Talk:War in Donbas

Igor Girkin (Strelkov) claims 7,401 killed or injured on Ukrainian side

The original post is here, posted July 29, claiming to list losses on the Ukrainian side from May 2 to July 27. The only English-language news outlet to pick it up so far seems to be this one. Various Russian ones have picked it up (i.e. [1], [2]) but no major ones so far. The claimed numbers are:

• 12,615 losses
  • 7401 killed or wounded
    • 2400 from "Right Sector" and National Guard
    • 2014 from Kolomoisky-funded paramilitaries
    • 115 from Security Service of Ukraine
    • 330 foreign fighters
      • 139 from the Polish private military company "ASBS Othago"
      • 40 from American company "Greystone"
      • 125 from American company "Academi" (formerly "Blackwater")
  • 14 taken prisoner
  • 5200 deserters

It then gives a long list of Ukrainian military divisions and losses from each of them.

As I understand it, the numbers can't be included in the article just based on the post itself due to WP:SELFSOURCE (because such enemy casualty numbers in a war may be self-serving). However, as Strelkov is a senior military personage, and other news outlets are reporting on the numbers, would it make sense to mention it in the infobox as an "according to the insurgents" number for Kiev military casualties? Esn (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Hm. I just noticed that though it's on Strelkov's page, the author listed at the bottom isn't Strelkov but Igor Panarin. Esn (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: I'll ping EkoGraf. He's the statistics expert around here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I highly doubt these numbers are authentic. If this is true, Ukrainian forces in Doubas would be depleted by now, seeing as how the entire Ukrainian army has something like 50,000 soldiers, which means no more than 20,000 or so could have been in Donbas to begin with.

I don't think the number is too reliable or authentic. However, since we already presented both the rebel and government claim on the number of rebel dead, it would be fair to present both sides claims on the number of dead on the government side as well. EkoGraf (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The article currently states that there are 30,000 men from the pro-Kiev side fighting in Donbass. If the numbers were accurate, this would represent a loss of one-third (supposing some of the wounded may have healed and gone back to fight). However, considering that there have been several "partial mobilization" drives in Ukraine (as well as creation of volunteer paramilitaries), the number of men in the pro-Kiev side should be constantly increasing and offset the losses. The Armed Forces of Ukraine article says that there are currently 90,000 active personnel, and 1 million reservists. One could perhaps argue that the mobilization drives (three so far) would not have been necessary if the losses were really just a few hundred men. Not that any of that can be said in the article of course, as it's original research.

If you think it's okay to add the number in, would you be so kind as to do so? I'm uncertain of the proper formatting. Esn (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I seriously doubt there can be more than a few thousands Ukrainian soldiers active in Donbas. The Ukrainian government is woefully short on funds. Even if it conscripts tens of thousands, it has no money to train them, arm them and deploy them. Only a small fraction of the 90,000 active personnel are fit for combat, and certainly not all of them can be sent to fight in Donbas all at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Is not this obvious that volunteers are fighting not only on the pro-Russian side, but also on the Ukrainian? And when someone is counting deaths they should count not only killed soldiers but also killed volunteers. IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: And what if next day Strelkov will come with another 10.000 deaths? The difference between both sides numbers is to big... Cristi767 (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Our personal opinions really don't count. Its what the sources say that counts. I will wait a little longer for the debate to continue and make an edit per what everyone agrees to that is within Wikipedia policy designations. EkoGraf (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

In my personal opinion one cannot keep their personal opinions from influencing his work. IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Concur with EkoGraf. We don't run ahead of the game. Let's see what more sources have to say on the matter and, if it is warranted, make adjustments if they are needed.

@IHasBecauseOfLocks: Actually, by applying logic, as well as the well thought out policies and guidelines to which we are obliged to adhere, it is possible to make an honest job of trying to be neutral. Many of the editors here have personal positions, disagree with each other on various points, but manage to collaborate well in recognition each other's experience skill and ability to develop good faith content.

@Cristi767: "What if" does not factor into content. You're pre-empting sourced content and treating this as WP:CRYSTAL. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it could be mentioned in the bulk of the article. To be mentioned in the infobox, since neither Polish nor American paramilitaries are listed would be weird, I guess.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

My personal opinion is actually pretty neutral, but yes, if someone's personal opinion is not neutral it is wrong. IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Just as a small note, to be neutral is also a personal position. My own personal position actually changed (though not from one extreme side to the other extreme side) with the development of the unrest and later of the armed rebellion, but I think that's not unnatural. To have less neutral personal opinions is not wrong, if one's contributions for the article are objective and well-sourced.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: During the conflict there were many unrealistic claims from both sides. And that's just propaganda. The numbers were not confirmed by anything and even the authors never come back to them. We can mention in the article, but i think in the infobox we should pay more attention to the numbers. Cristi767 (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cristi767: Attention has been paid to the numbers in the infobox by EkoGraf, who has been using reliable sources for the WP:CALC on this and all of the related articles since their inception. He provided sources and his methodology months ago, and it is a waste of his time and energy having to go through it over and over again every time someone new involves themselves in the article and challenges his figures. Please read WP:AGF as relates to his stats and the fact that ongoing contributors are entirely satisfied with the veracity of his hard work. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I appreciate all his work :-) Cristi767 (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Another number has been reported on in a mainstream news source from Pavel Gubarev, claiming 8,000 dead losses on the government side. I've added it to the infobox and also added the number above, as they seem quite similar and are obviously part of a coordinated narrative on the part of the insurgents. Also, since I raised the issue, there don't seem to have been any significant objections raised against including the numbers except that "they're unlikely". However, there has been no objective report on military deaths from either side - the numbers claiming only a few hundred deaths are based on sources entirely from the Ukrainian government, who have just as much of an incentive to minimize casualty figures as the insurgents have to maximize them. Therefore, I feel it is more helpful to include both sets of figures, and to make it clear in the infobox which "side" they both come from. Esn (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree to the addition of separatist claims of military losses until a more neutral source shows up. EkoGraf (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That's the most unrealistic figure I've heard of so far, regarding military conflicts. If this was even remotely true, the Ukrainian operation wouldn't have been only ceased by now due to complete depletion of military capacities, a long time ago in fact, but Kiev would have been forced to aknowledge total defeat and accept seperation of Donbass not being able to hold any single position they hold now there. Despite succesful attempts from insurgents side to deal some significant damage to the Ukrainian army, those losses couldn't have been more than several hundred people ( added some few hundred more to gov figures ). This definitly needs some clarificatios and clean up. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think its crazy to include this figure, it far exceeds any independent total of deaths in the War to date, let alone for one side. The number of dead foreign fighters is not plausible, if it was even a fraction of this it would have been picked up by some other non-Russian news source. The whole thing should be excluded .Daithicarr (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Please show me an "independent total of deaths". Does one exist which does not rely on sources from either the Ukrainian military or the insurgents? In this interview on a Ukrainian news site, a Ukrainian soldier discusses how the official death tally from one operation was lowered by a factor of six from the true number by the authorities, and expresses extreme skepticism about the official "380 dead" number (English translation here). Relevant quotes:

Question: When they say that we have 380 dead during the ATO, should we believe this?

(skeptical silence)

Question: Then how many times more?

Answer: I don’t know, but it’s certainly not 380.

Question: Because you only saw with your own eyes …

Answer: Myself, I did not see that many. Here is a real-life example. I was able to speak to a pilot who transported the dead. Together with the wounded, he transported 64 men. But the majority of them were “200s” [Note: Killed in Action / KIA]! There were no black bags, and the bodies were simply piled up on each other. He said that he barely washed the blood from the plane. And on TV they said that on that day there were only 10 “200s”.

Esn (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, the number is for dead and wounded, not just dead. The current official Ukrainian government number is 2118 dead and wounded, I think. The insurgent number is just under 4 times higher. Esn (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

In this interview with a Ukrainian soldier (English translation here, he claims that there are "at least 4000" dead on the government side. Should the number be put in the article somewhere? Esn (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"Insurgents" or "separatists"?

