Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 → Archive 20

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Russian military intervention?

State clearly what you want changed, making your arguments cogently and concisely, based upon Wikpedia's policies and guidelines. --NeilN talk to me 21:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

i was accused to make an edit war, but the person, who deletes a neutral complain makes the edit war! the title of this article is not neutral! and it is even wrong! i post my fist edit at the bottom, but first i want to publish, what i answered to the accusation, now its on you, i wont accept, this diffarmation, so do what you have to do, if ban is the answer to a neutral complain, i can live with it.

"there are neutral facts and there are opinions. to call an article RUSSIAN intervention, when russians are not envolved in these actions or russia is involved in one part of a bigger event, where the main actors are ukrainian, is not right. this is PROPAGANDA! i dont mind, if i am blocked, but as a person with moral, i cannot accept such an infamous impartial hate campaign! it has to be written and discussed in the discuss section or wikipedia is shown one more time, that it is NOT a neutral project, but an influenced and in several part, several users are kidnapping the platform to spread impartial propaganda. if the reward for my neutral complain is a ban, i will take it and will sleep well, that i am not accepting such a behavior. why it is NOT to discussed whether the title is right or not?! i have not changed the title, but have written a complain in the DISCUSSION section, which is there to discuss, the correctness of the article and its title itself. of course scources are needed, but for the title there is no general scource to prove that it is wrong. but there is no scource, which justifies this title either. so the story is, that in fact there were russian troops, which occupied crimea, but there are no ordinary troops elsewhere in the conflict and even if there are, they are not the mayor and only actors in this war. so when you are so desperate, to name russia, than the other actor is ukraine, so it would be a russian-ukraine war, but this would be wrong also. you dont say american intervention in korea or chinese intervention in korea, it is the korean war or the vietnam war and not american intervention in vietnam. by mentioning these examples, you should recognise, that there is an imparity. and the question is, why some want to name it just like this, when it is NOT true. you can say its a proxy war, but not like this. it is outrageous! i am not payed by russia, i am not russian, i am not even editing russian articles and i am not even editing english articles, because my mother tongue is not english, so i am not interessted in impartial propaganda, but i was shocked, when i jumped, from the german site, which is absolutely neutral, to the english, which is making a crusade and hide behind rules, when one complains and remove evething immediatly, so it cannot even discussed, by those, who are native english speakers and could mention the same failures. its a shame. if wikipedia, because this is not the first intentional diffarmation, wants to continue this path, it will turn in to a propaganda instrument, which will fail on the long term. also, there is a main failure in the system. a consensus, doesnt mean, that something is objectively right. 5 people can have a concensus that the earth is flat and one can say is a sphere, that doesnt mean, the 5 are right!"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasuprmastr (talk • contribs) 13:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

my original complain was this:

"my complain about the objectivity of this article has been deleted, although, a discussion is needed, because, the article is wrong and impartial.

the reason for the delete was "It wasn't the Russian military taking over Crimea? Nothing impartial here"

ok is this article about crimea only?! because, ok than i could accept this argument, but crimea is only a part of this article which contains conflicts which cannot be called a military intervention of russia. the war in eastern ukraine, even if there are russians involved is a conflict, between ukrains. so, if this title stays, delete all the section about the war in eastern unkraine and call it russian intervention in crimea, ukraine and correct the dates, not 2014-present!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasuprmastr (talk • contribs) 14:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

i cannot believe, how partial this article is, even the title is an one-sided view on the these events.

