine. They know their data represent only a small fraction of losses. A lot of Russian "mercenaries" are former soldiers who worked as civilians, and only some of them took "vacation" from regular army. They should not be confused with local Ukrainians on the same side. They should also not be confused with active duty soldiers that appear in sources like statement from State department and the reports about 2000 killed. My very best wishes (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We are not confusing them with local Ukrainians at all. We would not write Ukrainian militants, we would write Russian militants as the source says. Whether those Russian militants are on vacation from the regular army or not does not matter because they are fighting as irregulars/volunteers. EkoGraf (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but soldiers of regular Russian army (those who receive official salaries and compensations in the event of injury) can not be described as "militants" and should not be combined together with "mercenaries" who have been illegally recruited. And no, they are fighting as regular army.My very best wishes (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The source cited states to the contrary from what you are saying, the source does not describe all of them as regular army. The Cargo 200 source cited in Forbes very perfectly differentiates between two different categories of Russians fighting in Ukraine. One of the two is not regular army. You consider all Russians fighting in Ukraine regular army, which is not per the sources. If you do not like the term militants than we will use the term irregulars, because the term mercenaries is also POV. EkoGraf (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, as must be clear from my comments, I do not "consider all Russians fighting in Ukraine regular army". Quite the opposite. Only some of them are regular army. Most sources, including "cargo 200" tell exactly the same. Sorry to tell this, but some of your last comments are obvious examples of WP:IDONTHEAR. In addition, no, calling soldiers of regular army "militants" is POV. Most sources call them simply "soldiers" [of regular army]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I heard you perfectly clearly. Problem is you misinterpreted what I said. I am not, nor was, calling regular Army soldiers militants. I was calling the mercenary/irregular/voluntary Russians militants. And like I said, if you do not prefer the term militants, we can refer to those called as mercenaries by Cargo 200 (which is per them separate from the regulars) as irregulars. Because you misinterpreted what I said, I misinterpreted what you said, so we should not trade accusations on who is hearing who. PS New source, per the BBC (watch the full report) states possibly about 2,200 both separatists and Russians have been killed, but that the figure has not been verified. I think this source (BBC) is one of the most neutral we have on-hand, and it is citing the UN, again one of the most neutral, and we should use their figure in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this link does not provide any written transcript/text. If, as you tell, it indeed claims that "about 2,200 both separatists and Russians have been killed" (based on the leak and other sources quoted above), this is highly misleading, because "separatists" in this context means Ukrainian rebels who obviously were not recipients of compensations to Russian soldiers and their families mentioned in other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The link gives a graphics presentation, saying how many of the total dead are Ukrainian servicemen and civilians, while indicating the rest are Russians and separatists albait unverified. But fine, why not used than the Forbes source estimating 2,500 dead Russian regulars and irregulars? EkoGraf (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If one simply tells "soldiers" without qualifiers like regulars/irregulars (as in many sources), that should be fine.My very best wishes (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone feel that we've come to some form of consensus as regards this issue (that of the casualties for the infobox), whereby it doesn't overstep the line on SYNTH and CALC? It would be good to address the separate issues edit warring broke out over before full protection expires. This is the priority issue, and will need to be accommodated on other articles as part of a trickle-down effect (i.e., see figures for the infobox in the 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article) for the sake of parity. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen mention of SYNTH and CALC for some time now, so it seems that has been resolved. However, I don't think there's still a consensus on whats to be included in the infobox. In fact, the 2,000 figure was put again in the infobox while we still hadn't reached a consensus and amid a general attitude against the inclusion of the figure. As for my reply to Wishes, if I understood you correctly (correct me if I'm wrong) you want to classify all Russian dead in the infobox as simply "soldiers"? If that is so than that is correct per the 2,000 figure/source, but contrary to what the source I linked states. The source I linked states clearly a documented figure of both Russian regulars and irregulars, courtesy of Cargo 200, and the Forbes author himself estimates a total of 2,500 Russian dead (both regulars and irregulars). So, following this source, we should put a lower (Cargo 200) estimate and higher (Forbes author) estimate. If you don't like the term irregulars as well we can put volunteers instead (as many sources have also stated). And we would put in the box beside the figure Russian soldiers and volunteers. Describing them all simply as soldiers implies they are all regulars, which they are not. EkoGraf (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's a proposal that we put three different estimates per three different sources in the infobox on Russian dead, noting who the sources are, and I really hope you will agree to this Wishes. Your opinion would also be appreciated Irina. This would be the language in the infobox:

400-2,000 Russian soldiers killed (per DoS and Delovaya Zhizn) 1,455-2,500 Russian soldiers and volunteers killed or missing (per Cargo 200 and Forbes) 3,400 separatist and Russian combatants killed (per BBC, not verified) EkoGraf (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said would happen above, a new OHCHR report has been released. Please use this as the basis for any numbers in the infobox. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw that one today, unfortunately I found it only states the total number of both combatant and civilian dead, and the number of civilian dead for the February-August 2015 period. Nothing on the civilians from before or even how many Ukrainian soldiers are among that figure (I may have missed it but I don't think so). The source can still be used for a total overall figure. EkoGraf (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Verifiability
Re, Volunteer Marek:. No, there is not "a ton of sources for this in the article". Just provide a source for the info I removed or leave it out. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yawn.         and so on and so forth... we're not rehashing this again just because you want to waste people's time.   Volunteer Marek   15:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources please, not talk page discussions. All challenged material must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please check inline citations provided in this section and during this discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like sources for the casualties have been added. Thanks. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Challenged numbers

 * Your edit challenges numbers that just have been discussed with sources in this section above. These sources are also provided on the page in this section of the page itself. My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you mean this edit, I simply changed to a refn-template to create a footnote. I also added a -tag, since all controversial statements should be supported by a citation. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I mean your revert indicated in my diff. My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My revert indicated in your diff? But your diff shows a revert of RGloucester, where he/she reverted five of my edits and a IP-edit. Which one do you mean?
 * Added note + cn-tag.
 * Added supported by.
 * Removed ref note. WP:WPNOTRS
 * Removed ref note. WP:WPNOTRS
 * Removed unsourced info. Need WP:RS.
 * The IP-edit or one of mine? Erlbaeko (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Casualties
Re, : Here you reverted this update of the Ukrainian government forces casualties. I do not think "memorybook.org.ua" is a RS, but as long as it is used, the numbers may at least be updated. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead section
Thankfully, the intro is not more than four paragraphs long. However, WP:LEAD says that most (if not many) readers would rather read the lead and then move on to another article rather than read the whole article. As complex the event is, the fact that the conflict is still ongoing would risk the intro becoming either longer or unbalanced. Is rewriting (i.e. shortening) the lead necessary? --George Ho (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the lead should be left as is. The subject is complex, therefore a reasonably comprehensive lead is desirable. At this point in time, any attempts at rewrites would inevitably tip the scales. Trying to work out a consensus version would be unproductive (euphemism). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Foreign volunteers (infobox)
I would propose to remove the collapsible list with "foreign volunteers" – otherwise the references disappear and cannot be traced back from the bottom. Any comments?--Hubon (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

3,400 separatist and Russian combatants killed per BBC
I have removed this from the article:
 * ~3,400 separatist and Russian combatants killed (per BBC, not verified)

All the citation from the BBC is a valid citation for is that separatist and Russian deaths cannot be verified.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Map
We need to update the map. It says last updated un February — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.13.146 (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The map hasn't really changed since February. D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Collage added to infobox
, could you please explain why you think introducing your collage to the image parameter in the infobox here, then immediately again here is so important. There are ample images within the body of the article, plus a large map with a legend already featured there per WP:PERTINENCE. Cramming a collage with exhaustive text (with links) describing it directly under the map legend makes an incomprehensible mess of the infobox. Each time you've added content, changed content, etc. you haven't provided any form of edit summary as to what the changes are, nor why you're introducing them. I've asked you to do so before on your talk page, yet I've never had a response. I've asked you to follow WP:BRD, yet you've ignored me on this article (and a number of others).

If there is consensus that your changes are desirable and should remain, I'm fine with that... but that means allowing other editors to agree or disagree that your contribution is desirable. My !vote is obviously that it's neither aesthetically desirable, nor is it informative. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

POV deletion of cited text
Please explain how my additions specifically violate Wikipedia policies on neutrality. Otherwise, this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

"Civilians killed: 3,684 (DPR & LPR estimate) – 7,000 (Ukraine estimate)"

"Al-Jazeera interviewed a Canadian volunteer with the Azov Battalion, and reported that the battalion's "ideological alignment with other far-right, social-nationalist groups has attracted volunteers from organisations in Sweden, Italy, France, Canada, and Russia"."

"Chechen opponents of the Russian government, including Chechen military commander Isa Munayev, were fighting pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine for the Ukrainian government."'We like partisan warfare.' Chechens fighting in Ukraine – on both sides". The Guardian. 24. July 2015."

Removed, Removed, Removed.

WP:NPOV says clearly include fairly all significant views published by reliable sources. Unfortunately User:Volunteer Marek has become strongly engaged here and is pushing a very one sided POV. Some editors appear to view the mere inclusion of other perspectives, including from major news sources, as intolerable.