I notice that "insurgents" in the infobox has been changed to "separatists". Are they separatists, though? On the one hand, some of the top political figures wanted to join Russia, or at the very least separate from the rest of Ukraine. On the other hand, their military leaders such as Igor Girkin/Strelkov and Igor Bezler keep saying in interviews that their eventual goal is to "liberate Kiev". Esn (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"Separatist" is a political statement, whereas "insurgent" is merely a description of their actions. Therefore, regardless of whether they are "separatist" or not, they are still insurgents. Therefore, "insurgents" is to be preferred. RGloucester — ☎ 18:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

OSCE Spokesman Says Wrong to Call Ukraine's Independence Supporters "Separatists" --81.23.192.246 (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, 81.23.192.246, but we don't use neutral terms according to only one body's interpretation of it. 'Rebels' has been used in the English language press for more than a decade as a loaded term denoting a negative perspective. As insurgency defines a militant movement against a sovereign state (i.e., the sovereign state being Ukraine), 'insurrection' (insurgents) against a lawful nation-state is more neutral than 'rebellion' (rebels). It may sound strange because 'rebellion' is also a neutral term, but the use of the terms 'rebels' has been subject to POV spin-doctoring far more prominently than 'insurgents' (see the use of Afghani rebels, Syrian rebels, etc. Pay particular attention to the Wikipedia article List of active rebel groups which is being challenged for multiple issues). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"Rebels' has been used in the English language press for more than a decade as a loaded term denoting a negative perspective" - sorry, what? It seems to me like it's the exact opposite. "Rebel" is a positive term in English, particularly in the US. Nobody was at all ashamed about supporting the "Syrian rebels", hence why Syrian state media from the beginning insisted on calling them all "terrorists" instead, and gradually saw their narrative become accepted (likely where Ukraine got the idea from). Remember who the good guys were in Star Wars? Remember how popular music artists have been admired for being "rebels" since at least the post-war period? Remember how the whole American self-image is based upon their rebellion against British rule, and how the American public is so eager to see their own history echoed elsewhere that they support many populist regime change efforts in foreign countries? Esn (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Rebel. adj not obeying Synonyms. insurgent rebellious revolutionary insubordinate insurrectionary mutinous

separatist. noun dissenter. Synonyms. rebel dissident protester heretic objector [3] SaintAviator lets talk 08:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

We can debate about what's the proper term, but fact is, per the sources, only a small number call them insurgents. Most call them ether separatists or rebels. But insurgents, only a few. And per WP policy, we go with the common name. EkoGraf (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's nonsense. WP:UCN is for the titles of articles, and has nothing to do with our prose, which is governed by the Manual of Style and WP:NPOV. Regardless, the idea that "insurgents" is used only by a "few" is also nonsense. It is used by such illustrious sources as Amnesty International. RGloucester — ☎ 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Eko there is no mention in the battle-box of the 370-460 ukranian soldiers that crossed the border with russia, are they captured, Missing or AWOL??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

They're both insurgents and separatists. Sources mentioning them as separatists: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10769805/Ukrainian-troops-confront-pro-Russian-separatists.html ; http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/07/22/malaysia-plane-crash-promotes-ukraine-separatist-cause/12986971/ ; http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26fe789c-126e-11e4-a581-00144feabdc0.html#axzz39kMTlJTR ; http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/29/us-ukraine-crisis-arms-specialreport-idUSKBN0FY0UA20140729 ; http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/pro-russian-separatists-in-eastern-ukraine-were-nobodies--until-now/2014/04/30/c504e687-cc7a-40c3-a8bb-7c1b9cf718ac_story.html . Sources mentioning them as insurgents: http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/05/ukraine-insurgents-disrupt-medical-services ; http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/06/30/ukraines-president-faces-decision-on-cease-fire/11751477/ ; http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine-abroad/reuters-rejecting-poroshenko-east-ukraine-insurgents-say-fight-will-go-on-351053.html ; http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-presses-offensive-against-pro-russia-insurgents-1.2696953 . I chose some articles by random, from sources that I consider reliable.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Esn, you seem to be talking of the use of an encyclopaedic lexicon as if we were writing a Hollywood script (AKA 'you can tell we're the good guys because we're wearing the white 10 gallon hats'). It seems that you're presenting an argument for the use of 'rebels' in order to align pro-Russian forces as positive reinforcement of their actions. If you being objective, why are you arguing for what you evidently believe to be a POV representation? We're not writing a script for the US government's position, the Ukrainian government's position, or for someone you want to present as being the righteous underdog. NPOV means NPOV. Incidentally, the US won independence through a revolution, not a rebellion. The terminology for the American Revolution was ascribed long before "Star Wars". Unless you have a crystal ball, we have no idea of what descriptors will be used in future research. Anyone for a pack of 'freedom fries' during intermission? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Lol Jumbo size please. SaintAviator lets talk 23:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, per WP policy, common name is the one we need to go with, and the most commonly used term for them is separatist or rebels. Insurgents is also used but not as much as the other two. EkoGraf (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Mr Graf, did you read my post above, or are you being dense? I shall quote, for your convenience: "WP:UCN is for the titles of articles, and has nothing to do with our prose, which is governed by the Manual of Style and WP:NPOV". RGloucester — ☎ 13:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

What? I honestly don't care if the article uses "rebels", "insurgents" or "separatists". You simply made what I thought was an obviously false statement (that "rebels" is a negative term in English) and I argued that you were wrong. You're over-thinking things. Esn (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian-Russian war?

Are there enough sources referring to this for what it is, as a Ukrainian-Russian war? OSW ran a piece recently being blunt about it. [4]. Many other sources refer to it as "war between Ukraine and Russian-backed militants" or a "hybrid" or "proxy" war between the two countries. [5] [6] [7] [8] --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 15:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's mentioned in the "labelling of the conflict" section. However, it is not suitable for the lead section, as it is PoV and in heavy dispute. RGloucester — ☎ 15:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. This war is between the pro Russia camp and the pro EU AKA Euro Maidan camp. It is not between Russia and Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Biased pro-ukrainian sources close for war propaganda. 94.45.129.180 (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. I see only western or pro-ukraine sources claiming it is a Ukrainian-Russian war. With no undisputable evidence of Russian boots on the ground, I don't see how this could be classified as such. 89.215.172.157 (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)BLGR

There is plenty of evidence that Russian boots are on the ground and Grads firing over the border. It's indisputable at this point. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 20:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The CNN source shows pictures of Russian troops that allegedly are in the Donbass region, but it also states that it can't idependently verify the photographs. So, before there is any confirmation of movements with that sort of dimension, I'm opposed to either renaming the article or changing the description of the Russian role in the conflict.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Such a title (or WP:UNDUE speculation) is not only WP:FRINGE, but quite simply complete bollocks. Did the Russian Federation enter into a war with Ukraine while I was sleeping? What on earth does anyone imagine a "Ukrainian-Russian war" means? As pointed out by RGloucester, that's fine for the labelling, but blatantly silly for an encyclopaedic article. For further elucidation, see WP:TITLE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. On a side note, since we're talking about the title (glad to see that editors have come around to calling this a war), "War in Donbass" is not entirely satisfactory, since according to WP, Donbass includes the Rostov region of the Russian Federation. I don't know if this point has been raised before; I'm just mentioning it for the record. I think an implication of your comment is that this is a civil war, so I personally think that something like "Post-Soviet Ukrainian civil war" would be a better title, but I guess that that's just me. – Herzen (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Tim Montgomerie lead writer from The Times of London: "In other news: Ukraine and Russia appear to be at war" [9] Still undue and fringe? --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 16:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The proper name "Ukrainian-Russian War" is still not supported by sources, and would be the wrong formation anyway. The correct one would be Russo-Ukrainian War. Regardless, whether Ukraine and Russia are at war is a separate matter from whether "Russo-Ukrainian War" is used by sources to describe the conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 16:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

so if it's used by sources it's not "undie fringe complete bollocks", correct? And if used, why is it not shown as an alt in the intro section along with the other variants? --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 16:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If that name was used by reliable sources, then yes, it would be. But it isn't. Even if people discuss Russia and Ukraine being at war, it has not yet been commonly called the "Russo-Ukrainian War" or variants of that. RGloucester — ☎ 16:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Canada sends military equipment to Ukraine

See this CBC article. Does this mean that Canada should be added under a "supported by" heading in the infobox? How much support is necessary in order for a country to be mentioned as being a "supporter" of one side? Esn (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is for direct parties to the conflict, not for those who provide aid. RGloucester — ☎ 14:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

In that case either:

1) "Supported by" loses its meaning in all other articles.

2) Russia must be removed from infobox as is by no means a direct party to the conflict.

The _only_ independently verified involvement of RU up to now, were several shootings from Ukraine to Russian territory confirmed by OBSE which was present at the time of the events. Plus it a allowing in of a couple hundred thousand refugees. All claims of any shooting from RU to UA or other active involvement were so far purely by Kiev-aligned entities and were never _independently_ verified. Note that despite many warnings/complaints about russian deployments, not even NATO or US claimed RU actually intervened.46.39.169.168 (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about this further, Russia is in the infobox of this article since *before* it became a civil war - probably shows the difference of claiming someone supports an anti-gov political group - which was true in March/April - there public support in media etc. counts. And what meaning is assigned to an infobox of a Civil WAR. On this ground it should be removed *or* EU, Canada and US have to eb added as provably provide actuall military assistance - hence sharing of satelite intelligence admitted by US officials recently.46.39.169.168 (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If anything, Russia should be removed from the supporters section. Unless the Russian government publicly states that it is providing military equipment to Donbas, Russia is not a party in the conflict. Sure, many Russians personally donate to support militia in Donbas, but they are not government. The US and Canadian governments openly state that they supply military equipment to Ukraine, so the US and Canada should be listed as supporters of Ukraine. Yes, the US government claims, notice the word claims, to have satellite images showing Russian involvement in the war, but it does not prove that the Russian government is involved.

Not how it works. We go by what reliable sources say, and reliable sources say that Russia is a direct party to the conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 15:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.117.198 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If by reliable sources you mean western sources, then yes. There's been no real evidence shown, other than fake satellite photos.