if one looks at the german wiki article, the starting point is totally different, there is is called, war in ukraine and this would be an objective approach. later in the article you can discuss, what happend, which parties were involved, but this is an ongoing crisis or even an ongoing war. how can one even say especially in the title, that it was a russian agression? wiki is undercut by people, who want to force their pov on objective history, because of selfish, subjective reasons. the article is unacceptable! (i am not a russian!)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasuprmastr (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The above seems to be a group of personal essays that state someones feelings about how frustrating it is editing Wikipedia. This is the wrong place for it. Wikipedia is not meant to be a forum or a soapbox. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Please note that there are articles such as:
This may explain why there is an article on Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) in addition to the article on the Ukrainian crisis.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The article is based on fake news and propaganda warfare. WHAT RUSSIAN INTERVENTION? If Russia had intervened, Ukraine would have crumbled in weeks, and not because Russia is powerful but because Ukraine's military is crap AND at least a third of it at the time refused to follow orders, because the orders given were tantamount to ethnic cleansing and war crimes.
Were there incursions across the border? Yes, both intentional and not. From BOTH RUSSIA AND UKRAINE. Amazing how Russia simply sent Ukrainian soldiers back the day after, but when Russian soldiers were in Ukraine, it was worldwide headline news about the Russian aggression.
The Crimean referendum was more "constitutional" than what was considered a VALID excuse to break up Yugoslavia. And it was the 5th or 6th similar referendum in Crimea since 1991, due to Kiev regimes mistreating the region. Amazingly, every referendum voted heavily against Kiev, they mostly wanted federalisation so they could quit having Kiev harassing them and stealing their people's pensions(literally).
Neonazis took over in the coup. On the border of Russia, anyone actually stupid enough to think that will NOT generate any kind of reaction?
Russia annexed Crimea at the point where the neonazi Azov brigade were about to be "deployed" there, a unit that posted videos on youtube showing them beating up and killing people for the sole reason of having Russian as their primary language, something that is true for a BIG minority in Ukraine.
Then comes the unconditional assertion of a Russian incursion. Except the links claimed as sources does not actually show that. They show a lot of claims and rumour about it. Of the kind used by that US politician to claim Russia invaded Ukraine, and based it on pictures showing something completely different than claimed, and months before claimed.
"The Ukrainian military reported"? You mean the people that just got their asses smacked by civillians, some of which used old museum-tanks to do it? (Yes, you can find pictures of rebel units with T-34s among other old WWII vehicles, there was even a video online for a while where 2 guys did a "how to get an old museum tank back in shape in just a day.) The people so far shown to be about as truthful and reliable as Baghdad Bob? The people desperate to get outside support?
There were "forces" moving from Russia to Ukraine, oh certainly yes. Over a million Ukrainians fled from persecution and harassment to Russia, and at least a few percent of them only stayed long enough to get their family settled, then aquired whatever military hardware they could, and went back to fight for their homes.
Amazing, how those humanitarian convoys could be so shifty eh? Every damn time anyone inspected them(be it Ukrainians or 3rd party of some kind ), they were EXACTLY what Russia claimed them to be, yet somehow, they supposedly kept smuggling everything and the kitchen sink across the border all the time. Yeah that makes so much sense.
It doesn't even matter if everything was completely true, because the article is still severely biased. It's a great piece of propaganda, but it has little connection with reality. I'm considering adding the template. DW75 (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
"The article is based on fake news"
Name them.
-
"If Russia had intervened, Ukraine would have crumbled in weeks,"
In your dreams.
-
Why Strelkov is not imprisoned in Russia - is it legal for Russians to kill civilians in other countries? Under what laws Russian "humanitarian aid" cross the border? Why Russia does not respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, as it promised in treaties Russia has signed?Constantinehuk (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
A question: how many gallons/tons/whatever, say water, have entered into world-wide circulation since Mr. Otto figured it out (being not the 1st one, I guess), that the signature, emphasis on „the“, is not worth the paper it is painted on (Brazilian rainforests were not "in", these times...)
As for Strelkov: it would be "not-Wikipedianistic" to wish him the same fate as it happened, say, to Valery[1]..., ...
And, finally, on neutrality: in democracy both poles are accepted, are they, so, is W-dia neutral, can it be? "neutrally democratic"?
And, just now added 3 more WIAs on Ukrainian side...— Pietadè 16:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Pietadè (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Maria Tsvetkova (29 January 2018). "'Fog' of Ukraine's war - Russian's death in Syria sheds light on secret mission". Reuters. Retrieved 30 January 2018.
"The article is based on fake news"
"Name them."
I do not see an answer.
-
"Why Strelkov is not imprisoned in Russia - is it legal for Russians to kill civilians in other countries?"
"As for Strelkov: it would be "not-Wikipedianistic" to wish him the same fate as it happened, say, to Valery[1]..."
I just ask. Please answer.
-
"And, finally, on neutrality: in democracy both poles are accepted, are they, so, is W-dia neutral, can it be? "neutrally democratic"?"
If 2+2=4, and you state that 2+2=9, should we agree that 2+2=7?
+
"Under what laws Russian "humanitarian aid" cross the border? Why Russia does not respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, as it promised in treaties Russia has signed?"
Constantinehehe 08:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


has wikipedia became a dangerous propagandatool?

fist of all: YES. it has. i descovered, that there are mayor differences in the different wikipedias. like in the german wikipedia the article about bthe ukranian conflict, has the title: krieg in der ukraine -which is absolute ok, because it in neutral, it describes, the whole issue. while the english article has the title: russian intervention in the ukraine. which makes a statement, which is not to make in the title and if it is wrong. because you can say russian intervention in the crimea, but there is no russian intervention in eastern ukraine, EVEN if there might be a support, for the eastern ukrainian russians, from russia, there are no official russian militias, even if there are russian individuals there, which has to be jugded by the next generation and the future historians to make that sentence, but not by contemporary viewers, who cannot make this statement. so if one is so desperate, to blame the russians, which raises several question and which is a very dangerous way, if lobbygroups will determine history in the future... or even now, you have to split the article and make an article about russian intervention in the crimea, whcih would be right, even today, because it is proven and a neutral term like war in eastern ukraine. everything else is a one handed, not neutral propaganda. and if this title is right, obviously the german is wrong?! so which wikipedia is right????