I also don't think that YouTube and Realclearpolitics.com meet WP:RS criteria. – -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't start this again. How many times have we been through this? I really don't appreciate having my time wasted by you repeatedly and I'm sure others feel the same way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but why haven't dubious claims sourced by youtube been removed yet?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because youtube is not being used as a source. A video on youtube is being used as a source. This has already been explained to both you and Tobby72 so how about the two of you quit playing dumb.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because youtube is not being used as a source. A video on youtube is being used as a source We don't use youtube videos as source.Also please refrain from personal attacks. You have been asked to do so numerous times already.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course we can use videos on youtube as sources. What in the world are you talking about? And I'm sorry but these passive-aggressive bad faith WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games become extremely irritating after awhile. Tobby72 pretending that this is some kind of new issue... as if there weren't several huge discussions about the issue right above and in the archives. You pretending that we can't use a video from a news agency because it's on youtube...  as if there weren't literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of instances of youtube being used as sources on WikipediaThis is ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * RT is a Russian state-funded propaganda organ of the Kremlin. — Ríco  04:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics has been refereed to RSN already and the opinion was that this is not a highly reliable source, and should be used only to present authors views. Since you disagree if youtube videos are reliable source of information I will ask about this on RSN. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That discussion most certainly does NOT state "the opinion that this is not a highly reliable source". Why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why do you insist on wasting my time with falsehoods which can be easily checked? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The video/statement that Young is reporting on can supposedly be found here .Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevant text: Бабай уточнил, что под "западным злом" подразумевает не весь Запад, а лишь "жидомасонов", поскольку "только они везде в мире наводят беспорядок - такой, который им нужен" и "из-за этого страдаем мы - простой православный народ".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please rephrase your statement in a readable format, thank you. For the record, the youtube channel seems to be created by amateur community site called jewishnews.com, at least this is their official website in about section.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC) You pretending that we can't use a video from a news agency because it's on youtubeLooking at the youtube channel, it is hardly a official news agency, anyone can name his/her channel so. The official website goes to a rather amateur webpage. In any case I have asked about this on RSN.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My statement is readable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the edit in question, I think that first (non YouTube) reference is fine for the statement, but the second one (YouTube video) should be better replaced by something else... My very best wishes (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Islamic Battalions – WP:RS
We report what reliable sources say. -. ... International Business Times, The Irish Times, The Guardian, The New York Times. It's very important that we not remove reliable sources simply because somebody "doesn't like it." -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sources are provided, this is nothing more than a POV push. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Been over this, been over this, been over this, been over this, been over this.  Volunteer Marek   21:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * How much more slow edit warring are you intending to persevere with, Tobby72? WP:DE: so drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, Iryna Harpy, your comments above contributed no substantive argument against the material other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Obviously some users decided that "since there are more of us, anti-separatist/anti-Russian POV pushers here, we can do whatever we want (POV-pushing, removing sourced content) and won't even let you tag this article."

The "neutrality dispute" notice reads: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." The neutrality of the article is clearly disputed. An involved editor should not remove the tag without consensus. –

How much more slow edit warring – repeated removal of my edits, often with nonsensical or highly dubious edit summaries – are you intending to persevere with, Volunteer Marek, Iryna Harpy? –, , , , , ,.

The "Pro-Russian insurgents" section occupies almost one third of this article (Caucasian and Central Asian armed groups, Chechen paramilitaries, Ossetian and Abkhaz paramilitaries, etc). WP:NPOV requires that we also cover "Counter-insurgency forces and Ukrainian militias". -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Stop your edit warring. It's been going on for months. It's extremely disruptive.  Volunteer Marek   12:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Why did you delete my edits? It was from reliable sources. You have intentionally deleted the whole section. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * RGloucester, please participate in the discussion. You have been edit warring for the past two months -, , , but I don't see you RGloucester discussing this on the talk page. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to discuss. It has all been discussed thousands of times. We've all learned that it isn't worth "discussing" anything with you. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I've always heard only vague "No consensus" (meaning I just don't like it) or "There is nothing to discuss". So I ask again... Marek, Iryna, RGloucester, why did you delete my addition of the Islamic battalions fighting in Ukraine on Kiev's side? -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * See the above responses. A big "ditto" from me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We follow reliable sources not editors' own personal feelings or ideologies. Can you point out where claims are made without sources? Where unreliable sources are used? That would actually be constructive. The POV tag is appropriate. The removal of the POV tag was in violation of WP policy written on the tag, and the burden is on the violator of the policy to justify the removal. -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, your response is "There is nothing to discuss"? Not how it works. Certainly if the foreign fighter of one side is mentioned, then the foreign fighter of the other side should be mentioned as well, per the words written at WP:NPOV, articles should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." We go by what reliable sources say, and reliable sources say that "Islamic militants from Chechnya have begun fighting in eastern Ukraine against the Russian-backed rebels.". It's a well-documented fact that Islamic battalions aid Kiev in war with Donbass separatists. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverter is definitely NOT interested in a discussion. Since the article is now in the shape Volunteer Marek, Iryna Harpy, RGloucester want it to be, they do not engage in discussion and leave it. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We've been over this a million times. Consensus is against you. Stop wasting people's time. You are being extremely disruptive with this slow motion edit warring where every couple of days, for several months now you come to the article and try to cram your version of it down everyone's throat, only to be reverted again and again and again by numerous editors. If you weren't a contributor that's been around for awhile you'd have been blocked long time ago. The fact that you are a contributor that's been around for awhile actually makes things worse though.  Volunteer Marek   15:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is based on reliable published sources, not the opinions of editors. Judging by your edits, it does not seem that you quite understand WP:RS or WP:NPOV. The New York Times or The Guardian are highly reliable sources. There is no reason for them to be removed. The POV tag should stay until these issues are resolved. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We've been over this a million times. Consensus is against you. Stop wasting people's time. You are being extremely disruptive with this slow motion edit warring where every couple of days, for several months now you come to the article and try to cram your version of it down everyone's throat, only to be reverted again and again and again by numerous editors. If you weren't a contributor that's been around for awhile you'd have been blocked long time ago. The fact that you are a contributor that's been around for awhile actually makes things worse though.  Volunteer Marek   15:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The POV template needs to remain in the article until there is consensus that there are no major POV issues, per the words written at WP:TAGGING: In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. ... The removal of the POV tag is in violation of WP policy written on the tag, and the burden is on the violator of the policy to justify the removal. User: Volunteer Marek has removed the POV dispute tag three times —, ,.


 * So, I ask again... Marek, WHY did you delete my edits? There's nothing "extremely disruptive" about my edits and there is hardly any consensus. User: RGloucester has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for being a disruptive and another editor agreed to a redacted form of the content — and it was done . WP:NPOV says clearly that the article should fairly represent all significant views published by reliable sources. Per my comments above, the "Pro-Russian insurgents" section occupies almost one third of this article. WP:NPOV requires that we also cover "Counter-insurgency forces and Ukrainian militias". -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We've been over this a million times. Consensus is against you. Including in regard to the POV tag. Stop wasting people's time. You are being extremely disruptive with this slow motion edit warring where every couple of days, for several months now you come to the article and try to cram your version of it down everyone's throat, only to be reverted again and again and again by numerous editors. If you weren't a contributor that's been around for awhile you'd have been blocked long time ago. The fact that you are a contributor that's been around for awhile actually makes things worse though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs) 15:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read slowly and carefully: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."  -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We've been over this a million times. Consensus is against you. Stop wasting people's time. You are being extremely disruptive with this slow motion edit warring where every couple of days, for several months now you come to the article and try to cram your version of it down everyone's throat, only to be reverted again and again and again by numerous editors. If you weren't a contributor that's been around for awhile you'd have been blocked long time ago. The fact that you are a contributor that's been around for awhile actually makes things worse though.
 * Also - personal attack noted.  Volunteer Marek   13:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? (Possibly, as I have come to this party late.) But what is wrong with 's suggestion of including the references to the New York Times, The Guardian etc? It's not obvious from this Talk Page what the problem is. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ph1ll1phenry, more than likely the references to the New York Times, The Guardian were removed in order to make sure the article stayed unbalanced anti-Russian POV. Ukraine-related articles have been guarded by several editors who have certain POV and any attempt to improve has been blocked. This is an issue that goes back a long way ... –, . -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, as a new editor you haven't been engaged in the development of this article, nor surrounding articles. It's always advisable to read talk pages (in particular all of the archived talk which you'll find in the archives box at the top of article talk pages). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Still waiting on a reply to why the properly sourced section has been removed – . The New York Times enjoys the reputation of being a generally reliable source of news. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with ., I checked the archives and found no consensus that the NYT article etc was not allowed (or indeed anything similar). , I would suggest that you start an RFC (or similar) so it can be opened up for discussion with other editors. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop your edit warring. We've all been through a couple of years of disruptive and tendentious editing by you on every article related to recent events in Ukraine. Enough of your throwing tantrums in order to get your way. It's known as WP:EXHAUST... so it's time to drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm clearly missing something here., can you please point me to where in the archives this has been debated? Thanks. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. The matter had been thoroughly discussed and rejected but, as with a lot of high profile, high traffic articles, discussions have taken place in several venues. For starters, take a look at this and this, this. There are a few editors who have track records for continuous disruptive and tendentious editing practices involved, therefore it is inappropriate for me to record the trail on administrator's talk pages, as well as other editor's talk pages here. Much of the discussion has taken place simultaneously with several other issues, therefore it would take me literally hours to find specifics. I'm afraid that I can only offer you my word that this (as well as dozens of other WP:COATRACK twists) have been designed to push editors buttons to the limits, as is evidenced in the level of irritation in responses.