You can't simply state that giving military equipment is considered support if you're Russia, but not if you're NATO.

http://rt.com/news/179136-nato-plane-arrives-ukraine/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

I always say, innocence till proven guilty. There is no proof that the Russian government is involved in the conflict. There may be evidence from the Ukrainian and the US governments, but evidence is not proof. I'm sorry but this is the way Western law works. Russia should be removed from the infobox, whilst the US and Canada should be added to the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.117.198 (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Another article claiming the same thing as the CBC link. 89.215.172.157 (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)BLGR

Every single of those "RS" articles reference as source of claim an entity aligned directly with the Government/Kiev side of the conflict. They never claim to be a "primary" source of the report. This is signifficant as the WP article currenly is turning Reuter's "Kiev said xxx." into WPs "It is xxx.". That is an (I hope intintentional) abuse of WP:RS and smells much more like WP:OR to me.46.39.169.168 (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Spanish volunteers

There are some Spanish people in Vostok Battailon. --79.157.214.243 (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Spanish volunteers? Wouldn't they be Ukrainian or Russian migrants in Spain? (since there are sizeable communities from these 2 countries in Spain). I ignore what would be the interest of Spanish people going to fight on the behalf of the insurgents, but if you have any source, mention it, please!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)::

They are Spanish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0K3-KEqyIY&list=UUdnB82ob_V7EXwwcCtB1vUg

Well, they look Spanish, they have a Spanish accent or very similar. It might be mentioned, though youtube videos alone are generally not considered as sources.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

3 Spanish left wing guys (those are the ones I see in the video and the photo of the source that was edited) are enough for Spanish volunteers to be included? I only can see 3! I wouldn't be surprised if they were Basque or Catalonian separatists willing to help their fellow separatists in Ukraine... But they don't seem to be so. Though, we have to take into account that Spain is now one of the 3 most Eurosceptic countries in the EU (along with Britain and Greece), and a large percentage has voted for very left wing parties in the last European Election... That might be a possible motivation.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Certainly doesn't belong in the infobox. RGloucester — ☎ 20:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester:Sure, I agree and I'll correct that if it wasn't corrected yet. 3 Spanish guys certainly don't belong in the infobox.--Mondolkiri1(Talk) 21:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

According to what I've read, those Spanish volunteers are there with the reported motivation of returning favors from the Russian (Soviet by that time) International Brigades fighting against Franco during the Spanish Civil War, between 1936 and 1939, on the behalf of the Spanish Republic. Many Spanish refugees were accepted in the UK, Soviet Union, Mexico and probably in other countries as well, but many of the refugees that fled to Russia or their descendants returned to Spain, when the economic crisis in Russia during the 90s hit them harshly. These could possibly be some of the descendants of those refugees from the Spanish Civil War.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

SERBIAN VOLUNTEERS:

there is no confirmed report or information of any Serbian volunteers fighting for Ukrainian side. Statement from Serbian prime minister is not based on any intelligence data or confirmation. It's simply a political statement with purpose to reduce any kind of potential pressure on Serbia because of volunteers who are making it to Ukraine to support separatists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.56.91 (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Your observations may be correct, but you have written them on a discussion about Spanish (not Serbian) volunteers. Could you write it somewhere else, please?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I would if i knew how to create a new talk subject. Anyway i do not know what happened with my revision. However, the statement that Serbian PM made was not confirmed even by Serbian intelligence or anybody else in the world for that matter, nor was a single individual identified fighting as volunteer on Ukrainian side. Hence, his statement is nothing but a missinformation for political and diplomatic purposes, intended to reduce pressure on his government for it's neglect of that subject, the subject of mercenaries and volunteers being allowed to go and fight on foreign soil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.18.94 (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian parliament sources claim over 10,000 killed in Donbas, including thousands of Ukrainian soldiers

http://rt.com/news/179048-ten-thousand-killed-ukraine/

It is known that hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers have been confirmed to have got killed in Donbas. This number consists of soldiers whose bodies were recovered from areas of battle and identified and soldiers who have died of wounds while in treatment. However, most of the time, bodies of soldiers are not recovered, bodies of soldiers were recovered but have decomposed and therefore cannot be identified, and soldiers were executed and whose bodies were not recovered. These soldiers are all listed as missing. It is not known how many Ukrainian soldiers are missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.117.198 (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

RT is not considered a reliable source. Also, this is not "Ukrainian parliaments sources" saying this, it's a group of 34 MPs who made a faction a month ago comprised of Communists, former Yanukovych stalwarts, and Crimean MPs who now have no electorate. This is a horrible source, likely made up. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 20:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There have been long discussions about whether RT is a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_173#Russia_Today. Esn (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

RT is just as reliable as BBC or any other state media source. No source can be "banned" from Wikipedia, don't even bother with your obvious russophobia, as it has no place here.

89.215.172.157 (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)BLGR

Whether RT is reliable or not isn't really the point, because in this case the source is actually the Ukrainian MPs. And our personal opinions based on whether they are Communists, Yanukovych supporters, etc do not actually count on Wikipedia which is based on neutrality per which we are obliged to present both sides POV, regardless of our personal feelings and opinions. EkoGraf (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I confess I've had a really hard time about POV from both sides. But each one accuses the other as being POV. Both Russian and Ukrainian sources are accepted are fine. It's like the Heisenberg principle in physics. In this case, the more we know about the movement of a particle, the less we know about its location and vice-versa. The Ukrainian and Russian sources are also likely the sources that have more information about the events, but at the same time are the most biased ones.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"The Ukrainian and Russian sources are also likely the sources that have more information about the events, but at the same time are the most biased ones." - that's exactly it. Though I would say "Ukrainian and Novorussian/Russian", since some of the analysis coming out of Russia is pretty vague as well (many parts of Russia are much further from the front line than Kiev). Esn (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Map Issues

This map has some issues. Number one, when did luhansk and donetsk republics re-connect? The official map published on August 8 (when the changes were made) said nothing of the sort. A lot of maps i have read do not say so.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

We should put back the English map. RGloucester — ☎ 13:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I agree. We just need to update it a little.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I've requested help from a user that usually is good at maps, and by now is updating maps concerning to ISIS, but he or she has already made some work concerning to the conflict in Ukraine.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

They were never really disconnected. The communications links were contested but never really lost as far as I can gather from reports. The map used previously was a screen of the Government map basically anyway. A WP-origined map like in Syria is probably called-for to be updated only after independent reports or both sides confirm a change, not jumping ahead and backtracking next day as is now.46.39.169.168 (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. The contributor on Wiki Commons who was updating the government screen on a daily basis has not done so since the end of July. As s/he has been keeping up with updating another language version of the map, we're hoping that they'll get on top of updating the English language map ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I meant the map was prematurely updated at end of July and (since) then, kept as is. It was based on Ukraine/Kiev official presso map and was incorrect then, though that was not obvious until several days after the publishing. Hence my note of prematurely taking one sides info at face value. If anything, the area in the center should have been marked as contested, but in no case as "under Gov control" juts because the gov said so. In hindsight, "reports" can be included as soon a reported (as can be acompanied by who claimed so). Map should be updated only after independent verification or both sides claiming same only. Same as is policy in other conflicts. First casualty of war is invariably the truth.

My 2 cents.195.212.29.88 (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Units involved

Chechen, North Ossetian, Ingush and Don Cossacks are actually Russian forces. It could be hide in some subsection of "Russian" (Units involved\Foreign volunteers\). Realmentat (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried to make that alteration weeks ago but it was reverted. Esn (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

They are not in the "English" sense here. They are on the "(Novo)Russian" side. But they are not on the Russian (as in RF) side. That is why it was reverted - while probably true/clear to a person from the region who understands the nuance, that distintion is by no means clear to an outside english speaking observer. Also while on (Novo)Russian side, they are by no means "Russians". Well, except he Cossacks who are (by definition) a special class of a Russian culture (both in Unkraine and Russia). Trying to merge these into "Russian" is like trying to mergen 'Spanish', 'French' and 'English Noblemen' into "European". Just best to be avoided. :) Last note, while it is to be debated - and to be seen - only the Ukraine government portrays the conflict as "Ukrainian vs. Russian". The other side portrays it as "Nazi vs. Inhabitants of Ukraine". Truth being probably somewhere in between obviously. We shall blindly accept neither side's narrative.46.39.169.168 (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

They're from the Russian Federation, but they're not ethnically Russians (probably apart from the Cossacks). And Russians are already mentioned, anyway.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Casualty figures seem unreliable-especially the "1-2 militia killed"

Casualty figures seem unreliable-especially the "1-2 militia killed", if you count even Ukrainian reports about military and militia deaths they go far above what is currently sourced. Especially the militia part, even the pro-Kiev militia units reported sometimes as many as 12 dead on single day.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Pro EU volunteer fighters, once killed, rarely get counted in the killed count. Their bodies are typically not recovered and identified. Once captured by Pro Russia folks, they are typically executed and their bodies dumped somewhere where they get decomposed beyond recognition. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/29/-sp-ukraine-rebel-igor-bezler-interview-demon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.117.198 (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The 1-2 militia dead refers to 1 or 2 Right Sector militants that were killed before all volunteer militias were integrated into the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs or Territorial Defense units under the command of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry. Now, all of the volunteer militiamen are counted in the daily death toll reports given by the Ukrainian security spokesman where they are simply referred to as Ukrainian soldiers or servicemen. EkoGraf (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This is weak. I agree with MyMoloboaccount that the "1-2 militia killed" is especially weak. We should stick less with the labeling delivered by the Ukrainian government and more with the common sense. No one is going to understand these casualties correctly as they are now. This is an important part in an infobox in the top of the article. People who are going to start to read the article will probably just read this in the first place and will not read much more. And guess what. Try to think like someone who don't have knowledge of EkoGraf. After reading this top stuff in our article about casualties they will judge that the vast majority of Ukrainian forces are regular soldiers based on this casualties info. But what is the truth? Probably completely different. I have even read that the vast majority of Ukrainian fighters are paramilitaries.