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Reu was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Change the title to Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Military intervention is a geopolitical weasel word. Russia invaded Crimea and stole the territory from Ukraine, and it's been well documented (and blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't a limbless capuchin) that Russia is backing, supplying and supplementing with troops the "rebels" in Donbas and other Eastern Ukrainian states. Do we seriously have to play this wordgame? Call the Russian invasion what it is, an invasion.

Do people call the American invasion of Iraq a "military intervention"? Only those who want to use euphemisms to damage control backlash against the invasion. The same applies here.

WestOverSlavs (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The article on Russia' illegal invasion of Georgia in 2008 is called "Russian invasion of Georgia". This article should be called "Russian invasion of Ukraine", just like the article on the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939. (81.132.49.225 (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC))

There are no Russian military forces in Donetsk and Lugansk

There are no Russian military forces in Donetsk and Lugansk, where is your evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.151.123.82 (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The large numbers of dead Russian soldiers is evidence enough.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 20 April 2018

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. This outcome indicates that the proposed title, Russian military intervention in Ukraine, should probably be turned into a disambiguation page. Dekimasuよ! 19:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) → Russian military intervention in Ukraine – Only one, no need in the disambig in the title. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • >Support Oppose Actually, this would make the title more ambiguous and could be misleading. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Russian military have been intervening in the Ukraine since at least the 17th Century. Please do not make such claims as "it wasn't Ukraine then" - it was - I believe such terms as "Left-bank Ukraine" started appearing in the Greater and Lesser Russian languages in the 1660s.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I note that this article has already been moved at least four times since its creation. Andrewa (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Oppose. As two editors have pointed out above, the proposed title would change the scope of the article considerably beyond the current one. Having delved into the article history (see below), the current scope has always been the intended scope, and I cannot think of a better title for it than the current title. Andrewa (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This article has quite a history, which is relevant to where it should end up.

It appears to have been created as 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea [1] 23:01, 1 March 2014‎ Article editor (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (1,864 bytes) (+1,864)‎ . . (←Created page with '{{Infobox military conflict | conflict = 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea | partof = 2014 Crimean crisis | image = | caption = | date...') presumably as a split from the article then at 2014 Crimean crisis.

The current history of the proposed target Russian military intervention in Ukraine gives us the rough dates of the previous moves (note most recent is first of course):

and that is much of the story up until now. Andrewa (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

eposition

An IP editor insists on changing "positions" into "epositions".[2][3] As far as I am aware, there is no such word as "epositions". If you think it is a real world, please justify it, and also saw what it means.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

de jure in February 2014

The same IP editor insists on adding de jure to the following sentences:[4][5] (I put de jure in bold, to make the additions clear.)

In February 2014, Russia made several military incursions into de jure Ukrainian territory. After Euromaidan protests and the fall of Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, Russian soldiers without insignias took control of strategic epositions and infrastructure within the de jure Ukrainian territory of Crimea.

He/she says that it is de jure now. This is true - but in February 2014 when the Russian armed forces started making incursions, it was Ukrainian territory - not just nominally, but actually.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Article Deletion.

I have read the entire article,and looked through all presented references , and there's no significant evidence about invasion , no factoid information, no references to independent ,non-stakeholder-sided evidence , there are only references to mass-media articles that don't contain any confirmation except for annexion of Crimea. I just think it is inconsistent with default style of Wikipedia articles (at least scientific theme article like computer science,physics), so I propose to delete it. I ask you not to declare me pro-Russian, since I do not advocate the interests of any states at all, and I am a technogaian. I just happened to stumble upon this article from the article about the hybrid war and did not recognize Wikipedia. Lol. ZDPLI (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a pure propaganda article. It's really rather shocking to what degree unsubstantiated claims are simply accepted as perfect truth here. Some of the claims have later even been disproven already! I'm going to just have to add a NPOV, because this is really bad enough to be called disgusting.DW75 (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

NPOV - Wikipedia isn't supposed to host propaganda.