 * Now, as a gesture of good will, I will ask you why you believe the content to be WP:DUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If the foreign Caucasus/Central Asian fighters of one side are mentioned (Caucasian and Central Asian armed groups, Chechen paramilitaries, Ossetian and Abkhaz paramilitaries, etc), then the foreign Caucasus/Central Asian fighters of the other side should be mentioned as well per WP:DUE. Iryna Harpy has really contributed nothing to the discussion except making endless accusations against me (similar to those above) on the talk page and also on my talk page. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Tobby72, I was explicitly asking for his/her reasoning, not you. No one has nominated you as their ombudsman. Now that you've told Ph1ll1phenry what he/she thinks, there doesn't seem to be any point in my discussing it with that user. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, . No worries. Life can be like that. I read the links you posted. As I understand it, I think that it was correct for editors to dismiss sources that were not reputable during the debate. However, it appears that has now come back with reputable sources (International Business Times, The Irish Times, The Guardian and The New York Times). Since the publishers of these respected journals think the story is relevant, I see no reason why we shouldn't. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with sources. This is a violation of WP:NPOV by Toddy72, i.e. his edit actually goes against precisely the same policy he claims to protect. Here is his edit. It is problematic for at least two reasons: (a) Crimean Tatars can hardly be described as "foreign" to Ukraine, (b) describing all of them as "Islamic battalions" is POV-pushing of Kremlin's propaganda version of the events because this has nothing to do with religion (Islam or whatever). My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Kremlin's propaganda? "Foreign Islamic Battalions Fight To Defend Ukraine Against Rebels". International Business Times. 7 July 2015., Islamic Battalions, Stocked With Chechens, Aid Ukraine in War With Rebels". The New York Times. 7 July 2015., "To Defeat Russia, Ukraine Creates Muslim Military Unit Made Up Of Crimean Tatars". International Business Times. 3 August 2015.


 * Maybe it could be reworded to something like "Crimean Tatar/Caucasus volunteer battalions"? -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If this wording were not used in the articles, I'd agree with you, . But the phrase "Islamic battalions" appears in the headlines of two reputable sources and the fact that they're Islamic is considered significant enough to be noted in a third. Perhaps I can suggest that to break this impasse you propose an alternative wording? Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , this entire article has now been compromised to a point where I am not willing to discuss alternatives. Having tried to involve the ARC and having started an RfC simultaneously, Tobby72 is attempting to game the system. The means justifying the end is antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia: in fact it violates the very premise on which Wikipedia is built on. No editors should have to tolerate being held to ransom, nor am I prepared to condone the rewarding of tendentious editing behaviour. I'm not here to WP:WIN, therefore I can only abstain from engaging until this frozen conflict is somehow resolved by intervention by neutral parties. Please understand that this does not reflect on your good faith editing, nor my willingness to discuss content issues raised by any other editors who are WP:HERE in good faith. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "I'm not here to WP:WIN, therefore I can only abstain from engaging" – Revert war has stopped. Now the article is in her preferred version – diff. In general, someone adding material bears the burden of providing citation of reliable sources. Just because something has a good source does not necessarily mean it belongs in an encyclopedia, but someone wishing to remove well-sourced material has the burden of explaining why. Iryna Harpy refuses to actually discuss her edits – diff, simply reverting claiming "no consensus" and "WP:UNDUE" – diff, diff, diff. It is making this Wikipedia article very biased, and is not adhering to core Wikipedia principles. I have been personally attacked and accused of everything under the sun, for pointing out what Wikipedia wants from its own articles, and persisting and insisting on NPOV. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that omitting this paragraph makes this page biased? Biased to which "side" and why? Why this is so important for you that you spend a lot of time on this, constantly accuse others, and submitted an arbitration request? My very best wishes (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Biased to which "side" and why?" – I'm quite sure you know very well what I am talking about. If the claims are from a verifiable and reliable source then they have merit for inclusion as long as the source isn't cherry-picked to get what an editor wants into an article (diff, diff, diff, diff) whilst leaving out things that may make it more balanced (diff, diff, diff, diff). Very poor handling of NPOV. IMO the article War in Donbass is severely biased. I added a tag to it, but it was removed. – diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Combatants
Should the reliably sourced information about Islamic battalions fighting in Ukraine be removed from the article? We are in the process of discussing the issue, but no clear consensus has been reached for deletion.

See talk page above for prior discussion and arguments. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The instructions for filing an RFC explicitly state: "Statement should be neutral and brief". Your statement is not neutrally worded (in fact it makes you look like a WP:BATTLEGROUND POV-pushing warrior and is an example of the very thing other users find wrong with your behavior, which you complain about).


 * Please refactor the RfC statement so that it matches the guideline.  Volunteer Marek   16:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Marek, comment on content -, not on the contributor. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I *am* commenting on content. The content of your misfiled non-neutrally worded RfC. Please refactor the RfC statement so that it matches the guideline.
 * Also, it really takes a lot of bad faith to file an RfC on content and then run to ArbCom to request a case.  Volunteer Marek   20:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Also "refactor" means "strike through the inappropriate parts". It does NOT mean "alter original comment to make it seem innocent so that the response comments don't make any sense". Here is Tobby72's original wording: .  Volunteer Marek   20:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Tobby72, you wrote — as you have written in other places — "no clear consensus has been reached for deletion." However, consensus does not have to be achieved for deletion:


 * — Ríco  05:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Why the apparent double standard? — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_in_Donbass/Archive_8#Casualties_and_losses — User:Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) recently argued : "That applies to situations where some info can be sourced but is not really relevant to the article's topic or constitutes trivia. Here we just have a couple editors engaging in relentless original research in order to exclude relevant and on-topic information which has been published in reliable sources. Please don't try to WP:GAME wikipedia policies for POV purposes." – diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose to inclusion in the latest redaction by Tobby72 . This is for two reasons: (a) Crimean Tatars can hardly be described as "foreign" to Ukraine, (b) describing all of them as "Islamic battalions" is POV-pushing of Kremlin's propaganda version of the events because this has nothing to do with religion (Islam or whatever). A more neutral version might be fine. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * We could find an alternative wording, but I don't think The New York Times, International Business Times or Kyiv Post are the Kremlin's propaganda mouthpieces. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion. The sources are reputable and there are at least three of them that say much the same thing (The New York Times, The Guardian and International Business Times). Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Even having "shortened" (sic) the RfC statement, it's malformed. I would have preferred that the poster had left it as it was before being "shortened": at least it would have made it clear to the community that the poster is seeking a !vote rather making any effort to structure a neutrally worded RfC informing interested editors of the context. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – To be honest, this is no more notable than any of the other "foreign volunteer battalions" on either side. These groups consists of a few dozen people each, and really do not play a large part in the conflict overall. That's why it would be WP:UNDUE weight to include them. The thing that Tobby doesn't understand is that just because something is sourced does not mean it should be included. In the context of this conflict, these groups are a minor footnote. Media sensationalism isn't necessary, as we are not a newspaper. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The New York Times : "He commands one of three volunteer Islamic battalions out of about 30 volunteer units in total fighting now in eastern Ukraine. The Islamic battalions are deployed to the hottest zones, which is why the Chechen was here." -