But of course it is hard to tell and count the bodies for now. We have different arguing sources. So try to keep it in mind for a time. IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It`s outdated information actual at the beginning of April 94.45.129.180 (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you mean August? IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong place for WP:CALC. We stick to official sources. Guestimates are WP:OR. My thanks to EkoGraf for keeping stats on track. The usage of expression like "seem unreliable" and "But what is the truth? Probably completely different." demonstrate your own WP:POV. Your doubts are simply your doubts. You're welcome to them, but they are not encyclopaedic. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia is defenietely not a good encyclopedia when it is misleading and is not representative. WP:POV means not sticking only to sources provided by one side of the conflict, even if this side is internationally recognized as the owner of the territory this war is taking place. This does not mean it is the only good source of informations on the Wikipedia. And we are not talking about guestimates, but about misleading labeling of facts. The leading German think tank German Institute for International and Security Affairs issued a paper about Ukrainian forces engaged. I am not fluent in German, so it will take time for me, but it suposedly says that the vast majority of Ukrainian fighters are paramilitaries. http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/aktuell/2014A52_kle_pst.pdf IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Therefore, how do you propose to work out how many are paramilitary fighters, how many are regular army, and what numbers of which have been killed? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to find more different sources firstly. And I think that more imporant is to give a less precise estimate of casualties, but less misleading. When it comes to conflicts in the third world some international institutions publish their estimates about casualties count and it would be good to include them when they will be published about Ukraine. P.S. I do not want to say the third world includes Ukraine. IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a big problem with the casualty numbers in the infobox - people keep changing them without fixing the citations. There does not seem to be a section on overall casualties in the conflict. (If there is, sorry, but I failed to find it.) Maybe there should be. This could record whatever method is being used to build up or update the casualty figures. What is currently going on in the info-box for casualties is hard to verify.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC) 62.152.228.6 (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)I would say there are far more dead ukraine fighters than is stated here. 2200 injured and just 600 killed? A bit disproported.. Also after all those flops we already saw by ukraine army on videos, pictures provided by the separatits forces i think that the dead tool may be in thousands right now... Also the 1-2 militants killed is reduced. On the video from 11 august we saw 13 right sector fighters dead and that organisation even commented about it62.152.228.6 (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think most people suspect that numbers are underestimated. But currently the Wikipedia has pretty much rules about validation of sources. IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Casualties of separatists

650 killed separatists is too low. I guess it should be few thousands right now. Anyway the government even doesn't give exact numbers because it cannot count them.

Pro Russia folks do not keep track of casualty. Pro EU folks only report how many of their folks were confirmed killed, that is, bodies recovered and identified or died of wounds. Missing soldiers are likely more than confirmed killed soldiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but government and pro-government sources often give information about killed rebels. According to them there are several thousands of them. Maybe we should write about it? Something like "Several thousand killed" (according to the government) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a good idea. Unless you want to put it under "Government Propaganda". I remember myself reports of about 20.000+ "dead" insurgents ... only quickly thinking of official reports I can recollect. Information war.46.39.169.168 (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The highly suspect separatist claims of almost 8,000 dead and wounded plus 3,500 missing are under casualty's,either they should be removed or the governments claims should be added for sake of balance. Daithicarr (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Government claims should probably be added, if available. Can you find a source of a senior official making a claim about the number of dead insurgents? As for the "3,500 missing" claims, that is not a separatist claim and is wrongly labeled as such in the infobox. It is actually a claim from Russian state media, allegedly from a senior Ukrainian official. Esn (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You can look sources in the Ukrainian wiki. It gives number 3000+ killed rebels and sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC) It seems a plausible number given the rebels supposedly claimed 1,000 dead before the last ceasefire and the fighting has been much heavier since. http://www.interpretermag.com/pro-russian-separatists-say-their-fighters-death-toll-has-reached-1000/ Can I just cite the Ukranina wiki or should I cite each of the articles on the Ukranina wiki? Also in Ukranian (or Russian, im not sure). Daithicarr (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Separatits have been boosting their casualties before the truce in order to pressure Russia to intervene, portraying situation as more dramatic. Now that Russian intervention seems more unlikely, they've stopped doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.15.2 (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian army casualty update

568 killed and 2,120 wounded

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2014/08/11/world/europe/11reuters-ukraine-crisis-casualties-government.html?ref=world&_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link i have already changed that numbers. But its pending aproval, however what surprise me most its the high number of missing over 3,000. How could this happened are they deserters, dead, or captured. Sounds more like they simply desserted but the number of dead its high althought.

Missing soldiers include those who were captured and executed and whose bodies were never returned. In the heat of battle, it is often not possible to extract every wounded soldier, so many wounded soldiers were left behind and counted as missing. Many soldiers deserted and fled to Russia or they defected and joined the pro Russia camp.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.48.214.19 (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Missing soldiers

This number of 3500 missing soldiers doesn't seem to be taken from the reliable source. Anyway government says nothing about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

50 000 Ukrainian soldiers in ATO

http://www.ukrinform.ua/eng/news/pm_yatseniuk_some_50000_military_participate_in_ato_325180 Update the page please

I would take that with a grain of salt. The entire Ukrainian army had about 57,000 personnel in total back in 2012. As of April 2014 that number likely shrunk quite a bit due to lack of funds, likely no more than 40,000 personnel. It is doubtful the Ukrainian government even have money to deploy more than 20,000 personnel given the huge casualties inflicted on the Ukrainian military every single day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that you underestimate Ukrainian economy and especially volunteers' help. There were three waves of mobilization and many territorial battalions created. Anyway Arsenij Yatseniuk says that there are 50 000 people in ATO and I think this is quite a reliable source to give the information in the article.

He's giving a very rough estimation of how many personnel are deployed. Some 50,000 can be anywhere from say 10,000 to say 100,000. Every time the Ukrainian government gives an estimate, it should be take with a grain of salt, like how they claim a single airstrike takes out 1,000 pro Russia folks. How many of those mobilized actually came? You get my point. Even back in 2012 when Ukraine's economy was much better, the army only had some 50,000 personnel. After two years of economic nose dive, I doubt the Ukrainian military could deploy more than 20,000 personnel. The Ukrainian military has lost just about all of its air power and a big chunk of its armored vehicles and artillery. They only had some 40,000 rifles, and by now likely no more than 20,000 rifles left. Even if a million Ukrainian men are mobilized, what are they going to be armed with? Kitchen knives?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you the hell talking about? Ukraine has great number of weapons left from the USSR. I saw numbers from 800 000 to 4 000 000 AKM/AK-74 rifles. Same with BTR-70/BTR-80/T-64 etc. I'm surprised that you know so little about Ukrainian military. Also, talking about money. Military budget 2014 is much bigger than in 2012. Also National Guard uses budget of the police. Also simple ukrainian people keep giving money to the war. And about Yatzeniuk... He said exactly what he said. (in Ukrainian language). "50 000 guys take part in the ATO today". It is the closest translation from Ukrainian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Not sure where your getting that data from, the small arms survey and other sources place the Ukrainian small arms stockpile at 7,000,000 pieces (not 40,000) they had the 4th largest in the world in 2013 ,http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/H-Research_Notes/SAS-Research-Note-34.pdf , most independent analyst puts the size of the Ukrainian armed forces over the 100,000 mark, normally 130,000-150,000. Thats before the current crisis and the establishment of volunteer brigades and the calling up of reserves. Plus they have a massive stockpile of ex soviet military equipment which could be pressed back in to service. So 50,000 is plausible. Daithicarr (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A good graphical breakdown of Ukrainian casualties through August 10

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/victims-of-war-infographic-360259.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't say so. This, like many other articles cited, are very biased. They even state that this is "russias war against Ukraine".

