Talk:War in Donbas

UK Support

The united kingdom has deployed troops to ukraine to train and advise the ukrainian military. I had added them to the infobox as "supporting", but another user reverted. See here [[1]].XavierGreen (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This is totally WP:UNDUE weight for the infobox. This is 35 men, deployed for two months. According to the BBC, this is simply training in "medicine and defensive tactics". That's minuscule, and mostly irrelevant. Non-lethal aid has been completely ruled out by the British government. Putting a big note in the infobox that says "Supported by Britain" implies real support, when there isn't any. 35 trainers in "medicine and defensive tactics" do not qualify as "support" in any real sense. This is an attempt at WP:GEVAL, and it simply cannot be tolerated. There will be no "supported by Britain" note in the infobox. RGloucester — ☎ 19:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You do not own the page, your talking like you think you do. The medical training is only one part of the mission, they also are their to train Ukrainian soldier in field operations (ie, combat). Its not irrelevant, its a major act that has been talked about in various news sources for months. Other conflict infobox pages include similar states that provide support.XavierGreen (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with RGloucester. This is WP:UNDUE and it's a form of POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

How is it pov pushing? What point of view of view am i pushing exactly?XavierGreen (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You're trying to establish a false equivalence between the Russian backing of the rebels, and the negligible non-significant actions of the UK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no way someone could construe equivalence in the manner you are suggesting when the number of UK troops is listed in the infobox as well as i attempted to do before i was reverted.XavierGreen (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Your "inclusion" in the infobox posited the "UK advisors" as being part of the combat force along with Ukrainian troops. In reality, they are providing strictly non-lethal training far away from the conflict zone in Mykolayiv. RGloucester — ☎ 23:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The sources do not say that the training is strictly non-lethal. And no, the edits in the info box did not say that the british troops were engaged belligerants, hence why they were listed as "supported by". As i stated before there are a great many military conflict pages which list participants of conflicts that only provide rear area supporting troops.XavierGreen (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the edit and sources, it seems justified. I see no POV pushing or Undue.Western military training and equipment deliveries are notable.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:GEVAL. If the UK had frontline troops or was supplying the Ukrainian military with tanks, artillery, and SAMs like Russia is doing with the separatists, I'd say yes, absolutely include them. But stationing less than three dozen advisers away from the combat zone to provide non-combat training? I suppose it would look like a nice counterweight to that Russian tricolor on the other side of the infobox, wouldn't it? I think not. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I had listed them as supporting rather than than as an active combatant, which is concurrent with the current established conventions on wikipedia in regards to infoboxes such as these. Look at the Northern Mali Conflict page and Syrian Civil War page for instance.XavierGreen (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Other articles are irrelevant. There are no established conventions, and it is likely that those infoboxes have been subject to PoV pushing. Regardless, they are "not supporting" anything. Speaking of which, I wonder what PoV warrior weaseled the words "supported by" in front of Russia in the infobox. That ship has long since sailed. Someone, please fix this grave error. RGloucester — ☎ 00:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The Northern Mali Conflict infobox is a nightmarish disaster and cannot be defended. The Syrian Civil War infobox actually proves my point, though. The countries listed under "support" for each faction (except for the universally loathed ISIL, natch) have actually supplied, or are actually supplying, lethal arms. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Simply training or supplying Ukrainian Army outside of the area of conflict does not qualify as involvement in the War in Donbass. I am telling also about providing lethal weapons. Consider this example: Israel provided military drones for Russian army, and they were actively used in Donbass for directing artillery fire, resulting in deaths of many thousands. Does it qualify Israel as a "supporting participant" of the war in Donbass on the side of Russia? Some could argue that, yes, it does, but I think that would lead us too far. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Isreal has not deployed troops to the Ukraine, the UK has.XavierGreen (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No, no it hasn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Training is not involvement in the actual war, and it does not change a lot in this particular case, given the negligible number of "advisers". Providing lethal weapons, such as drones to Russia, is a lot more important involvement. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

How can you keep spouting this "deployed troops to Ukraine" nonsense? You're not fooling anyone. We understand what you're trying to do, which is to pass off 35 guys providing non-lethal (medical, psychological, defensive) training far away from the combat zone as a real "deployment". RGloucester — ☎ 20:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No, no it hasn't. I am pretty sure it has[2]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, no it hasn't. Are you having trouble reading your own source? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

In fact, one could make a much stronger case that UK supports Russia against Ukraine by still providing a lot of deadly weapons to Russia [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Volunteer Marek - 35 British military personnel have been deployed to Ukraine to train and advise the Ukrainian military, that is specifically stated in the sources provided. @My very best wishes- That is a ludacris statement, the source you have posted specifically states "In March the former foreign secretary announced the suspension of all export licences to the Russian armed forces for any equipment that could be used against Ukraine."XavierGreen (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