 * "Media sensationalism isn't necessary, as we are not a newspaper." – The double standards are so apparent and yet some editors get away with it. – diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Tobby, we're talking about this article, not about others. I didn't support the inclusion of the leaflet business at the time, but I'm not going to go back and find my comments on the matter. The fact remains that we have guidelines and policies, and that whether or not they are always applied correctly, that doesn't mean we shouldn't apply them correctly here. Can you explain what the lasting significance is of the presence of a few "Islamic battalions" in the context of a conflict that has taken thousands of lives? Where is the relevance of this piece of text? Think about the events from a historical perspective, not from the perspective of a reporter, who is trying to catch the next scoop. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose as WP:UNDUE (as has been argued here for months). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, revisit this issue in five years time (i.e. after the conflict is over). Some people have got an agenda.  The New York Times lumping together of alleged Chechens (who happen to be Muslims) with Ukrainians of Tatar ethnicity (who also happen to be Muslims) is not OK.  The motives of these soldiers are not obviously religious.  The two alleged-Chechen units (if they exist) are in a similar position to the Czech and Polish fighter squadrons in the Battle of Britain.  It would be better to wait until after the conflict is over.--  Toddy1 (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I think calling them 'Islamic' is a POV issue. They aren't fighting a jihad, they are Chechen nationalists or anti-colonial, or ultimately their fight is against Russia for political and territorial reasons. Tatars fighting for Ukraine can hardly be called Islamic any more than Right Sector be called a Christian battalion. The Chechens are grouped for ethno-linguistic reasons, not jihad. Here is a source on the matter with the former unit commander: "The commander said he is motivated partly by revenge, after the Russians killed some family members in earlier wars, but he also wants to help the Ukrainian people stop Russian-backed separatist aggression." I'd also like to point out that there are many Kadyrov Chechens fighting for Russia here, but you don't call Kadyrov's forces "Islamic" either, even though he and his men are all likely Muslim, their purpose is to support Putin, not wage a holy war.--BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 15:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. A neutrally and briefly worded well referenced sentence could be added to the article, without it out weighing the multiple paragraphs that already exist in the article. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They're notable because... they're Muslims?! I haven't seen hide nor hair of any jihadist motivations, just fighting on secular grounds. It still seems that you're still trying to cash in on Islamophobia, which was the only motivation for your pushing for inclusion in the first instance. I've yet to see a serious rationale as to why WP:ITSIMPORTANT from you. What, the fact that a couple of sources have mentioned them is enough to qualify inclusion in an already lengthy article where every time one man from Tuvalu and his Pekingese dog join a side it has to be included because it's been reported? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks and accusations. They're notable because... "... The three battalions offer continued evidence of foreign involvement in the brutal civil war, with both sides using volunteer troops from outside nations, including Chechen forces on both sides. The Islamic fighters have been crucial in the Ukrainian government's push to regain control over the eastern half of the country, which has fallen under separatist control, including in the strategically-important seaside port of Mariupol. ..." — International Business Times, "... three volunteer Islamic battalions out of about 30 volunteer units in total fighting now in eastern Ukraine. The Islamic battalions are deployed to the hottest zones ..." — The New York Times. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree with BLACK FUTURE, RGloucester, Iryna Harpy et al. So-called "Islamic" battalions have no bearing on the overall conflict per se. There are many factors at play, and I interpret these attempts as POV-pushing as well. If you read the source carefully, it states "using volunteer troops from outside nations, including Chechen forces on both sides"; I think this is the most important fact you're ignoring. Yes, some of them are Muslims, but they are not fighting for Islam, and as such "Islamist battalions" represents a sensationalist headline-catching view. Islamist is a marginal notion in this regard, like the fact there are women involved in fighting as well. They're not fighting for women's rights. That's not to say that in the future, if Islam plays a significant role in the conflict, we shouldn't add such developments into the article. We'll see that if and when we get there. Best, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  13:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I can suggest an alternative: "Chechen, Crimean Tatar and Central Asian armed groups" - diff. Do you agree now? -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Units involved
Russian armed forces should not be listed under "Foreign volunteers". Russian forces are directly involved, they are not individual volunteers. Even Putin admits this now.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"Annexation"
Lets end this edit war everyone, I am neutral on the outcome but before the wording of "annexation" is changed a discussion has to be held. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Option 1 (With Annexation)
"These demonstrations, which followed the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, and which were part of a wider group of...."

Option 2 (Without Annexation)
"These demonstrations, which followed Crimea's rejoining Russia and which were part of a wider group of..."


 * No discussion is needed. The article is titled Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Until that article changes (it won't), this sentence will remain. Is there any particular reason why you felt it was necessary to make this overwrought survey section? RGloucester  — ☎ 15:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It is better than edit warring which was present on the main-page. - 20:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been any edit-warring, just one IP making a mess for months. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree, I don't think it is just one IP: the term "Annexation" is pretty strong. The referendum happened a bit too quickly, without the proper length of time to facilitate discussions and debates, no doubt about that, but the Crimean parliament had already voted, in full legality, to leave the Ukraine, that is an undisputed fact. This article makes it look as if all of sudden Russia invaded Crimea and annexed it, which is not true. I would suggest a vote to change both the title and the part in question. --Remote Helper (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine. If that's your opinion, you must get consensus to change Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation before any changes here. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want to change anything, I just want to test the waters and have a vote. Let's see if there are other people who want to vote on it before I officially propose a vote. --Remote Helper (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * RGloucester, just look through that user's edits then calmly apply DFTT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you know, Marek, my cyber stalker is here... :-) I thought you said you were going to ignore me... I see smoke... Are those your pants, Marek ? :-) Cheers, --Remote Helper (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Also pretty strong: a military takeover of said parliament and territory. Russia did "all of sudden" invade and annex Crimea...that's exactly what happened. Your argument fails to convince me. Consensus has been established through exhaustive processes. It's time for you to let this one go. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on War in Donbass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150922064656/http://qha.com.ua/en/society/ingushetia-leader-ingush-volunteers-fight-in-east-ukraine/131580/ to http://qha.com.ua/en/society/ingushetia-leader-ingush-volunteers-fight-in-east-ukraine/131580/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140421043025/http://www.presstv.ir:80/detail/2014/04/18/359126/prorussians-seize-ukraines-seversk to http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/04/18/359126/prorussians-seize-ukraines-seversk/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141112085322/http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/27/372958/ukraine-soldiers-refuse-to-fight-own-ppl/ to http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/27/372958/ukraine-soldiers-refuse-to-fight-own-ppl/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150725132924/http://www.euronews.com/newswires/3041823-ceasefire-brings-limited-respite-for-east-ukrainians/ to http://www.euronews.com/newswires/3041823-ceasefire-brings-limited-respite-for-east-ukrainians/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150428052957/http://nacsk.ru/2012/12/%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D1%8C%D1%8E-%D1%81-%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%87%D1%8C/ to http://nacsk.ru/2012/12/%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D1%8C%D1%8E-%D1%81-%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC-%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%87%D1%8C/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151018173857/http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/foreign-fighters-struggle-for-legal-status-in-ukraine-400182.html to http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/foreign-fighters-struggle-for-legal-status-in-ukraine-400182.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on War in Donbass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150922064656/http://qha.com.ua/en/society/ingushetia-leader-ingush-volunteers-fight-in-east-ukraine/131580/ to http://qha.com.ua/en/society/ingushetia-leader-ingush-volunteers-fight-in-east-ukraine/131580/
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140605/NEWS08/306050088/U-S-sending-advisers-military-gear-Ukraine

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

http://web.archive.org/web/20150922064656/http://qha.com.ua/en/society/ingushetia-leader-ingush-volunteers-fight-in-east-ukraine/131580/ http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140605/NEWS08/306050088/U-S-sending-advisers-military-gear-Ukraine Substituted with article with same information.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on War in Donbass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150704120250/http://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2014/09/ukraine-mounting-evidence-war-crimes-and-russian-involvement/ to https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2014/09/ukraine-mounting-evidence-war-crimes-and-russian-involvement/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

US American Mercenaries?
The Bundesnachrichtendienst has information about US American Mercenaries who operating in Ukraine.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Somme battle of WWI
Restored earlier deletion (meaning: deleted: Ewsweek (published the article after 3-4 days after original)). Before bluntly deleting it, do please "consult the source", and the history thereof; to my knowledge this is the first time DonWar was compared with trenches of Somme, and, written by a person, English speaking, English performing, who was on site, actually, for 5 days, not by a commission of saving,... "all the whales and humanoids on the planet". The article was published at first by NNN, after 3-4 days it was published by Newsweek.—Pietadè (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Units involved
Just wondering what the criteria for the pro-Russian side's inclusion is? Donetsk People's Militia under Gubarev isn't around anymore, right? There are a couple that are listed that were liquidated. Vostok I think is important for inclusion...and then we have them all pointing to the same catch-all article that doesn't even list a "Luhansk militia" as existing separately from the the other battalions in the region. Just wondering, how do we decide what gets listed in the infobox, and what should be left on the catch-all? Could we clean it up? --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 19:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

They are rebels, not insurgents.
This is because insurgents do not have flags. Rebels have flags.

2620:101:F000:700:195F:6A0F:30FE:D601 (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "If the established government does not recognize the rebels as belligerents then they are insurgents and the revolt is an insurgency." This is from the Oxford Dictionary, also we go by what the reliable sources say. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh. In Syria they are called rebels which is a good word. In Ukraine the rebels goal is to oust Poroshenko. Insurgents is a derogatory word and IS are called insurgents in Iraq.

2620:101:F000:700:195F:6A0F:30FE:D601 (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That is because the rebels in Syria are recognized by at least one country as legitimate. It is complex but if a majority of reliable sources are calling them insurgents then as I said we cant go against that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a single country recognizes rebels in Syria as legitimate. There are many rebel groups in Syria, ranging from YPG to IS.

2620:101:F000:700:D92F:DF7E:456D:5AA3 (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

,, .Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

There are Western media sources that refer to them as rebels.

here http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34425454

here http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/02/ukraine-ghost-brigade-ukraine-rebels

here http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2016-03-18/rebel-rep-ukraine-truce-deal-could-take-years-to-implement

here http://news.yahoo.com/next-stop-syria-ukraine-rebels-weigh-options-fighting-044631730.html

Ukraine sources also refer to them as rebels.

here http://uatoday.tv/news/ap-ukraine-truce-deal-could-take-years-to-implement-rebel-representative-613648.html

Rebel is positive word. Insurgent is negative word.