And that is what this "article" is. The mildest part is claiming the Crimean vote was "allegedly", there's absolutely no questions about the outcome of that vote, there's no "alledgely" about it. Crimea had at that time already voted for federalisation or more independence from Kiev at least 5 times, and every time, the result was blatantly clear, Kiev either ignored these popular votes or used them as excuses to mistreat the region even more. Ask the people in Crimea, 9 out of 10 are happy about the annexation. Also, the annexation came after Right Sector/Azov battalion and others gave online threats of "heading south to exterminate the vermin", well duh, of course the people in Crimea would vote for annexation with threats like that. It's not like the Kiev regime did anything to stop the massacre in Odessa(quite the opposite). But at least the annexation actually happened! Then however comes a whole host of claims based on unsubstantiated rumours and outright lies perpetrated by a massmedia that went almost hysterical. A number of claims included in the article have even been completely DISproven for years by now. Even just the article name is a sham. A military intervention means a nation sends its military into the area. I have still not found any evidence suggesting Russia have done this. Oh yes, RUSSIANS have gone over the border en masse, but not the military, Russians with families or friends in the area, often together with refugees that turn around to go back once their family is safely in Russia. The most obvious proof of this is that the Ukrainian military is such a wreck(and was even worse in 2014) that if the Russian military actually had invaded, Ukraine as a nation would have fallen in weeks. And that would not be surprising, because any military where it becomes normal with 20-30% desertions from units(heck, even full battalions deserting as a unit!), is not one fit for fighting anything. Another problem is that the majority of sources used comes from belligerents involved in the conflict. Sources that are not above publishing faked material. Like the pictures of Russian tanks in Ukraine used in the US congress that was later proven to be nowhere inside Ukraine, and not even taken the year claimed. This excuse of an "article" is a severe black mark on wikipedias attempts at reliability. DW75 (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

So you have no sources to explain the use of Russian Federation military equipment in Ukraine? T-72B3, GAZ Tigr etc.? That would mean the Russian Federation and its President have lost control over the Russian military. I see no justification for your Maintenance template.[6] Alexpl (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
According to all sources, the russian intervention in Ukraine is real and currently happening. It's a consensus among the journalistic sources and the academic ones. The few that deny it are usually linked to the Kremlin itself (like RT, Sputnik (news agency), etc). As far as the sources go, nothing in this article is false or extrapolated. Seems like your own bias is the only 'evidence' you brought to the table. Coltsfan (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Rewriting article

As you seen I already created a discussion once,about article deletion. And I have seen myself that nothing happened at all instead of changes in article style to neutral(which I expected at least) or it's deletion. I warn everyone about using mass media as evidence,I do not treat it as evidence at all, there are no references to any press release of Ukrainian Armed forces which I can treat like actual evidence. Only valid reference is the reference to.Only links to mass media.I am very disappointed in wikipedia. I thought that there is a place for testimonies and facts and not for babble, but it turned out that everything is exactly the opposite. I now trying compromise variant of actions,just to "Wikify" article and make it to look at least neutral. I trying the last time,if now nothing would change,I would have to surrender,and return to lovely scientific sections of Wikipedia. I just thought,what if someone would read this article and use it as reference position,as it usually happens. Many of people believe the Wikipedia. And I should note that this topics is highly controversial,so I don't like this discussion to become like the previous one. But this is only depends now on your conscience. I remind you, I do not support the actions or policies of any state. And I am not a proponent of the interests of any state. I am just trying to preserve the traditions of good old Wikipedia. ZDPLI (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

What sections specifically do you find most problematic? The only outstanding problems I can see are thin sourcing, link rot, and confusing/unclear translations from Russian articles being cited. Eik Corell (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

somewhat alarming development -

ASSOCIATED PRESS - https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukraine-cites-massive-buildup-of-russian-forces-along-border 50.111.6.33 (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

See also

I suggest to move navboxes "Ukrainian Crisis" and "Annexation of Crimea" into the "See also" section, because they are very far away down, but by common sense they are a "Must See Also" Staszek Lem (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Name of subject

Why its called Russian invasion, if its clearly not? There are 0 proves of Russian invasion. Its clearly Civil War in the Ukraine. And well the link 385 https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/262551 On 4 September, on the southern edge of “DPR”-controlled Khartsyzk (26km east of Donetsk), the SMM observed 29 civilian trucks (all with covered cargo areas) and one car marked “DPR” “military traffic police”, parked in a convoy facing north. All trucks had their licence plates either covered or completely removed. One truck had Russian Federation license plates whose cover had partially fallen off. They clearly calls tracks civilian, but you call them military. I'm trying to edit this, but you call me vandal. Whole topic should be reedit from the basics, but as I see no one would allow this right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincher13 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

We do not like what you say and therefore you are a troll and you should not be allowed to edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odessicus (talk • contribs) 22:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
So obvious that you are here to spread misinformation so you are a vandal. You must be one of those Russian trolls. Do not bother wasting your time trying to spread misinformation here; it will re reverted. Ssbbplayer (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Opening line

The very second sentence of this article is Russian propaganda. "In February 2014, Russia occupied Crimea (~70% ethnically Russian), heeding cries of help from Crimeans who, aware of the Euromaidan killings, feared that they would be next."

This is not up to wikipedia standards and should be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.200.10 (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Adopting Putin proposal of elections in Donbas 2019

The news (I gathered from BBC and MSNBC Rachel Maddow) "Can election deal in east finally bring peace?" saying //On 1 October, Ukraine, Russia and the separatists agreed in principle to hold local elections in the separatist-held east and then - if the poll is seen as free - Ukraine would grant special status to the region.// which seems to be accepted under pressure from Trump (but opposed by US military intelligence, of course). --d-axel (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Chronology of the Donetzk/Lugansk uprising

At the very start of the article, no explanation whatsoever is given to the uprising of the Eastern Provinces. The chronology is relevant.