In general the massive citing of the Ukrainian yellow press needs to stop. This article and the timeline are turning into Ukrainian propaganda. 89.215.172.157 (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)BLGR

Cossack paramilitary info off target

I've removed the link to a spurious recent article entitled "Registered Cossacks of the Russian Federation" from the Pro-Russian insurgents section subtitled "Cossacks". In the first instance, the use of "cossack" in the reports is predominantly about extremist neo-cons who self-identify as being "cossacks". This makes them about as much cossacks as someone donning a 10 gallon hat and calling themselves a "cowboy". Very few of the population in the ethnic groups known as cossacks have anything to do with the modern-day registered troops. Again, saying that "Don Cossacks" (the traditional ethnic group) and other "cossacks" is the equivalent of stating that the Cherokee and other tribes are on the warpath again. This isn't WWI, and Putin isn't the Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias. Presenting individual participants who've been identified as being Don Cossacks and neo-Cossacks as being "Cossacks" is ethnically offensive, misleading WP:SYNTH. The sources don't present their presence in this manner, or merely observe that in interviewing someone he's identified as being a "cossack"... therefore, I suggest that Wikipedia does the same. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I confess, I don't know much about the present state of the Cossacks in Russia, only about their history. What exactly makes a "Cossack" a "Cossack" in modern Russia? Is historical usage different from present usage? If an article says that "Don Cossacks" flying the "Don Cossack flag" are doing x, does it not mean "ethnic Don Cossacks", but merely "volunteer members of a troop commissioned by the government"? RGloucester — ☎ 01:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Essentially, Cossacks ceased to be a genuine military power during the early formation of the Soviet Union (see Decossackization just as a brief outline). The ethnic groups live in reserves and their economy is based on tourism and entertainment (choirs, dancing groups, old-time martial arts displays such as 'trick' horseback riding, etc.). Essentially, they are remnants of the existence their old hosts. Even the fact that Don Cossacks claim allegiance to Russia, while many Kuban Cossacks see their allegiance to lie with Ukraine and wouldn't settle on a truce between themselves is purely tokenism. Certainly, many are still trained in old-school guerilla warfare and go on military parade in their traditional military uniforms, but they are not the modern registered "cossacks" seen at Sochi, for example. The modern troops are namesakes. Of course there are die-hard militants amongst them who are making a show of flying the Don Cossack flag and collecting like-minded fanatics (i.e., wannabe cossacks) under the banner and fighting for "Mother Russia". So far, only a few have actually been identified as being from the Don Cossack ethnic group. Sorry, but any moron can fly a flag and self-identify as representatives of a glorified hark back to the past. Having checked sources in Russian, Ukrainian, the BBC report and others, only a handful of individuals have been identified. The rest of these ordinary extremists have called themselves 'Terek Wolves Sotnia' (another hark back which certainly does not identify them as being ethnic cossacks in anyone's minds but their own). Hope this helps to clarify a little. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. To be frank, though, I don't know how to resolve this situation. Do you have any suggestions? Regardless, I'll wait for others to comment. RGloucester — ☎ 05:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Per the German version of the Registered Cossacks of the Russian Federation, "The Cossack organizations see themselves as successors of the former Russian Cossacks of Tsarist Russia with the President of the Russian Federation as their new commander in the rank of a Cossack-General." I haven't read the Russian article properly as yet, but it also has links to the wrong Cossack organisations (that is, the genuine ethnic groups with news about their latest concert tours, ad infinitum). As far as I'm aware, they don't have the right to use the flags of the hosts they're named after (i.e., the flags belong to the genuine descendants). It's a tricky one as, by referencing the current registered units (such as with the flight 17 audio) and the Don Cossack flag in the infobox, we're conflating completely different realities. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

We could say "Registered Don Cossacks", but I'm not sure that would alleviate your concern. RGloucester — ☎ 14:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite the antithesis: Registered Don Cossacks are the modern namesakes. There is no direct evidence of the Registered Don Cossack presence, just suspicions of their presence. They could quite easily be wandering around in their cool camouflage civies looking like all of the other neo-cons who like dressing up as serious paramilitaries and taking 'selfies' brandishing all of their equally cool weaponry while pulling "I'm a hard man" faces which have been lifted from their facebook page. That's speculative as it is denied by the RF. The use of the historical Don Cossack flag is, however, extremely confusing for anyone who doesn't know the difference (which appears to be most of the world). As already noted, the use of the flag along with a few identified individuals is unjustifiable. The majority of the Don Cossack ethnic group are staying at home and have no interest in involving themselves, much less dying for, some "Russian" cause. I can find a few quotes from high ranking members of the community expressing exactly this. The members of the ethnic group there are essentially mavericks and, as such, are not representative of the peoples they belong to. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

In other words, the "Don Cossacks" should be removed from the infobox. I believe that the section of "Cossacks" below can be expanded to explain what you mean, but I think it is best that you handle that, if you can. RGloucester — ☎ 01:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

As no one else seems to be engaged on this matter, I'll start by removing the Don Cossacks and flag from the infobox referring interested parties to the talk page. The Cossack section doesn't need much tweaking, but I'll leave that for now as I'm off on a vigil again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Final note on the subject of Cossacks: after carefully checking over numerous articles regarding any legitimate information as to a Cossack presence, I discovered that the two identified 'leaders' who have joined as independents are Kuban Cossacks, not Don Cossacks. Further to that, they're simply using the Terek Wolves allusion in a WP:FRINGE manner: i.e., claiming that the renegade group continued to exist after their leader (a Kuban Cossack) was executed for war crimes based on high level Nazi collaboration. These 2 identified Cossacks are known for their involvement in the Terek Cossack community. What we have here is a mish-mash of presentation as 'Cossacks'; boasts about being able to just cross the border easily with Cossack passports; non-Slavic journalists trying to explain what is going on while they, themselves, report that they don't actually understand what Cossacks are, and are probably more confused than they were; etc. The majority of 'reports' contradict each other, are mirrors of other blogs, and are confusing issues by essentially mythologising the heroic image of the "Russian" Cossack-warrior. Honestly, it all reads like a Ripping Yarn plot for a video game. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Right Sector fighters killed should not be listed as soldiers killed

They are not part of the government and do not count as servicemen. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-death-toll-doubles-to-more-than-2-000-1.2735027— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of Russian media

I would suggest that Russia-based media are highly suspect in general, and even more so in this article. Is there a consensus on such matters? I ask because of the reference to http://rumedia.biz/item/3037. MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

There used to be several other sources - there were two articles with quotes from other insurgent leaders, claiming that the number of Russians was around 10% rather than 15%. They were removed some time ago, leaving only this one source; I'm not sure who did it or why. Note also that one of the sources for the "up to 80%" number claims that the "low estimate" is 20% - not far from that 15% number. Esn (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

We have Ukrainian press calling the rebels "terrorists" and Russia an "invader" being cited all the time.

If Ukrainian anti-Russian media is considered reliable, then so is Russian media such as RT. 89.215.172.157 (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)BLGR

There was a source with the figure of 10% but, as it was already from 29 April, another user removed that source and I also found it outdated. Then there was another source (more updated, from 16 July) with the figure of 10% ([10]) but I think those 10% are only concerning to all the combatants fighting in Horlivka, according to what I've read (and the translation I've got from it).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, 90% is the Horlivka (only) commander's estimate of the number of locals involved (although it doesn't really define what he considers to be local people, so I'd be concerned that his statement is too generalised for Horlivka unless there's another source to backing it up. Have you managed to find any more recent estimates that might indicate other figures? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Russia: Leading or supporting role in the War in Donbass?

Since there is a user that constantly insists that Russia has a leading role in the conflict (in the infobox, at the level of DPR and LPR), rather than a supporting role, I'd like to ask what are the positions of the editors concerning to that issue, at this stage.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Supporting only (and the extent of the support is low level). If this weren't the case, the world's media would have been on it like a rash. Have you seen anything in reliable sources that even suggests anything other than support? The RF isn't about to commit political suicide. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Iryna, how can you say the "extent of the support is low" when Russia has supplied the Novorossia side with all of its heavy equipment, majority of its soldiers, and any and all material support it has? To say that its support is low is just sheer ignorance. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 00:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Sheer ignorance seems to be believing Ukrainian yellow press in their statement that they're at war with Russia, as you seem to do.

So far there's been little to no evidence for what you say, BLACK FUTURE. The Ukrainian army seems to be very good at losing armoured vehicles in working condition. 89.215.172.157 (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)BLGR

So far, I agree with that. But Black Future insists that Russia has a leading role in the conflict. I always have to be correcting his/her edits concerning to some issues. You must already be aware of that.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The Russian trolls are out and about it seems. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 01:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Since you wrote that under my paragraph, was that supposed to be directed to me? Well, you could call me any name you'd wish, but I only have one nationality and it's Portuguese.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

As Lvivske's comment is threaded to line up with 89.215.172.157's comment, I've assumed he's referring to that IP, Mondolkiri1. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I've also imagined that, but then he wrote it in the wrong place.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• The RF is shelling from their side of the border, that is not "support" that is active military involvement, and today the Guardian & Telegraph both confirmed that 2 dozen Russian APCs and other vehicles, with Russian plates part of an official Russian convoy...crossed into Ukraine. Between artillery strikes and confirmed invasion, how is that "support"? Is this some bizarre white washing of the obvious? --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 00:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to blanking the sources, this time I was the one to blame, so I'm sorry Black Future. I mistakenly deleted the source when I thought I was correcting a deletion of a source.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I can see that Mondolkiri1 made a good faith error, for which he has apologised.

Black Future, the issue of sources has been discussed at length at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. In this context, Russian news sources are only acceptable for official statements pertaining to the RF's administration. Ukrainian news sources are also to be treated with the same caution. Unless or until information is supported by other WP:RS, it is not added, at which point it can be used as supplementary information (so long as the language remains neutral).