38.121.88.172 (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Knowledgekid87 Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1989. Insurgent "One who rises in revolt against constituted authority; a rebel who is not recognized as a belligerent." That means insurgents are rebels, of a particular type.... And hasn't Ukraine's government signed ceasefire agreements with these forces? How is that compatible with the idea that they are not recognized as belligerents by the government? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Has been discussed to death. See links above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Rebel and insurgent and guerrilla, etc. can have positive or negative meaning depending on the context. In the southern US, rebel could be positive; in Ukraine, insurgent could be positive (ie, the UPA). In Syria, rebel could be positive in contrast to a tyrannical regime; though pro-Assad people could see it as negative because they see the rebels as negative; whereas in Iraq insurgent could be negative because their actions are thoroughly more negative (I mean, it's ISIS). --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 19:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

rebel or separatists?
I think use separist word is not neutral. At current moment if i search in the article word 'rebel' i see only 1 using this word inside the article and 87 using in the sources. Other situation about using word 'separatist' - search found 179 results with half in the article and half in the sources. I think wikipedia articles should be more neutral - cause 'separatist' word has animus. Thanks for attention. --Speakus (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Separatist" does not have "animus". It is representative of the desires of the relevant parties. "Rebel" is not, and is unacceptable as an example of value-laden language. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rebels has request of federalization of Ukraine. They don't ask for separate State. So using 'separatists' word is not so correct for them. Page 'WP:WORDS' does not have example 'rebel'. Donbas rebels don't like when they be called 'separatists'. Separatist have 'animus' cause separatism is illegal in any country. Ok if 'rebel' is not good word (although i can not understand why) - there is another word which is more neutral then separatists - Militia. I searched this word in the article and it used 41 times at current time: half in the sources and half in the article. --Speakus (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody has actually asked for the federalization of Ukraine, and those who do bandy around with the terms 'decentralization' and 'federalization' do so unspecifically/vaguely with no real definition of th term. I'd leave it out because nobody knows what it means. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 19:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think "militants" is appropriate to describe the militia groups. They do want separatism, so I think separatist is okay for localized groups, but not foreign interlocutors, as their objective is more directly to attack Ukraine ("fight fascism!" or "Russia's enemies"), or expand Russia, and not achieve a reasonable form of local autonomy.--BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 19:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There is war of words. I can give examples of words used by Rebels and by Kiev: 1. about Kiev forces: Punishers - Liberators. 2. about DPR forces: Rebels - Separatists. There is official way (which officially agreed by any country and sides of conflict) to resolve Donbass crysis - Minsk II And in this document exclude word 'Separatists' - it's describe key element - decentralisation. Not separate State. So i think word 'Separatists' is not neutral and who use this word has prejudice about rebels. Anyway i want to notice word 'rebels' used in the sources of this article (86 times) but not used in the article. Although 'Separatists' used in both - article and sources. I think more neutral article should (at least) use both words rebels and separatists. Using 'militants' also is not neutral and show us prejudice about weaponized group. Nobody call 'militants' about any group when was war between north and south in the USA. --Speakus (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You make a good point, but Minsk II is worthless and the DNR/Russian side never really took it seriously so I think this is a de jure / de facto thing, and the article needs to reflect reality. In reality, couple weeks ago the DNR started issuing their own passports (source), "“We proved to our enemies and ourselves that we’re building an independent state [...] Russia will recognize us." --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 19:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

NPOV
There is problem with this statement in the lead:

"Between 22 and 25 August, Russian artillery, personnel, and what Russia called a "humanitarian convoy" crossed the border into Ukrainian territory without the permission of the Ukrainian government."

I tried to change it to:

"Between 22 and 25 August, Russian artillery and personnel crossed the border according to Ukrainian officials and NATO. Also what Russia called a "humanitarian convoy" crossed the border ... "

Because all contradictory claims should be attributed, not only from Russia. Volunteer Marek said (about artillery and personnel) " it's not just "NATO" that says this happened, pretty much every source says it did". But no, Russia rejects these claims. Primary sources with this statement are all from the one of conflictiong parties. And even if they are not only from Ukraine, as we know this situation is similar to Cold War conflicts Cathry 21:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not just NATO though, because it also would include Ukrainian locals, DNR forces who admit it, Russian news who do interviews, and dozens of media outlets who photographed these military convoys. This seems reductive, because it's not a "he said she said" dispute at this point, unless you really want to get specific about the August 22-25 date itself, versus the month or months in general. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 21:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Title (War in Donbass)
Does the title bother any one else? The two things that irk me are that it's the Russian and not Ukrianian spelling; this also applies to the English version of the portmanteau (DONets BASin, not "Bassin"). And finally, that it's "in Donbass" and not "in the Donbass"; as one would not say "in basin" over "in the basin". Thoughts? This isn't a hard push by me, just something that makes me cringe when I glance at this article. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As for "Donbass", a change would have to be proposed at Talk:Donbass and gain consensus before this article could be changed. I don't know whether "Donbas" or "Donbass" is more common in English at the moment. As for the lack of the "the", definite article dropping seems to have become the trend, which you'll find if you look at RS. I imagine this is the result of similar changes in usage with regard to "Crimea" and the like. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * True, 'in Donbass' seems to have taken over as common use if I just go by Google news searches. That said, the Donbass article itself begins with "The Donbass is..." so I think this just comes down to proper English grammar. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 15:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Attempts to seize the Donetsk Regional State Administration began ... in the wake of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution
This statement in Background section is unclear to reader, because it can be read as it was support, but it was response because of disagreement. So it is nesessary to change sentence somehow. Cathry (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "In the wake" holds no such connotations. It simply implies that the attempts came in the direct aftermath of the revolution, which they did. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that "in the wake" means rather the beginning than aftermath Cathry (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you know what a "wake" is? "Wake", in this case, refers to the trail of waves that follows a moving boat. "In the wake of" always implies the after effects of a certain event, i.e. that the something that happens "in the wake" of something else is a "ripple effect" of that something else. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * True, wake just connotates cause and effect --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this a war?
Both sides taking pot shots at each other once in a while. That's about it. What qualifies this as a war and not a gang fight?

38.121.91.6 (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Soldiers are dying every day, it involves an armed conflict between military units, Russia is officially designated as an "aggressor state". How is it not a war, and how are the Ukrainian and Russian armies "gangs"? This isn't a turf war.--BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 19:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There are international standards and definitions. This is considered a 'war' because of the number of people that have been killed each year from the associated violence. It will cease to be a war when the number of deaths falls below a given threshold I can't remember what exactly the number of casualties per year needs to be for something to be defined as a war. Hollth (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well no, even the Korean War never officially ended. It will be a war until one side sues for peace. If we drop below certain standards, I guess the infobox could show the dates for the active and inactive periods, but even then the article title wouldn't change because then the article would be historical. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 15:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

US and UK non-lethal aid to Ukraine
I think this was discussed before, but why is the US and UK not in the infobox for supporting Ukraine? It is covered in RS too, with the US spending $266 million dollars in total military aid 1 2 and the UK spent £850,000 in non-lethal aid as of 2015 1 2. SkoraPobeda (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – No need to create a false balance here. If you'll check the talk archives, you'll see that this has been discussed before. My full opinion can be found there. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - namely because, per the 'belligerents' parameter in the infobox, the combatants1(or /2/3) is to designate "the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding." [emphasis my own]


 * How does this improve reader understanding when there has been no participation and 'non-lethal' aid is very much 'non-lethal'? Should we add a comprehensive list for everyone who provided moral support in the international equivalent of a 'wishing you all the best' card, a pat on the head and a doggie biscuit as being 'belligerents'? It's WP:UNDUE to the point of misleading for the purposes of the infobox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, I see both of your points. I just assumed that nobody opposed the addition since there was no response for a whole week... In any case, I believe this information from RS should be added somewhere in the article because despite it being non-lethal, it is more than $266 million dollars and £850,000 pounds of military aid. If lethal aid was being sent to Ukraine, would that be ok to include in the infobox? Other Wikipedia war articles include those countries that provide military aid as "Supported by". SkoraPobeda (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the stuff is already in the reactions section and sub-article. It would not be appropriate to include anyone in the infobox as a belligerent unless RS label them as such. We cannot create an WP:OR litmus test for "belligerent" status. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I must have missed the notification with the proposal here,, until you'd actually implemented the change to the infobox.


 * With regards to projected forms of information, per RGloucester's 'litmus test' analogy, I wouldn't want to speculate on such things unless there were substantial and substantiated RS descriptions to be examined in context. 'Other' content is for the body of the article when and where it is deemed to be DUE. I've noticed that when editors start talking about potential precedents for Wikipedia infoboxes on one article, it doesn't take long for other editors working on only vaguely related articles to pick up on the thread as if some new form of accepted community guideline had suddenly been created by consensus to be applied as a rule. Personally, I don't like the idea of painting ourselves into corners with absolutes. There's a big difference between a general formula for illustrating the main points of a subject and creating a dictum based on hypotheticals. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand, now it makes more sense with you both explaining it to me. I just readded the information of the non-lethal aid to the reactions section. I hope that it's acceptable. SkoraPobeda (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Map update
Apparently Shryokne, Kominternove, and Marinka have returned to the Ukranian side. I would like to request the map be changed, since it hasant been updated for four months. (99.251.136.59 (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC))

Civil deaths during governmental campaign in Eastern Ukraine.
Amitashi (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC): New addition is suggested. '''Governmental campaign was convicted by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. for massive civil deaths and civil property destruction.'''
 * This issue is already dealt with in the article at War in Donbass. No further gilding of the lily is required.--  Toddy1 (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Amitashi (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC): OK, I heard you. Will put in there.
 * Please do not add it at all. The article already mentions that both sides used weapons such as BM-21 Grad against targets in civilian areas.--  Toddy1 (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on War in Donbass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://el-zbirn-du.at.ua/2014_2/5.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

New estimate of percentage of Russian fighters at start of conflict - 19%
Analysis here. The Ukrainian "peacekeeper" website (the one which publishes personal details of "enemies of the Ukrainian state", some of whom then mysteriously get murdered) has recently published a list of "fighters and mercenaries" recruited by the Donetsk People's Republic during the summer of 2014. Of the 1,572 names, 78% are listed as Ukrainian citizens, 19% as Russian citizens, 2% as citizens of other countries, 1% as having unknown citizenship. You can also see from the addresses that the vast majority are from Donetsk (locals). It seems that this information from a pro-Ukrainian source corroborates the lower range of the "15-80% were Russian paramilitaries" estimate in the lead to the article.