  1. 23/02/2014 Abrogation by the Rada of he 2012 law ackowledging the existence of regional languages
    (Hungarian,Romanian,russian).
  2. Suspension by the interim president (Turchynov) of this abrogation. He prepares a new language law.
  3. 28/02/2014: The new law is deemed unconstitutional
  4. March 20914 demonstrations in eastern (russian speaking) Ukraine turn into an armed conflit.
    Some russian citizens may have contributed to the upheaval. No deinitive evidence found.
  5. April 2014 A new law is voted Ukranian is the state law and must be used in schools and radio.
  6. August 2014 The russian army crosses the border to support eastern rebels.

All the dates mentioned are gathered from Wikipedia. 2A01:CB14:5A3:7A00:5DE3:CCF1:5BEF:6FD1 (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)G. Smadja (Lyon,France)

This article is part of a series of articles about what is going on in eastern Ukraine. It therefore does not need to cover everything. Toddy1 (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Donbas[s] consistency

This article references both "Donbas" and "Donbass", with the latter appearing more frequently. Donbass is the canonical article -- should we change all "Donbas" references to "Donbass" for consistency?

Maniaphobic (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

"All the best for children" on artillery shells

Ukrainian military writes "All the best for children" on artillery shells (eng)

Украинские военные пишут «Всё лучшее детям» на артилерийских снарядах (rus)

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GKLB_enKZ658KZ658&biw=1517&bih=670&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=HKITXqXgOeaEmwXTi4zgCw&q=%C2%AB%D0%92%D1%81%D1%91+%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%87%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%B5+%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%BC%C2%BB+%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85+%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%85&oq=%C2%AB%D0%92%D1%81%D1%91+%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%87%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%B5+%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%BC%C2%BB+%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85+%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%85&gs_l=img.3...16055.20810..21123...0.0..0.142.2035.0j16......0....1..gws-wiz-img.mwxsjEbIWwo&ved=0ahUKEwil3pij8e_mAhVmwqYKHdMFA7wQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GKLB_enKZ658KZ658&biw=1517&bih=670&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=eKMTXoKlCeidk74P4s-biAg&q=%C2%AB%D0%92%D1%81%D1%91+%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%87%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%B5+%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%BC%C2%BB+%D0%BD%D0%B0++%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%85&oq=%C2%AB%D0%92%D1%81%D1%91+%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%87%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%B5+%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%BC%C2%BB+%D0%BD%D0%B0++%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%85&gs_l=img.3...333377.339053..339836...3.0..0.154.1138.0j8......0....1..gws-wiz-img.r1bkGn6RFyM&ved=0ahUKEwiCweDI8u_mAhXozsQBHeLnBoEQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

--145.255.169.213 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Alley of Angels

write here or a separate article may be

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%8F_%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2

Alley of angels - a memorial complex of the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) in memory of the children who died during the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine. Located in the city of Donetsk in the Park of Culture and Rest named after Lenin Komsomol. It was opened on May 5, 2015 after the installation of the memorial sign, and on June 2, 2017, a monument to the children of Donbass was added to the composition of the alley.

According to UNICEF data published in October 2018, during the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine since 2014, at least 140 children died or were injured as a result of a mine rupture in the DPR [1]. To attract public attention to the problem of death of children during the conflict, activists organized the site 101life.net, which published photos of all documented cases of deaths in the Donbass of children as a result of hostilities [2].

+ links in wikipedia article

--145.255.169.213 (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Gorlovskaya Madonna

Kristina Zhuk was 23 years old, her daughter Kira was 10 months old when they were killed in Gorlovka (Horlivka). The young mother was buried with the baby in her arms. A terrible tragedy then excited the world, the pictures flew around the world, and the deceased Christina was then called the “Gorlovskaya Madonna”.

https://tverdyi-znak.livejournal.com/2608923.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F+%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0&rlz=1C1GKLB_enKZ658KZ658&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqqr7U3e_mAhV066YKHcCrBYAQ_AUIDSgA&biw=1517&bih=670&dpr=0.9

https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F+%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0&rlz=1C1GKLB_enKZ658KZ658&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiysO3g8O_mAhWywqYKHTF4D0kQ_AUoAXoECAwQAw&biw=1517&bih=670