Per WP:NPOV, we don't use these talk pages as a forum or for speculation. Remember that this is an encyclopaedic article, not journalism. Whatever anyone's personal opinion may be, it is not reflected in the content of the article. The RF is denying involvement and there are no reliable sources stating that the RF is directly involved. There is no doubt that there are individuals and groups within Russia who are assisting with arms, moral and financial backing, but no direct link to anything other than the Kremlin pointing fingers at Ukraine as being a rogue state. 2 dozen Russian APCs and other vehicles does not constitute a battalion, nor does prove that they are under direct orders from the Kremlin. There will be further RS reports on the implications (read as no original research), if other conclusions are drawn, soon enough. Please don't try to jump the gun on any conclusions until they can be confirmed. If you are finding it difficult to remain objective about the subject of this article without violating Wikipedia policy, it is probably best that you avoid contributing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Iryna, please familiarize yourself with the sources and the media. I'm not talking about Russian or Ukrainian news sources, I'm talking about official government intel and journalists in western media confirming reports. What part of my comment was "speculation"? You seem to be taking the "plausible deniability" Russian line too close to heart. At this point, based on your comment, you are engaging in WP:OR by what "constitutes a battalion" and who was ordering whom - that is your own original, made up story to justify ignoring the sources. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 04:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Russia is a complicated country. There is the Russian Mafia, which, by what I've read, has (or already had) 3 million members, and one of their activities is arms trafficking. Russia itself is often called a mafia state, but the same is also said about Italy, for instance. And the Russian Armed Forces has an active personnel of 766.000 people and 2.035.000 reservists. Until solid proofs, it's quite speculative to point the finger directly to the Kremlin, no matter how tempting it is to do so.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Black Future, I have read the sources you are referring to. This is not evidence calling for the "Supported by" subsection in the infobox to be removed. I was not towing the 'plausible deniability' line, but trying to make you aware of WP:NOTNEWS (which is a Wikipedia policy) and WP:CRYSTALBALL. We are guided by the facts being reported. The current fact is that the RF have pushed the UN charters envelope by crossing into the Ukrainian border, but has not turned it into a direct war with Russia at this point. Thank you to RGloucester for modifying this additional information in compliance with Wikipedia policy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Just want to chime in here, Iryna, as NATO is confirming it now. Poroshenko has confirmed to Cameron that Ukraine's army engaged the Russians in question. How are you denying this? You guys are really going to sit here and come up with conspiracies about "maybe it was the mafia"? Hundreds of military vehicles in an officially controlled convoy with Russian air force support, and with official Russian military plates, insignia, et al. - cross the border into Ukraine - and you sit here and pretend this isn't happening? Unbelievable. What happened to you? When did you throw objectivity out the window? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 15:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It was not Iryna that talked about the possibility of the involvement of the Russian Mafia, it was me.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Lvivske: In case you haven't noticed, there's 10 hours between my comment about WP:NOTNEWS and your accusation of my 'pretending this isn't happening' and WP:RS secondary reportage you're now using. Regardless of what appears to be obvious, we still abide by WP:CRYSTALBALL. As I told Black Future, "... don't try to jump the gun on any conclusions until they can be confirmed." Now there are more RS confirming and supporting that this is just short of being an invasion, it can be included. There is no issue of pretending anything here: it's a cut and dry case of Wikipedia policy being clear and taking precedence over personal certainty (commonly referred to as POV). If you can't wait for sources and keep a level head, perhaps you need to take a breather before casting aspersions as to my integrity. I could have a nuclear missile detonate 50 kilometres away from me, observe it and know it to be the truth: I couldn't write an article about it, or add it to an existing article until it was reported, full stop.

P.S. While you and the media are speculating over whether this is going to be another Crimea scenario, there's also a likelihood of its being a genuine delivery of aid. That'd play nicely into looking like the good guys as far as NGO interests go, while making the Ukrainian government look like paranoid, inhumane bastards. The arms running isn't directly connected to the aid convoy. Are we clear on why speculation isn't appropriate? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You responded 5 hours after this was brought up on talk and those RS's existed, dismissing major newspapers outright. Now you are speculating on arms running and the aid convoy purpose, which as far as I can see has nothing to do with this discussion. Maybe you need to take a moment to realize what's the situation is.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 01:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I see. You're citing articles timestamped 15.08.2014 14:22 and the CNBC article currently showing as having being posted 12 hours ago were available at 05:40, 15 August 2014?!!! Do you know what the main issue was? Are you actually aware of the fact that Black Future had removed the "supported by" Russia to include Russia with Novorossia as the belligerents on the strength of the info available? Yes, I certainly know what the situation is... it's short of an invasion, but recognised as being an 'incursion'. Now that's per the sources, neutral and with absolutely no added speculation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Iryna, do you even know what the word "incursion" means? Here, let me Google that for you: "a hostile entrance into or invasion of a place or territory", " An aggressive entrance into foreign territory; a raid or invasion." To say that "it's short of an invasion, it's an incursion" is just mind numbing. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 15:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• It is safe to say that there are plenty of reliable sources that support the idea of Russian involvement in this war. However, at present, there isn't consensus in reliable sources that this is a direct war between Russia and Ukraine. That's why I presume "supported by" is better. Sure, an armoured column entered Donbass, and this isn't the first time that's happened. This is evidence of what is variously called "involvement, interference, incursion". At yet, though, sources outside of Ukraine are simply not saying that this is a war between Russia and Ukraine. There are in a stage of being dazed, still sorting out developments (WP:RECENTISM might like to chime in). That hesitancy is summed up by this recent article. It is clear that more waiting is in order. RGloucester — ☎ 05:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a very interesting article and I think your approach is correct. Let's keep an eye open on it and see how the situation develops (it's my position, at this stage).Mondolkiri1 (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Black Future, please desist from removing the "supported by" qualifier. Reportage has not changed as to Russian involvement since you tried this via a bold edit, and consensus was against it. This article is subject to sanctions and, by repeating exactly the same deletion, you are blatantly edit warring. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This is from today's newsfeed alone:

• Slate: Masha Gessen for Slate: [11]

We all know that these are armies formed and armed by Russian military and intelligence officers [...] Russia is not sponsoring other people’s terrorism; it is waging an illegal war against a neighboring country.

• Strobe Talbott, one of America's top Russia experts and Deputy Secretary of State from 1994-2001, presently President of the Brookings Institution:

They have already invaded Ukraine. I find it maddening and incomprehensible how governments and the media keep talking about the possibility, the danger, the threat of Russia invading.

Russia invaded Ukraine early in the spring. They started with the so-called "little green men" -- Russian soldiers without insignia on their green uniforms -- then proceeded with uniforms with epaulets and the annexation of Crimea. Russia has been the force behind, and on the ground, with the separatists in eastern Ukraine.

It is an invasion that is already well in place. It is detrimental to managing the situation to play along with the transparent falsehood that the Russians are putting out that they have not invaded Ukraine.

Talbott is spot on here and really epitomizes the issue that has happened to Wikipedia, with deniers hijacking the page and using logical fallacies to override media consensus, government / supranational opinion, and public opinion to push this square peg into the round hole, pushing this fantasy that Russia is merely "supporting" the war and not directly involved in it. Yes, let's pretend the cross-border shelling isn't happening, that the tanks and troops on the ground don't exist, and Russia isn't involved "because Russia says so." This is so absurd it's sickening. Then again, this very issue how badly Wikipedia has been hindered has already been reported on. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 15:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Russia invaded Ukraine, in Crimea, of course. There have also been incursions of carriers now in the Donbass. Of course it supports the separatists, though it denies it. And many Russian paramilitaries are there, as well as from other nationalities. Well, that's all already in the article. But it also took quite a long time to move this article from "insurgency" to "war", though many were already stating it as a war. It was the Red Cross designation as a war that let the editors to move the article from "insurgency" to "war", not a couple of editorials. One may have this or that opinion about the issue, but the edits of such an importance shall be supported by sources that clearly enough designate it as a war between Ukraine and Russia. There are from time to time incursions between India and Pakistan too, and that doesn't determine that a war has started between India and Pakistan. There has also been a border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, including with shootings, and that hasn't determined that a war was started between Thailand and Cambodia.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Excellent analogies, Modolkiri1. And, yes, Black Future, of course I know what an incursion is. Readers will also understand what it means. We are bound by Wikipedia policy to follow a conservative line (per WP:NOTNEWS (AKA not journalism), avoiding WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOR). There are also a multitude of reliable sources attesting to official positions stating that the situation is threatening to escalate to a war between Russia and Ukraine. Op ed pieces do not override our responsibility to not run ahead with the ball. Selecting sources that support anyone's personal opinion is cherry picking. Most certainly, such bias does belong in the infobox. Changing the players to include the RF as being directly at war with Ukraine is WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Serbian volunteers

There are only identified volunteers fighting for separatist side, which were identified to be a group of Chetniks fighting under command of Bratislav Živković. Not a single Serbian was identified as volunteering for Ukrainian side. Putting Serbian flag under Ukrainian units is based solely on Serbian PM's media statement, which was again, solely made to relieve pressure on his own government for neglect on the subject, not on any intelligence data. IMO, that info should be removed until verified by identified individuals or group of individuals known to be on Ukrainian side.