My proposal is that this information gets incorporated into the article in some way. Esn (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not an RS. My very best wishes (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Do we know that for sure? The published list of DPR fighters was fairly widely reported on in the media (English version of one of the Ukrainian articles). I haven't been able to find media commentary about the reliability of the list itself, though. If the list gets treated as credible by reliable media in the future, would you still object to including information about any data based on it? Esn (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know that for sure Cathry (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source proving your assertion. Esn (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Was this Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines reliable source? Cathry (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Zerkalo Nedeli (zn.ua) is one of Ukraine’s most influential analytical newspapers published weekly in Kiev. Per WP:NEWSORG: "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Emphasis on generally Tobby. Russian state media is well established too, not reliable though. Hollth (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference checking
There are serious problems with misrepresenting media sources for political reasons.

Example 1 An article about an aid convoy in Washington Post is translated into: "During the week prior to the "invasion", Russia had been shelling Ukrainian units from across the border" Yes the article briefly says that a NATO statement has accused Russia of such actions but this statement cannot be found / has been retracted. The NATO statement makes the claim and so it must be located and referenced, then if found the wiki should read: "NATO has accused Russia of shelling Ukrainian units from across the border on DATE, [providing evidence of .../but provided no evidence] [REFERENCE]."

Moderators need to check references and how they are quoted. There are 2 more references straight after that with exact same problems.


 * There are five references there. Please provide a source for the fact that the statement has been "retracted". Claiming that it must have been retracted because you yourself can't find it is original research and it contradicts reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The humanitarian convoy part should be deleted
The trucks arrived August 14th at the border. And the Russians allowed them to be inspected. On the 22nd of August the Russians got tired of waiting and crossed the border without permission.

Given that Ukraine had more than 1 week to properly inspect these trucks, it should be apparent to everyone that they did in fact only contain humanitarian aid.

The text in this Wikipedia article even goes as far to claim that these trucks had an affect on the war. It's a complete fabrication and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.136.8.34 (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Casualties
The total number of casualties is 9,470. But if we add 2000 (civilians killed), 2,081 (pro-russians killed or missing) and 3,042 (Ukrainians killed) we have only 7123 casualties. Why do we have this difference? Cristi767 (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Because there are deaths that are not reported.

207.245.44.6 (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * and not all morgues are obliged to publish the count of bodies...
 * Lot of unidentified in the total county. EkoGraf (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Eco-War-nomical consequences
Both sides, Russia and Ukraine, are well known on the international market of arms; both sides have praised themselves for the growth in sales numbers. This could be added, IMHO, into the article, the only (one of) problem is, where is the reliable source on int. arms trade.—Pietadè (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

—Pietadè (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC): As for arms trade: "In 2012, Ukraine was the world’s fourth largest arms exporter, selling more than $1.344 billion worth of conventional arms, according to a report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute."

Whether we need citations for "War in Ukraine" or "War in Eastern Ukraine" in the lede

 * we need some of these citations

Strange logic: We don't need this many citations & [citation needed],.

Indeed, we need some of these many citations. Delete:
 * citations to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine
 * bellingcat, Russia’s War in Ukraine: The Medals and Treacherous Numbers // August 31, 2016
 * , it is not a book or article, only video

— Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 17:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC).


 * term "war in Ukraine" does not just apply to the Donbass war, but also to Crimea

The terms "War in Ukraine", "Russia’s War in Ukraine", "Russia’s aggression in Ukraine" does not just apply to the Donbass war, but also to Crimea, see sources from diff: — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 05:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC).
 * - From the print edition: Briefing of


 * Sorry, but I have added a title that tells me how this section is relevant to the ongoing edit-conflict.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding Dzyadyk's four citations in this edit:
 * . This uses the term "the war in eastern Ukraine" to refer to both the Crimea and the Donbas.
 * . This is the same article as #1.
 * . This is a diagram from an article that .  The article calls it "the Ukraine conflict".  Only the caption in the diagram uses the term "the war in eastern Ukraine".
 * . This calls it the "Ukraine conflict".  It has a sentence: "War in eastern Ukraine is now routine for the people still living there...."  But, you have misunderstood the English if you think that the author is calling the conflict  "War in eastern Ukraine"; instead the author is saying that war is now routine for people living in Eastern Ukraine.
 * My conclusion is that Dzyadyk's citations do not support his/her contention. Perhaps he/she did not read them.--  Toddy1 (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand a logics of these arguments. It seems very strange. Pause. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 09:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC).
 * Dzyadyk, you cited four sources for the view that the conflict in the Donbas is called "the war in eastern Ukraine".
 * Source [1] and [2] are the same source. The article uses the term to refer to both the Crimea and the Donbas.
 * Source [3] is a diagram from an article that calls it "the Ukraine conflict".
 * Source [4] calls it "the Ukraine conflict".
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * An analysis of Toddy1's statements
 * 1) * Toddy1: This uses the term "the war in eastern Ukraine" to refer to both the Crimea and the Donbas.
 * 2) * In the article: Russian forces seized Crimea and then began supporting the separatist insurgency in eastern Ukraine; it seized Crimea and intervened in eastern Ukraine
 * 3) mirror of [1]
 * 4) * Toddy1: off topic about another article
 * 5) * On the map: obviously, without no doubt, 'war in Eastern Ukraine' = 'war in Donbas'.
 * 6) * Toddy1: see above
 * 7) * In the article: War in eastern Ukraine, the Donbass (eastern regions of Ukraine)
 * 1) * Toddy1: see above
 * 2) * In the article: War in eastern Ukraine, the Donbass (eastern regions of Ukraine)
 * 1) * In the article: War in eastern Ukraine, the Donbass (eastern regions of Ukraine)

As known, e.g., "the Ukraine conflict" (2013-present) isn't equal to the "war in Donbas".

So, all so called 'very strange' Toddy1's arguments are '''invalid.

The situation is quite clear, but I am waiting for your agreement to repeat, as (very strange for me) ,.

— Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 19:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC).
 * Toddy1 has done a fine job of analysing the inappropriate use of sources to create a misnomer, and you're still misunderstanding the use of "War in eastern Ukraine is now routine for the people still living there, and there is little cause for optimism, despite a ceasefire and a strong desire for peace." It's a grammatical misunderstanding on your behalf. The sentence is not, " The war in eastern Ukraine..." The subject is war as a concept, not "War in eastern Ukraine" as a term. Restructured, the sentence reads as, "In eastern Ukraine, war is now routine for the people still living there..." What you're doing is creating WP:SYNTH by plucking a few random sound bytes from various sources and presenting them as if it were seriously used as an alternative term. No, it is not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The matter of our discussion isn't a theme of some article, but only synonym for 'War in Donbas': 'War in Eastern Ukraine' is synonym, 'War in Ukraine' isn't synonym. Sorry, I can not imagine and believe that smb does not understand this matter. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 23:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC).
 * Where did you get this 'theme' business from? Your synonym has been created by manner of WP:SYNTH. You are WP:CHERRYPICKING from articles in order to create a term that is not, and has not been, in common usage. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "in order to create a term" - ??? See September 27, 2014: "The War in Donbass (also known as the War in Ukraine or War in Eastern Ukraine)". After 2 years, 'War in Ukraine' became anachronistic. As well known, this term is from Putin's press-conference of 2014. About contemporary term 'Russian War in Ukraine' see above, it is not equal to anachronistic 'War in Ukraine'. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 08:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC).
 * You have provided no valid sources for your point of view. Yet you want to delete the FACT tag from your point of view, and to delete without explanation sources that support other points of view.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Cheers, Toddy1. That was precisely my thinking on both "War in Ukraine" or "War in Eastern Ukraine". The only synonym for the war in Donbass is the war in Donbass. It's also entirely irrelevant what interwikis use because we are reflecting reliably sourced English language usage. "War in Ukraine" or "War in Eastern Ukraine" being used for the article in September of 2014 is dated (and was unsourced). The article was being WP:POVPUSHed, and contravened WP:NOTNEWS plus WP:RECENTISM so much at that point that a snapshot of the article at any one given time of day over a period of more than a year would only represent where it was up to in terms of edit warring. The latest news articles at that point in time (i.e., 2014) would have been using various terminology because it was early days. This specific aspect of the multiple crises in Ukraine had not become the protracted warfare in the Donbass region that it was to become. Back-pedalling to find synonyms that lasted for one week, or were used a couple of times at some point in the war doesn't even make sense. Whether you find "War in Donbass" descriptive enough is of no consequence: it is apt and accurate per WP:NDESC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Iryna! Your last analysis is very interesting. May be, it will entail renaming of uk:війна на сході України, pl:konflikt na wschodniej Ukrainie etc. In ruwiki are prevalent another points of view, see ru:вп:к переименованию/18 сентября 2015. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 09:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC).