At this point you're simply NOT LISTENING. Also, you're confusing a rapper with a word which means "absurd".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@XavierGreem. The source I quoted presents this statement as a lie. The publication in "The Guardian" was entitled "UK arms export licences for Russia still in place despite claims of embargo". And they continue delivering weapons to Russia right now according to other publications. However, this does not qualify UK as a combatant on the side of Russia (or Ukraine), which is my point. My very best wishes (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"Like I said, no it hasn't" Pretty sure Telegraph is reporting UK deploying troops to Ukraine:British troops will be deployed in Ukraine to train soldiers fighting Russian separatists, David Cameron has said [4] as to BBC it states following British military personnel have started training members of the Ukrainian army fighting pro-Russian rebels, the BBC has learned.The 35 trainers are working in the southern city of Mykolaiv. There is nothing else to add. Major news sources in UK and Prime Minister of UK have stated that indeed UK troops are being deployed to Ukraine.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be noted in the article somewhere, but it does not mean that UK is a side of the conflict. Nothing should be in the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no apparent consensus to include the United Kingdom as a combatant in the infobox. We can revisit this discussion if the UK begins supplying heavy weapons or commits troops to fight the Russians. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

remove Russian armed forces from infobox

They are clearly not doing combat. It is arguable if they train NAF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. No. They clearly are "doing combat". I encourage you to read the sources cited in the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

These are not neutral sources. These are American sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

All sources, cited as proof for involvement of the Russian Armed Forces, are either just accusations without evidence, or have only circumstantial evidence, which original source, when properly back-traced, lead either to the Ukrainian services, or western agencies, allied with the Ukrainians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.11 (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You guys are pretty funny, but Russia is in the infobox and it ain't going anywhere. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point - it's not about if the Russia should be in the infobox, or not - of course it would be there, albeit with a note that the Russian government deny its involvement (this is the english Wikipedia after all); it's about the veracity of the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.10 (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Russia's laughable denial of involvement is immaterial to the reality that Russian troops have been verifiably documented to be on the ground and fighting in eastern Ukraine. The article already notes in several places that the Kremlin maintains the fiction that "I triple guarantee you, there are no Russian soldiers in Donbass" (pardon my paraphrasing), as is proper. It doesn't belong in the infobox, as Russian military involvement is a repeatedly, exhaustively proven fact despite Putin's game of deception. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

And it appears there is already a note on Russia in the infobox that its government denies involvement, for whatever that's worth. Personally, I don't even think we should have that note, but them's the breaks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"verifiably documented", "exhaustively proven", but by whom? The problem is, when back-traced, most of the so called "documents" and "proofs" lead to the same origin - either Ukrainian services, or agencies, allied with them. Which definitely put a shade of doubt even on reliable sources. And I'm not sure that personal opinions about russian politics are relevant on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.11 (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

All this rubbish has happened many times before. For example, they denied that the Soviet State was responsible for the Katyn massacre; they denied that the people who seized government installations in the Crimea in 2014 were Russian Spetsnaz/Army; eventually they admitted it. It is the same today as always.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I was left with the impression, that the talk pages are supposed to be discussion about the quality of the article content and its sources, not a political dispute. Obviously I was mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.10 (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Whoever started this thread is doing a horrible job of building consensus. The only argument seems to be that the information is from sources that they considered biased. Unless you can convince enough editors and build consensus in support of your claim, then this thread is a waste. Myopia123 (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is proven or not regarding Russian REGULAR soldiers is not up to Kudzu1. It should be up to the international court. Of course there are Russians fighting in Ukraine, but it is REGULAR soldiers that count. For one thing, I have not seen a single Russian air force bombing sortie on Kiev. Do you?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.200.29 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 3 April 2015

Nice red herring. The information in this article is well-sourced. Not liking it is not a valid reason to remove or undercut reliably sourced content. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you honestly think Ukrainian army can withstand REGULAR Russian forces backed by airpower? If so, you are delusional. Look what happened in Crimea. Ukrainian soldiers never dared to fire a single bullet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.200.29 (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to boast about the awesome power of the vaunted Russian military, boy is this not the website for you. WP:NOTFORUM. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia that contain information which I do not like being discussed so openly. I don't go bitching and moaning on them. Provide WP:RS and build WP:CONSENSUS or deal with it. Myopia123 (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

In Western society, proof is everything. If you don't have proof, then don't put something in the infobox. News articles are not proof. It's like some people claim a Russian Buk shot down MH17, well, that's a CLAIM, it's not a PROOF.