The link that is used as a source to the claim, is also a media statement by Serbia's PM, which is solely his own political stunt, because it threatens his credibility. I suggest relying on independent sources or sources that are written in English/Russian, since majority of Serbian media is actively and aggressively supporting current Serbian PM, hence allowing any kind of unverified political sloganeering to come through as a verified fact.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.18.94 (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I've read and it's indeed a political statement. Shall it be removed, from the Ukrainian side?Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe someone registered should do it. I'm an unregistered user mostly operating on military articles. So my changes are usually undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.18.94 (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I've undone yours because you disrupted the entire presentation, but I've read, and it's indeed a political statement. I'll wait for a confirmation from another editor(s) to delete the Serbians from the Ukrainian side.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed his edit. He accidentally screwed up the page, but I removed the volunteers and fixed the page. RGloucester — ☎ 19:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, you removed the Serbian volunteers from the wrong side, actually. The Chetniks presence had already been confirmed by other sources apart from that political statement.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that i glanced trough sources for other volunteers, i see same thing. Many of these supposed volunteers are nothing but an article appeared somewhere in a local national media making nothing but rumors. Someone should at least scan these articles through google translator to check out if anything credible is there. Apart from Russian nationals, so far, by name and surname, only volunteers from Serbia, Belarus ( on both sides ) and Georgian on Ukrainian side seem to be confirmed. Rest is nothing but rumors. If someone posts a reference, it should at least be screened. Azeri, Albanian, Croatian volunteers claim is unconfirmed, and is based on nothing but unverified news headlines which are usually directed at audiences of respective nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.101.1 (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Since I'm from the Iberian Peninsula, and I'm at least as fluent in Spanish as I'm in English, I've checked about the Spanish volunteers, and it's true (though those are no longer in the infobox)... but they're only 2!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

None of the pending revisions appeared to be either vandalizing or edit warring, so...

...I accepted the revisions up until now. If you feel that one of the revisions was in fact edit warring, you may still revert it and do not need the reviewer right to do so. Dustin (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Volunteer Marek to show only higher number of alleged Russian citizens taking part while erasing lower estimates.

User Volunteer Marek has been constantly erasing lower estimates from the lead and putting in higher ones, even when the higher estimate of 80% is itself doubted by the source he uses and termed "anecdotal" The estimate of 80% btw comes from a single interview with "Armenian volunteer". I suggest either removing this rather dubious statement or presenting both figures with explanation from where the higher comes from.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this could use better sourcing. But what the source actually says is "which means that at best, a fifth of anti-Kiev militants in eastern Ukraine were allowed to transit through Russian territory.". I.e. The 20% is a "even if we assume that the bullshit these guys are saying is true..." kind of thing. It's not meant as a serious estimate. Hence, "up to 80%" is much more accurate reflection of the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It's actually "these guys", but a single "Armenian Volunteer", and you forgot the part where the source states "this is anecdotal". "Hence, "up to 80%" is much more accurate reflection of the sources"your Personal View. 20% is presented in the source as more reliable data, and for NPOV purpose should be used here as well. You can't put "anecdotal" 80% in the lead and erase any mention of lower estimates, just because you don't agree with them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the "20%" is presented in the source as "even if we take the bullshit at face value" kind of estimate. This is a weird thing to argue about actually. Also, I don't appreciate you putting my name in the subject heading up there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"the "20%" is presented in the source as "even if we take the bullshit at face value". It isn't, it nowhere says such thing. You are pushing your personal POV here.It's obvious that when faced with two estimates presenting only the highest one, who the source itself names as only "anecdotal" is not Neutral.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount, please see the section above where questioning the figures began a few days ago. We're still at a loss as to where reliable estimates can be found. MyMoloboaccount, please desist from creating section titles which are attacks on other users (per WP:TALKNEW). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Error on the Luhansk Oblast map

On the map of the Luhansk Oblast Krasnyi Luch is to the South East of Antratsyt, but in the reality Antratsyt is to the South East of Krasnyi Luch, as is shown on the Google. Precisely I am talking about this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lugansk_province_location_map.svg 79.186.246.246 (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: That's right. Since I guess you created the svg files and I don't understand very much about it, could you correct it, please?--Mondolkiri1 (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not an SVG, it is coordinates. Change the coordinates to the appropriate ones for each town, and it should be fixed. I haven't got time to look them up right now. RGloucester — ☎ 14:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Allegation of Hungary supplying armoured vehicles to Ukraine

Lately Russian sources stated that, according to a Hungarian website, Hungary transports armoured vehicles (including T-72 tanks) to Ukraine on rail. Hungary says the claim is false, and the operation is a normal logistic operation to transport vehicles from one military base to another one.

Even if the allegation is likely false, I think this deserves a mention somewhere in the article. One of the sources related to this: GlobalPost --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

To say what? That Hungary is probably not supplying weapons to Ukraine? Let's not forget that Hungary itself has its own old issues with Ukraine over Ruthenia, which was lost in WW1, and the corresponding region of Zakarpattia is still mainly inhabited by Rusyns (Ruthenians) and ethnic Hungarians. I'm less surprised about the existence of that pro-Moscow website in Hungary than I'd be about Hungary supplying weapons to Ukraine, at this stage, but that's my opinion.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

In the simplest of terms, it's WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable-looking sources both talk about a) an allegation which carries a significant importance if it would be true, and b) official refusal of the allegation. The original website making the allegation is probably not reliable and biased, true, but Russian media did use the allegation. I don't think that mentioning the fact that an allegation was made against Hungary (a NATO member suposedly breaking international law with arms export) and that it was officially refuted by the government, in say, two or three sentences would constitute "undue weight" in a complex article several paragraphs long already with minute details, including daily casualty data and minuscule named villages being sieged/occupied on a day or another. I believe that the sole fact that this allegation and its refutation were covered by both reliable-looking Russian and Western sources and the inherent political implications makes it notable to mention it in the article. And by the way, Hungary wouldn't attack Ukraine to gain back territory as a member of NATO and EU. Let's not kid ourselves with this silly idea. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Judging by your last line, ultimately, you perceive this as being worth mentioning as a piece of parody. There's another article called Media portrayal of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. I doubt that it's particularly valuable, but if you're determined to WP:POV push content into an article where far more pertinent content has been rejected for lack of value in building a cohesive and coherent encyclopaedic article, it might be worth a try there... although I'd also challenge its value in that article unless there were a section dedicated to 'silly things being said by all interest groups involved'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I would feel honored if you would stop linking me WP policy pages assuming I'm dumb and don't know how WP works as a cohesive and coherent "encyclopaedia". I am well aware that this piece of "silly thing said" does not matter much at large, but I see way more minuscule things mentioned in this and the related articles for supposedly being "encyclopaedic" knowledge, such as telling everyone there is a sole Swedish sniper out there just because he felt like going there. Which doesn't really add much content or essence to the article in my opinion. Also, I'd say accusing someone of "pushing POV" implies a somewhat malicious intent or a need to gain something. On the contrary, it's not my view that it's worth mentioning, and I won't gain anything if it gets mentioned, this "silly" allegation (or was it just an allegation...? who knows) was the thing here in the media. Here, as in Hungary. I know that in general, this doesn't really look like something important from a Russian or American viewpoint, but we are actually a neighboring country to Ukraine, a country which is developing a war of sorts with Russia, as it seems. And naturally we are one of the two closest NATO members of Ukraine. You sounded like I'm actually want to insert some bias in the article (POV pushing) for one side of the conflict, when in fact, I just mentioned a media happening. And yet, you bombard me with policy links, instead of just saying you think it isn't worth mentioning. Well, as you wish, cheers. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Rev L. Snowfox, I appreciate the fact that you used the talk page first to gauge the response as to whether this is of significance to English Wikipedia. I would also be honoured if you didn't make assumptions about where I'm from and whose interests I represent. Evidently, this is of significance to Hungarian Wikipedia, but not to this Wikipedia. As regards the listings of one person (another has been added based on one American having joined the Ukrainian volunteer paramilitary), it's difficult to keep on top of extraneous information when so many IPs and new editors are contributing. Again, my apologies for being curt previously. I understand that you proposed this information in good faith. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Horlivka casualties

I am not watching this page and not going to edit it, just came across an inconsistensy. The paragraph which starts "During the third day of the..." first says that on 27 July between 20 and 30 civilians were killed in Horlivka, and later on the same paragraph states that by July 29 (in my understanding, this is equivalent to before July 30, which means in also includes July 27), 17 civilians were killed. No opinion on what actually happened, it is just not consistent: 20> 17.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thanks for picking up on that. I've checked the sources and have changed it to 'a further 17 were killed'.--Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Luhansk refugee convoy attack

I started a draft on this, it is a notable subject because as a result DPR rebels have introduced a death penalty and it was condemed by the US, but it needs some work.--Arbutus the tree (talk)

Draft:Luhansk refugee convoy attack

Undue and misleading use of 'Foreign volunteers' in infobox

Considering that the infobox is getting out of hand in terms of clear, common sense usage, I'm proposing to remove the 'Foreign volunteers' sections appended to both sides of the 'Units involved' section.