 * The term "war in Ukraine" is polysemantic, multiple-valued, amongst another values there exists the value "Civil War in Ukraine", from Putin's press conference: it was a dream and a plan of our enemies. Due to our struggle and international support, the main part of enemies plans of "Ukrainian Civil War" are in the past. Now there exists the "Russian War in Ukraine" (see Toddy1's sources), but it is a total hybrid war, and "war in Donbas" is a local real war, they aren't synonyms. Please, help Toddy1: surprisingly, he/she is user en-0, so, may be, misunderstands sources. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 09:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC).
 * In the English language, there is no special "proper name" to call the ongoing Ukrainian conflict; nor is there a special "proper name" to describe the war in the Donbas. Whether there are in other languages is a different question.


 * It is worth mentioning that the proper name for a war can change with time. Let me give two examples:
 * The war that England, France, Piedmont, and Turkey fought against Russia that lasted from 1853 to 1856 was known in English at the time as "the Russian War". However, by the 1890s it had become known as "the Crimean War", which is a complete misnomer because the decisive theatre was the Baltic, and there was also warfare in the Far East.
 * The 1914-18 war was known at the time as "the Great War". However, the 1939-45 war changed that, and it became known as the "First World War" or "World War I".  This again is a misnomer, as the English and French fought several global wars in the 18th Century.
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Losses pro-russian forces.
The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ukrainian_crisis says that separatists losses as of July 1, 2016 up 2,179 are killed. Cargo 200 is a source of losses only Russian citizens. 2081 + 2179 = 4260 dead. Is it possible to make this change in the article? P.S. Sorry for the broken English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaolin Monk (talk • contribs) 07:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

"Government"
This is a conflict that involves several different governments (Poroshenko, Putin, Zakharchenko, Plotnitsky), so referring to "pro-government" forces and the like seems rather inappropriate, not to mention POV ("the `government" obviously being the legitimate government). All unqualified references to "the government" should be replaced with explicit and unambiguous references to the side in question. 80.216.7.157 (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. There is only one recognised government in Donbass: the Ukrainian government. Not even the Russian government officially recognises the DPR or LPR, so there's no confusion. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say about any subject. Refactoring content to reflect your WP:POV is contrary to the fundamental premise of its being a tertiary resource. What does Putin have to do with it? Isn't it still the RF's official position that they aren't involved? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the point by IP is actually valid. This page frequently calls "pro-government" units like Donbas Battalion and Azov Battalion. They are actually controlled by the Ukrainian government. They should not be called "pro-government" (just remove the word). This should be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * MWVB, whilst those battalions are now controlled by the government, they did not start out that way. At the time of the events described by the article, they were indeed 'pro-government paramilitaries', and referred to as such by RS. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, word like "paramilitaraies" and "pro-government" are repeated 10 times in the same paragraph. Should be copy edited at least. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Category Anti-Ukrainian sentiment?
This war has nothing to do with Racism against Ukrainians. If Putin would be an anti-Ukrainian Racist he would not support the Rebels who are ethnic Ukrainians too. The Vietnam war was not motivated by Racism against Vietnamese either.--Feminismuskritiker (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Scare quotes to describe humanitarian convoy
Humanitarian convoys are well known and simple concepts, and do not require quotes around them. In this case, we state that Russia has described the trucks as a humanitarian convoy: there is no ambiguity about the term they used or their official view of it. Adding quotation marks around the term implies that the description or term is false, but does not further indicate to readers what the Russian government has said or believed.

If you do not believe that the use of quotes in this instance implies sarcasm, you do not have sufficient grasp of the English language to evaluate this sentence. On the other hand unfair, struck If you believe that sarcasm is necessary, that's a matter of neutrality, and we can take it to WP:POVN. -Darouet (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. None of the cited sources from the same paragraph quote the Russian government using the exact phrase "humanitarian convoy" - so it's unclear what exact quote is being referred to. -Darouet (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a direct quote FROM THE SOURCE, and should be quoted for that reason. Otherwise, it could give the impression that it is Wikipedia WP:OR. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Right now we write, "what Russia described as a humanitarian convoy." Is there any doubt that this is Russia's term? Also, don't you believe that place quotes around the term implies that we are quoting Russian officials, and not, say, The New York Times?


 * Lastly, if you decided you could put quotes around any one or two words found in a cited source, and that the usage of quotes in that case didn't imply sarcasm, can you imagine the field day that POV-pushers would have quoting every phrase or term they disliked? -Darouet (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I see you reverted to restore the scare quotes. Do you have any comment? -Darouet (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:WORDS are a set of guidelines I take very seriously, but every use of of quote marks cannot be defined as 'scare quotes', unjustified 'allegations', or 'claims' geared towards manipulating the reader into unwarranted doubts. Any instances of the use of quotation marks needs to be evaluated in context, and in this context there were multiple sources clearly imparting the information that the RF's declaration of this being a "humanitarian convoy" was seriously questioned in a manner I couldn't characterise as being unreasonable or biased. All requests to inspect the contents were refused (including that of the Red Cross: an NGO with an unblemished history). To my understanding, intentionally downplaying the pre-existing circumstances surrounding the assembling of this convoy, the manner in which it took off into sovereign territory fully armed by RF forces, and under a justified cloud of suspicion and fear is the highly POV, revisionist rewrite of events.


 * I'm not certain of how you wish to handle this further. The only thing I can see evolving is an edit war where multiple sources attesting to the sincere doubts as to the entire purpose of the convoy (including the intention of psychologically manipulating the Ukrainian government, people and forces) are going to be thrown at the term to the point of OVERCITE. The circumstances and sources haven't changed, only the desire to de-emphasise the dubiousness of the event and its significance. The use of quotation marks is highly proscribed specifically to accommodate their usage in such circumstances. It didn't given birth to a chaotic use of quotation marks across articles whenever it took someone's fancy, nor is it going to. I do think you're putting the 'scare' into appropriate quotes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely you meant "prescribed", not "proscribed"? They have more or less opposite meanings.--  Toddy1 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think that reliable sources doubting the veracity of the humanitarian convoy is a problem, but writing here with sarcastic tone is. What about a solution where we add a clause stating that mainstream media / OSCE were skeptical, or something like that? We are then reporting the doubts, which is fine. -Darouet (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that there is also a discussion of this at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Perhaps the answer is to stop using extremely biassed phrases such as "scare quotes" and "sarcastic tone".  It is completely normal English to use inverted commas round things that are not as they seem to be.--  Toddy1 (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I did actually mean 'proscribed', Toddy1. It isn't common practice to use quote marks to emphasise umpteen-dozen phrases in Wikipedia articles in order to use them as "scarequotes". The usage of quotes is a deliberate, consensus choice to abbreviate what multiple RS are expressing. The idea behind it is to avoid one after the other protracted sentence where "humanitarian convoy" is substituted with, "Multiple media outlets and the OSCE were sceptical as to whether it was a humanitarian convoy due to the RF's refusal to allow any any bodies (including the Red Cross) to inspect the contents of the trucks which, themselves, were manned by armed Russian soldiers." or other convoluted attempts to de-emphasise that which was heavily emphasised.


 * I'm sorry that you understood my response to be sarcastic, Darouet. That was not the intention. I was making a serious point as to my understanding of how balance is maintained in articles. There's a distinct difference between 'neutral' and the watering down of content in order to present a distorted view of what reliable sources had to say. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry Iryna, your response was great, and not sarcastic at all. I am using the term to describe the quotation marks around "humanitarian convoy." I totally understand the desire to indicate the problematic nature of Russia's term, but don't think quotation marks are the way forward. I'll write more shortly to suggest solutions. -Darouet (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you write, but disagree that because multiple, high-quality resources (and circumstances) cast doubt upon the authenticity of the term "humanitarian convoy," that we should in this instance break with WP:SCAREQUOTES and use them. Reporting these doubts/circumstances may take a few more words, but this is a controversial topic, and it's important that we get it right. My favorite Wikipedia maxim is WP:RAUL's Razor: "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie." In English, scare quotes are a purposeful and blatant signal of editorial sympathy or opinion, and that is why they are rightfully avoided. In this case, we lower the quality of the article by using scarequotes in the lead.

I thought that my original edit was appropriate: by announcing that this is Russia's term, we by no means endorse it (and we state in the very same sentence that Russia was sending military resources across the border). However, I understand from what you write above that you'd like to inform readers of significant doubts raised by the international community.


 * One possibility is to write, "what Russia controversially described as a humanitarian convoy."


 * Another is to write at the end of the sentence, "NATO condemned Russia's convoy for refusing coordination with the Red Cross,"


 * Or, "Ukraine, the US and the EU denounced the convoy as an invasion."