--145.255.169.213 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Civilians killed in Horlivka on 27 July are already mentioned in Battle of Horlivka. Unfortunately, no source mentions Kristina Zhuk by name and LJ blog cannot be used as WP:RS. Cloud200 (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
However, she is mentioned on Wikinews so I think we can use this.[[7] Cloud200 (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Cloud200: that Wikinews article is not sourced. Worse yet, it appears to echo Kiev's nationalistic war propaganda (i.e., the message that Russians are brutal, bloodthirsty killers who "invaded" Ukraine to steal land and spread mayhem). Interestingly, on the subject of civilian casualties in Donbass, there's no mention in Wikipedia of the large number of ethnic Russians who were killed in Donetsk and Lugansk in the summer of 2014, all of them victims of Ukrainian ATO mortar shelling. I think you get my point: there's a near total lack of balance in these articles concerning facts and truth.SvorLyl12 (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I have objections to the Battle of Horlivka article. Namely, it uses illegitimate sources of info to substantiate its claims. One example is the Atlantic Council document (footnote #15). The Atlantic Council is NATO's' think tank. NATO and the Atlantic Alliance are clearly sponsoring Ukraine's participation in this conflict. Therefore, any data found in an Atlantic Council document is going to be rabidly anti-Russian. That means Atlantic Council data is not objective, and should not be used in the footnotes for this article. A second problem is that RIA NOVISTI, a Russian government news source, is used as a footnote. Why should anyone believe anything written by the Kremlin's media? A third problem is that Ukrainian News is used as a footnote. Ukrainian News is just an outlet for pro-Ukrainian propaganda. So, let's face it: from a variety of different angles, the sources for this entire article are invalid. SvorLyl12 (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Cloud200, SvorLyl12 some of these sources are listed in WP:RSP, including Wikinews (“generally unreliable”) and RIA Novosti/Sputnik (“no censensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply”). Please read the specific notes on these and similar sources there. —Michael Z. 16:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Some of these are also on the shorter list at WP:DEPS. —Michael Z. 16:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, if even you agree that those particular sources are unreliable, then why aren't you urging people to remove them from the article? The article is just garbage as long as its content is predicated on those unreliable sources of information. SvorLyl12 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I am urging you to improve the article. Please. —Michael Z.

Requested move 9 June 2020

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

The result of the move request was: moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

– Per WP:COMMONNAME. The disambiguation page Russo-Ukrainian War should be moved to Russo-Ukrainian War (disambiguation) or even deleted. Zotur (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • I suppose this (and even previous) title is wrong. If to refer to Google search, then Russo-Ukrainian conflict has 100x more hits than both. Infovarius (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with Infovarius. The present title is not the common name, and also somewhat opinionated. Heptor (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Interestingly, the number of views of this article dropped by about 70% after the name change (see the graph on top this page). This further supports that the new name does not reflect the common usage. Heptor (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Heptor, I don’t think it does. —Michael Z. 16:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    The PageView was not updated with the new title apparently. Thanks for fixing. Heptor (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a way for this template to display a continuous graph through a page move. But the point will be moot 90 days after the move. I presume that the page views for the new title include the redirects that are still coming from the old one. —Michael Z.
The present title - "Russo-Ukrainian War" - should definitely be scrapped. Nobody in media or diplomacy uses that term except Wikipedia. My impression is that the person who invented this term is determined to underscore and amplify the idea of an ethnic or national conflict. Russians against Ukrainians, and vice verse. The problem with this thinking is that Russia and Ukraine still overlap considerably, much like a Venn diagram. It's not easy to tell where Ukraine really ends, and where Russia really begins. Therefore, we should drop any language or descriptive terms which serve to neatly categorize the combatants' nationality into one exclusive group or another.SvorLyl12 (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
There’s an international consensus and many ratified treaties that determine exactly where the Russian Federation ends and Ukraine starts. The title refers to the two states directly involved in this war, and not the many ethnic groups to which individual combatants, victims, and displaced persons belong. This is clear. Speculative opinion about the intentions of the undefined “person” and their “thinking” is not helpful. —Michael Z. 16:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
But you overlook that the conflict is a civil war in Ukraine. It's a civil war because the ethnic Russian enclaves of eastern Ukraine are rejecting and rebelling against Kiev's policies. Or, to put it another way, the rebels are ethnic Russians, and not ethnic Ukrainians, even though the two nationalities live within the same state. For this reason, it is overly simplistic (if not downright wrong) to treat the international borders as the ethnic and national dividing line between the combating parties.SvorLyl12 (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I don’t think your view of the dividing lines is at all accurate, but, in fact, downright wrong. There’s an interesting ZOIS report entitled “Attitudes and Identities Across the Donbas Front Line” that surveys the complex self-identification of people living in the Donbas, on both sides of the line of contact. Worth a read. Also relevant that many of the the leaders of the so-called LDNR have been Russian citizens documented to have reported to Russian government, military, and security actors, and that over two million residents have fled the part of the Donbas run by militants. Anyway, none of this is changing my mind about the article title. —Michael Z.