Every single volunteer from any country outside of the main nationalities of combatants does not need to be accounted for. There are literally thousands of combatants, yet these lists are comprised of the identification of one American national, two Spanish nationals, a Swede, etc. While that is fine for the body of the article (i.e., the Azov battalion incorporates most for the Ukrainian government already), it is WP:UNDUE for the infobox... in fact, it's downright disproportionate and misleading.

If anyone has any reasonable objections to the removal of this sub-subsection, please discuss it here ASAP as I'm about to go bold and remove them. If the sourced information is considered valuable in the body of the article, please consider using it in the relevant section of the article when it's removed from the infobox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this is something that should be quantified. While I agree that, for example, Swedish or Canadian may not be due weight given that there are only 1 of each fighting, it is relevant for larger units like the Serbians (a few dozen at least), Chechens, Russians, etc. Maybe this can be handled with regard to notability? --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 19:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've now deleted "Spanish" from the separatists side and "American" from the Ukrainian side, because the sources I've consulted (also in Spanish) display no more than 2 Spanish volunteers and 1 American volunteer. I guess it takes more than that, no? But it would be interesting to know how many, nevertheless.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree that notability should be the guideline. There are WP:RS sources attesting to an (note the singular) Italian extremist and others joining the Azov battalion, and I'm sure that there are RS reports of individual extremists from countries not currently mentioned on the pro-Russian side. Having each and every instance depicted as if they were representatives of that country is misleading. It really needs to be proscribed to a significant presence only for the purposes of the infobox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Missing soldiers, information from government

http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/08/19/7035256/ 12 policemen and 65 military and border guards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.161.253 (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Messy Battle box.

There is a source of over 1,000 insurgents dead, but the source states that those are Goverment Claims and that numbers only include dead by air attacks. Another point kyievpost report a Goverment Official showing 1,000 Ukranian Service men captured by separatist.200.48.214.19 (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Obviously the first source is not true. A single airstrike carried out by a puny couple of planes at the most cannot possibly cause 1,000 KIA. As for the second source, 1,000 is the low estimate, and the spokesman clearly said that the actual number is likely much greater than 1,000.

Shelled military convoy

The German news website Spiegel-Online published a good article about what happened – or didn't happen – at this incident: Wenn Hysterie brandgefährlich wird (If hysteria becomes a loose cannon). A short summarize:

• The convoy existed and was reported by but convoys like cross the border nearly daily.
• The alledged shelling happened in the morning but was not disclosed until evening.
• No evidendence of the alledgedly destroyed convoy were published by the Ukrainian government or independent journalists.
• Ukrainian news-agency UNIAN has no reports about the incident

All this is not reflected in the article. --EPsi (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This is called "speculation", and is only found in this one little "exposé". Anyway, nothing in the War in Donbass article at present states that the convoy was certainly destroyed. It merely says that the Ukrainian government said they destroyed, which they did. Speculation and WP:Original research have no place in our encyclopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 23:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Your insistence on the use of the word "claim" is in violation of the Manual of Style guidelines, and is also stupidity incarnate. Neutrality dictates the use of "said", if someone says something. Do not twist words to imply a lack of credibility on behalf of the speaker. If there is reason to doubt the speaker's statement, merely provide the evidence that said statement was false. Do not, however, use "claimed" to denigrate a speaker in a non-neutral manner. Please read MoS:Words to watch. RGloucester — ☎ 23:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I neither speculated nor did any original research, only checked. And it is not only found in this "exposé". Even Shaun Walker who reported the convoy writes: Ukraine president claims Russian vehicles that crossed border have been destroyed. The aftermath and analysis of this incident ist more interesting than the incident itsself. Strangely it is not mentioned, that Russia strongly denied the incident. The media reported a lot without evidence or verification and one copied the other. BTW: If you talk about "our encyclopedia", who is "we"?

There is a lack of credibility on behalf of the Ukrainian President. Saying there was a military operation without presenting any evidence, what do you call that? Until now there is absolutely no reason to believe the speaker, that a "substantial destruction" of a Russian convoy really happened. I do not use "claim" in a non-neutral manner. --EPsi (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: Insults do not replace reasoning

"Claim" is inherently non-neutral, except in certain circumstances (see WP:FRINGE). I don't know who "Shaun Walker" is, but he has a horrible name. Regardless, we are WP:NOTNEWS and have our own Manual of Style. We have a burden to maintain WP:NPOV, which journalists do not. Original research about "evidence" is highly inappropriate. We are here to report what happens. If you want to talk about media problems, please go to Media portrayal of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 00:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone, who sneers about the name of a person he does not know, want's to instruct me on "Manual of Style"? And again, whom do you mean with "our/we"? --EPsi (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Our/we" is in reference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. "We" also refers to the Wikipedian community. You are engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND editing, EPsi. Familiarise yourself with project before you continue making tendentious edits. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked because sometimes "our/we" is the consequence of overidentification. As long as the article of "The Guardian" is linked as source, background-information is nearby. On my behalf this is settled. --EPsi (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pleased that it's settled. For future reference, please try to remember to assume good faith. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is Russia listed in the infobox but not the US?

Tobby72 made changes adding the US as a "supporter" of Ukraine in the infobox, based on several mainstream sources talking about US sending advisers and military gear into Ukraine. RGloucester removed it, saying that this has been discussed tens of times and to "look at the talk page". I've looked, and I don't see much. There were these two in early August, and this discussion in early July. A persistent theme in all three discussions was that they both ended with complaints that thinly disguised editorial bias was behind the decision to include Russia in the infobox as a supporter (despite the official denial by Russia, and a history of debunked claims), while NOT including the US as a supporter (despite the US's official, open announcements about at least a portion of their support - there's likely much more happening behind the scenes, if the past history of US involvement in civil wars is any guide).

I am not recommending removing Russia from the infobox. When in fog of war, the mainstream views of both sides should be included until the fog clears up.

But I want to ask, why is the US admitting to donating military equipment and advisors (Russia's foreign minister believes them to number about 100) not enough to put it as a supporter in the infobox? Of course, it's not a no-fly-zone or an invasion, but it doesn't have to be. That's not the established practice in other war infoboxes. See Template:Syrian_Civil_War_infobox, Nagorno-Karabakh War ("armament support"), War of Transnistria (where Romania is listed for providing volunteers and advisors), and Korean War ("combat support", "medical support", "other support").

Esn (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what other articles do, nor do I particularly care, but I do know what the guidelines on infoboxes say. Infoboxes are a critical summary of key information. They are not endless lists of information. Russia's participation in this war, in whatever form, is well-documented in reliable sources in every respect. Only direct parties to the conflict belong in the infobox. Giving Russia parity with the United States in the infobox is not a conclusion supported by reliable sources, and is clearly an example of false balance. A few military advisers and some other forms of non-lethal aid are not equivalent to direct involvement in the conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 06:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it is absolutely "critical" to include the US in the infobox, since the US has played a very important role in this whole affair. If the mainstream Ukrainian view is that this is a direct war against Russia (which is reflected in the current infobox), then the mainstream view of Russian analysts is that this conflict is a proxy war against the US (which is not reflected in the infobox; I see your WP:GEVAL and counter with WP:WORLDVIEW).

Moreover, mentioning both the US and Russia in the infobox does not imply that their level of support is identical (just like in the Syrian Civil War infobox, not all of the armed groups listed have the same number of soldiers).

I will remind you that the level of Russia's support is not exactly clear, and there are widely divergent views on it. Of the infobox's sources for Russia's participation, the first one listed is an interview with a former American anti-Soviet specialist in which he makes an assertion but gives no proof (not exactly the most neutral source!), while the others talk about the high number of Russian volunteers and leaders (which proves nothing about state involvement, no more than the plethora of Saudi volunteers in the Syrian civil war proves direct Saudi support of ISIS), or disputed evidence (the CIA images released over Twitter, which were immediately disputed by Russian media).

In any case, I think that other infoboxes have it right and this one has it wrong. Officially donating military gear to a country during a civil war should be enough to count as "support". Esn (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. It would be ridiculous to include US in the infobox for reasons which are so obvious that I (and probably others) won't waste my time with this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Since yesterday it is well-known and well covered by several western media the first death of a US'volunteer.At the section 'Foreign volunteers' USA should be listed , just as it has already been included 'Albania,Azerbaijan etc...No big deal and no reason to hide this and be unbalanced. It is a well-established fact that there was an American volunteer fighting . — Preceding unsigned comment added by O Grego (talk • contribs) 15:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Russian- and English-language Wikimedia combat maps look very different

Compare:

• File:Карта боевых действий на Востоке Украины.svg
• File:East Ukraine conflict.svg

I'm not sure of the reason, it's just something I noticed recently. On the whole, the situation looks a little better for the insurgents on the Russian-language map (Lugansk not surrounded, full control of southern border), although it also shows areas under Ukrainian control that are shown as being insurgent-controlled on the English map (in the centre and north). My suspicion is that the Russian map might be based on more recent sources, but again, I don't know.

For comparison, here are maps from pro-insurgent (also: [12]) and pro-Kiev sides. Esn (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)