Let me know what you think. -Darouet (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should describe a lot more about the "humanitarian convoy" in the body of the article to make it more consistent with intro. The "convoy" was an important part of the "secret" invasion. On the way from Russia to Ukraine it transported mostly weapons and soldiers. On the way back from Ukraine to Russia it transported mostly heavy civil and military equipment robbed/dismantled at the Ukrainian territory to be re-assembled in Russia. There were numerous publications about it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Those are all very interesting theories MVBW. We have four high-quality sources (BBC, ABC, TIME, NYT) on the convoy above. If you have others you'd recommend, please post them here. -Darouet (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's stay on the subject of the thread. Yes, I think that your edit was OK, or at the very least that was a very minor change that does not worth a minute of anyone's time. My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a minor change, but important, per WP:SCAREQUOTES. I also support your suggestion to have a section on the convoy. -Darouet (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I still have to disagree. It honestly strikes me as being far WP:POINTy to elaborate on the use of 'quoted text' (as opposed to 'scare quotes') in order to create extended tracts of 'controversially' and 'multiple media outlets and the OSCE were sceptical' convolutions. Elaborating on the extent of the doubt in the lead is WP:UNDUE. I find it the least obtrusive expression of the scenario. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It's the difference between neutrally reported what's been said, and acting as a partisan source of information. That is why we don't use scare quotes. My fear is that total intransigence on this page, for such an elementary issue, suggests larger editorial neutrality problems for the page as a whole. -Darouet (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't believe that such blatantly partisan wording remains in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Azov battalion
Shouldn't the Azov battalion be included in the list of the belligerent factions? It is included in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine_%282014%E2%80%93present%29, along with other far-right factions I am not familiar with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.96.22.43 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

the russian invasion should be more obvious
the article portraits as if it was really the local rebels who started the war, and the russians jumped in. this is misinformation. The russian used the same tactic to invade Finland in the 1930's, by creating a puppet state and then invade full scale. Considering the vast amount of militants from Russia, the regular troops gathering on the Ukranian border with repeated incursion into ukranian territory, artillery fire from Russian federation, massive movement of unauthorized russian tracks into Ukraine... I mean comon who are we kidding? Just call the thing by its name. U should change the article to Russian-Ukrainian war, just like Russo-Georgian war.212.90.182.118 (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Glory for Ukraine !!! Glory for heroes !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.237.10.157 (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2016
 * "Glory to Ukraine ?" I think the place in your country in the toilet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankodrake (talk • contribs) 21:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you might be kidding yourself. Or you should provide the proof of all the "obvious" infos you assert here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.96.22.43 (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Cargo 200 NGO
Link to Cargo 200 NGOs and Elena Vasilyeva as evidence? Really? They talked about Putin zombie-rays. Who believes it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.237.23.28 (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

US involvement
Just out of curiosity, why aren't there articles on US military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) and US intervention in Ukraine (2014–present)? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Military training for Ukrainian army that is provided by US troops? --VoidWanderer (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I made a wry comment on the sound of the US imperial dogs not barking. The titles are self-explanatory, like titles should be. Keith-264 (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Prior to a change of the top leadership in August 2014, the separatists were led by Russian citizens
The article has a sentence as follows:
 * Prior to a change of the top leadership in August 2014, the separatists were largely led by Russian citizens.

An editor has changed the word "largely" (shown in bold above) to "usually". His/her explanation for this change was given in an edit summary as "15-50% would qualify them as commonly led. Only 50% + would qualify as "largely" led", and "This is a better term".

One source is dated 27 July 2014, and talks about how there had been an "influx of Russians into the upper ranks of the separatists" and that "Ukrainian-born rebel leaders have been eased out".

The other source is dated 15 August 2014, talks about how there had been further changes of leadership with two locals being promoted (Vladimir Zakharchenko and Vadimir Kononov), but also how Lieutenant-General Vladimir Antyufeyev (not a local) who became "DPR deputy prime minister" on 10 July 2014 had brought in a team of security services personnel who had worked with him in his previous job in Transnistria and that these had "become the strongest element in the 'DPR government'."

I think it would be better if the sentence were rewritten to reflect the content of the sources more accurately. The key change seems to have occurred in June-July 2014 when many of the original leaders were eased out and replaced by people from Russia and Transnistria, and that those locals who were promoted were mentored by Russians.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Russian forces casualties estimation precision
I want to discuss an approach to a pro-Russian forces casualties number estimation. Currently, we have a very general UN estimation of ~10000 dead total, among whom around 2400 were civilians. Ukrainian forces have a relatively precise number of casualties since it's a list of exact names - it's 3465 dead listed in memorybook.org.ua as of April 1st, 2017, and ~150 of unidentified soldiers.

Currently we get a number of pro-Russian forces casualties as a result of a formula:

pro-Russian = Total - Civilians - Ukrainian = 9,940 - 2,402 - 3,651 = 3,887

To me, it seems like a perfect example of False precision - we aren't able to provide such accuracy since the number of Total and Civilian casualties is very inaccurate and is an estimation itself. It seems valid to estimate a pro-Russian casualties number as ~3,800. Or 3,500–4,000. And stop decreasing this number after each update from Ukrainain side.

EkoGraf, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this topic. --VoidWanderer (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The total and civilian number of deaths is a documented number by the UN, not an estimation. However, if you were going to do a rounded estimation of rebel fatalities, ~3,900 would be more appropriate since its the closest number that fits with the UN and Ukraine documentations, not 3,500-4,000 or 3,800. EkoGraf (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * June 2016 UN report: up to 2,000 of the fatalities were civilians (These are conservative estimates, the actual number of casualties is believed to be higher)
 * April 2017 UN report: The agency estimates that total number of civilians killed since the start of the conflict (14 April 2014 to 14 May 2017) to be over 2,000 people (These are conservative estimates by OHCHR based on available data; the actual number of casualties is believed to be higher.)
 * It seems these numbers are just estimations. --VoidWanderer (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Its based on DOCUMENTED (available) data. Which means, 9,940 is a confirmed number below which the death toll is not. In any case, like I said, if you are going to do a rounded estimation of rebel fatalities, ~3,900 would be more appropriate since its the closest number that fits within the UN and Ukraine documentations. EkoGraf (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Did it. EkoGraf (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ~3,900 is really closest round number. I believe it makes sense to change it next time if estimated result would be around ~4,000. --VoidWanderer (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Cargo 200 NGO
Cargo 200 NGO - fraud-/fake- maker with psycho syndromes. You are lieish as ussual Wikipedia! Excellent source! ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.123.219.223 (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. Unfortunately, your comment lacks any sources. And it fails to represent NPOV as well. Thank you for expressing your opinion, though. :)--89.173.36.108 (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

KIA
The official number today is 2727 but the other citation to the unofficial tracker is in the 3000s. I figure the latter number includes not just servicemen but also volunteers and irregulars? I think this number needs some clarification as the official Ukrainian militry report is about a thousand lower.--BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 15:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2,727 is the number of regular SOLDIERS killed, and this is stated (clarified) in the official report. 3,769 (currently) is the number of killed soldiers, police, border guards, paramilitaries, national guardsmen (Internal Affairs Ministry), security service agents etc. All of these security forces branches are already listed in the belligerents column for Ukraine in the section units involved. Look up all of the currently cited sources. The Museum of Military History (which the military itself stated two years ago has the most up-to-date list of deaths and number of fatalities) currently lists 3,550 identified and 164 unidentified dead (concluding with May 1st), while three additionally cited news sources reporting 7 dead in May, 28 in June and 20 in July. EkoGraf (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

About double standards
At least one user (namely TitaniumCarbide) is currently engaging in an edit war, which in my opinion is totally unjustified.

1. A quote from the source about Serbian volunteers "Several dozen are fighting on the side of the separatists, Vucic said, adding that several dozen are also fighting for the Ukrainian army." In my opinion Serbian volunteers should be added to both sides of the conflict or not mentioned at all. You can't just use one part of a source, which fits your own personal agenda, and dismiss the rest.

2. Lithuania is mentioned under Support for good reason. I added Canada and the US because both support Ukraine on a much larger scale then Lithuania (with lethal weapons, non lethal weapons, training and so on). The sources kievpost, cbc news, the globe and mail, reuters can be considered as a reliable source. (even more so since they have been quoted multiple times in the article).

Please feel free to elaborate why you think those two additions should not be put into the article.

89.244.173.210 (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The reference to Serbian volunteers on the Ukrainian side is isolated, vague, and attributed to a single source without verification; coverage of the Serbian fighters on the Russian side has been extensive and far more detailed. It's not actually verifiable that there are *any* Serbians fighting for Ukraine. I'm not hugely concerned that this should or shouldn't stay except that you've only been adding it because you're in some way upset that Serbian militias on the Russian side are mentioned, and view this as somehow anti-Russian unless a corresponding Serbian militia is found or invented on the Ukrainian side.
 * The infobox is for belligerent factions and not various parties that may in some general way "support" one side or another. Adding crap like "200 Canadian instructors" to the *military strength* of the Ukranian side is absurd. This is particularly clear when the extent and character of the support has been so carefully limited – giving body armor but not weapons and so on.
 * It's difficult to see these edits but as an attempt to blur and relativize the massive Russian intervention. The level and character of foreign involvement is not in fact comparable on the two sides; avoiding a double standard requires that we not present it as comparable. TiC (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Albanian Volunteers?
There are also Albanian, Kosovar and Albanian Macedonian Volunteers who fight on the Site of Ukrainian Army.--95.113.202.220 (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on War in Donbass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826212148/http://www.stratfor.com/sample/analysis/after-re-establishing-supply-lines-ukrainian-separatists-launch-counteroffensive to http://www.stratfor.com/sample/analysis/after-re-establishing-supply-lines-ukrainian-separatists-launch-counteroffensive

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on War in Donbass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170228171239/http://24today.net/open/484721 to http://24today.net/open/484721
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150722094612/http://novosti.dn.ua/details/222549/ to http://novosti.dn.ua/details/222549/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)