I have already read the ZOIS report. It confirms that the vast majority of people living within the rebel-held part of Donbass are pro-Russian. Those people reject the rule of Kiev. That's indisputable, based on the ZOIS findings. As for the many people who have fled the conflict zone, the majority have sought refuge in Russia, and not on the Ukrainian side of the firing lines. Those refugees, clearly, are fleeing from the Ukrainian ATO's offensive. They are not running from the rebels.SvorLyl12 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe read it again. The ZOiS report doesn’t use the vague term “pro-Russian,” but it does say that even of those still in the militant-controlled territory, a majority do not call themselves “Russian,” and a majority prefer their region to stay in Ukraine. Nearly two million were registered as internally displaced, less than half a million as asylum-seekers in the RF (very few of them as actual refugees), and some tens of thousands in other countries. There hasn’t been an ATO for years. This is irrelevant to this page move, but I wish you’d stop spreading false information here. —Michael Z. 21:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The claims you make are incorrect. Woefully so. Please allow me to explain. Let's start with your erroneous belief that the ZOIS data proves that "a majority prefer their region to stay in Ukraine."
On page 12, figure 7 of the ZOIS report, the polling question asks of people in rebel-held territory, "In your view, what should the status of DNR/LNR be?" If you check the bars on the graph, you'll see that three out of the four answer options represent a pro-Russian status for the area. By "pro-Russian status," I am referring to any of the several permanent solutions for DNR/LNR which have been advanced by the Kremlin, or which have been proposed by the pro-Russian rebels themselves. Those three categories on the ZOIS poll are as follows: 1) Special Autonomy Status within Ukraine (i.e., the Minsk II format, which is obviously a pro-Russian outcome); 2) Part of the Russian Federation (obviously pro-Russian in nature); 3) Special Autonomy within the Russian Federation (another blatantly pro-Russian outcome). Now, if you add up the total percentage of poll respondents who voted for one of those three pro-Russian outcomes, you'll see that the total was 79.5% in 2016, and 76.5% in 2019. By any measure, that means an overwhelming percentage of people in rebel-held territory are pro-Russian, and vehemently support a pro-Russian political solution to the conflict. There's no way you can argue with those numbers.
You will probably quibble with me about whether the pro-Russian answer choices in the ZOIS poll (that I refer to) are indeed "pro-Russian." I notice that you advance this argument by stating that "The ZOiS report doesn’t use the vague term “pro-Russian,” (sic). But, based on that statement you make, it appears that you don't know the history of political negotiations in DNR/LNR dating back to August, 2014, when the Ukrainians lost the Battle of Ilovaisk and signed Minsk I. From that time moving into the present, the Kremlin and the rebel leaders have advocated turning DNR/LNR into an autonomous region within Ukraine. That's obviously a pro-Russian solution to the war, as Kiev absolutely does not want to give the DNR/LNR special autonomy within Ukraine. Therefore, you can't possibly deny that this proposed outcome is a pro-Russian solution. Above and beyond that, based on the ZOIS poll, there are huge numbers of DNR/LNR citizens who want to ditch the idea of being inside Ukraine and who desire that their territory become part of the Russian Federation. That means those people favor redrawing the border, with Ukraine literally ceding territory to Russia. That too, by any measure, means a pro-Russian solution. Hence, I trust my explanation of this point is sufficient, and that you are ready to lay your objection to rest.
Concerning the ZOIS findings about what nationality the people of DNR/LNR tend to identify with, a very strong argument can be made that they lean heavily toward Russian ethnic identity. At the very least, the poll data proves that the people in rebel-held territory are far more likely to lean towards Russian identity than Ukrainian identity.
On page 9, figure 4 of the ZOIS report, the question is "DNR/LNR Identity First Choice." Six of the answer categories suggest a definite or highly possible Russian identity, and five categories suggest a definite or highly possible Ukrainian identity. That's without getting into the question of how many people are ambivalent about ethnic identity. But either way, the answer categories and corresponding percentages for the Russian choices are: 1) Ethnic Russian (12.2%); 2) Mixed Ukrainian-Russian (21%); 3) Russian Citizen (2.7%); 4) Citizen of Ukraine and Russia (1.4%); 5) Resident of DNR/LNR (11.5%); 6) Russian Speaker (6.9%). Add all those percentages together and you get a total of 55.7% of DNR/LNR people leaning in favor of Russian identity, if not choosing that identity outright and unequivocally.
By contrast, the total percentage for all five categories suggesting Ukrainian identity applies to only 28.6% of all DNR/LNR residents, at an absolute upper-limit. Those five categories are: 1) Ethnic Ukrainian (4.5%); 2) Mixed Ukrainian and Russian (21%); 3) Ukrainian Citizen (12.6%); 4) Citizen of Ukraine and Russia (1.4%); 5) Ukrainian Speaker (0.1%). That's what the ZOIS data uncovers with respect to the ethnic and national leaning of DNR/LNR people. Quite clearly, far, far fewer people in rebel-held territory have any conceivable reason to think of themselves as Ukrainian as opposed to identifying with Russian ethnicity.
I hope my reference to the graph data on ZOIS puts our disagreement to rest.SvorLyl12 (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Michael Z: you made the erroneous claim that "There hasn’t been an ATO for years. This is irrelevant to this page move, but I wish you’d stop spreading false information here." You claim is factually inaccurate. Also, you are incorrect in asserting that my comment about the ATO is "irrelevant to this page." Kindly allow me to explain.
Today, the vast majority of the Volunteer Battalions that comprised the ATO in 2014-15 are still active and fighting in Donbass. That's just an incontrovertible fact. The same West Ukrainian units are on the front lines, and they still adhere to the same Ukrainian nationalist political philosophies that they identified with in 2014. To deny this by asserting that the original name of the military expedition - the ATO - is no longer used is just to quibble. I trust I made my point here, and that there will be no further disputes on this issue. Call the expedition what you want: an ATO, or a Ukrainian military, it doesn't matter. The Volunteer Battalions are alive and well, and they're still wreaking havoc on Donbass people. That's the chief fact.
It is entirely valid and relevant to the point for me to refer to the combat activities of the ATO as of 2014-15. That's because I was explaining why so many hundreds of thousands of pro-Russian people in Donbass were forced to flee to Russia at that time. Those refugees, most of whom are still in Russia, left Donbass during the ATO's invasion of 2014-15. Hence, my reference to the ATO was appropriate and factually relevant to what we're discussing.SvorLyl12 (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


Then, again, identity is not straightforward in Ukraine.[1]: 2 :identity is far from straightforward in Ukraine Ethnicity (call yourself "Russian"/"Ukrainian") is a poor marker of allegiance. Cultural identity, including language people speak and authors people prefer to read, is comparably more important. Heptor (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Check out the ZIOS data that I point to on page 9, figure 4 of the ZOIS report. I believe it indicates that the culture, language people speak, and media preferences are reflected in the poll answer categories. And, as I've said before, summing the totals of the various categories points strongly toward the conclusion that residents of DNR/LNR have a Russian identity. Also, for what it's worth, I am personally acquainted with people who live in DNR and who visit the region as tourists. Those individuals tell me that the pro-Russian orientation of the people there is strong. One of them, in fact, told me that cafe and store owners in DNR/LNR will verbally lambaste any customers who speak in Surzhyk or Ukrainian. I find that information to be quite convincing.SvorLyl12 (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Bad faith

The proposer of this page move, Zotur, was confirmed a sockpuppet account. In light of that, and the fact that several people now came forward to object it, it appears that there was never a good-faith consensus for renaming this page. Heptor (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ugh. I have informed the closing admin, here: User_talk:JHunterJ#Closed_move_nominated_by_a_sockpuppet_account. —Michael Z. 22:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


Page views on Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present)

Page views on Russo-Ukrainian War

It looks like the new RM below is the best course of action here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@JHunterJ: That's a course of inaction. Are you sure we can't reopen the RM, given that things happened like they did? Heptor (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
It's a course of current action. Yes, I'm sure -- there's no allegation that the participants in the RM discussion other than the OP discussed in bad faith. Since that RM was properly closed, the correct course of action if editors subsequently think a new consensus has formed is to propose a new RM, which has happened. But more to the point: what would be the benefit of closing the below request and reopening the above? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@JHunterJ: Procedure aside, this RM could have benefited from more time for discussion. The consensus to move was temporary. It doesn't look like any other editors than the OP acted in bad faith, but the fact that the OP was a sockpuppet is an exceptional circumstance. WP is fundamentally reliant on people acting in good faith, and I dare say that the integrity of this project is in this instance best served if the results from an action by a sockpuppet are undone. Heptor (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
And what indication was there at the time that the discussion needed more time? The discussion was unanimous in its support. The fact that the OP was a sockpuppet is a circumstance, but removing the sockpuppet from consideration still left clear consensus for the move. The discussion nor the move itself was carried out by the sockpuppet, so those don't need to be undone. The integrity of the project is intact with the penalty imposed on the sockpuppet, and further protected by not negating the discussion of good-faith participants. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
There's plenty indication now though. Heptor (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
And that new indication is being addressed through the new RM. That's the integrity of this project. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I was hoping there'd be a consensus to move it to R/U conflict as a compromise. Now it will probably stick with war. Heptor (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
It will "stick" with the current consensus unless there's a new consensus. Still back to the integrity of the project.-- JHunterJ (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Moniz Bandeira, Luiz Alberto (2019), Moniz Bandeira, Luiz Alberto (ed.), "Ukrainian Separatists and the War in Donbass", The World Disorder: US Hegemony, Proxy Wars, Terrorism and Humanitarian Catastrophes, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 235–247, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03204-3_20, ISBN 978-3-030-03204-3, retrieved 2020-07-08
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War/Archive_16&oldid=1075333878"