Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Haberstr (talk | contribs) at 12:35, 1 September 2014 (→POV tag attached.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:35, 1 September 2014 by Haberstr (talk | contribs) (→POV tag attached.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 August 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russo-Ukrainian War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 10 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine at the Reference desk. Please remember that editing of English Misplaced Pages must be conducted from a neutral point of view.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 March 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

International relations: Law

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ukraine High‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Crimea Task Force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Russia High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Russian & Soviet

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russo-Ukrainian War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2014

This edit request to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Simply a linking error:

The local population and the media referred to them as "martians" or "little green men".

should be

The local population and the media referred to them as "martians" or "little green men".

Martian is not used for people from mars, but as a synonym of "Little green men". Nicolas.dirisio (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I don't think double linking to the same article makes sense but did delink martian. Also moved little green men up in the sentence Cannolis (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If you don't know what you are talking about, don't talk. "Little green men" in Russian is the most common phrase for "extraterrestials" (much like "the Greys" is in US). So both "martians" and "LGM" nicknames there actually do refer to that -- and to their disputed existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.214.16.205 (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This Article's Lead - Yikes!

According to WP:LEAD:

...Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.

This article's lead is ten(!) paragraphs long, running well over a "screen" of text!

I would suggest that this is not good, and I'd encourage regular editors of this page to figure out a way to cut the lead's text down to no more than four paragraphs (while moving any left-over, unused text elsewhere in the article, where applicable). Because, right now, I suspect this article's lead is scaring readers away. --IJBall (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I attempted to solve the problems of this article through mergers in a recent discussion, but this was kiboshed. As it stands, you are a left with a WP:COATRACK. I see no way to fix this article at the moment. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought last two efforts were actually to delete the article, though, I could be wrong. I am not the "regular" editor to this page. I work for a living, but I will attempt to do some clean-up this weekend since I did vote to keep it and no one else seems to be doing it.

However, I can tell you that a few editors to the other Ukraine articles sometimes go ballistic over my writing or deleting of a single sentence which is much less than the full article cleanup this one requires. So, you may likely have to read my revision on the history page.

The history of this article is why it's so messy. The title of the article seems appropriate as people seem to visit it despite it being the unwanted orphan of the Ukrainian Misplaced Pages articles.Hilltrot (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It's true that this article, and the lede in particular, is a mess. However, given recent events, deletion or merger of is pretty much out of the question. Renaming to "Russian invasion of Ukraine", possibly, yes. What really needs to be done however, is a general clean, which as a starting point entails cutting the hell out of that lede. That's basically what this requires, even if it is somewhat of a Augean task.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

At this point, a new article should be made titled "Russian Invasion of the Ukraine." Russia has even admitted it, of course they are saying vacationing Russian soldiers are the ones fighting. Being a soldier myself once, I was never allowed to take a tank with me when I took a vacation. However, it appears that Ukraine has called this a direct invasion, and it appears NATO and the UN will say so soon.Panzertank (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I generally agree. My only thought was whether to try and clean up this article then move it to "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" or to start a new one then merge material from here. Originally I was hoping to do the former, but given how much of a mess this article is, the latter may actually be a better option.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I've always favoured the WP:KIBOSH approach. This article needs to die. A new one can be created, written properly. RGloucester — ☎ 15:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I have a problem with this title. My primary problem with the title "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" is that it will hog-tie the subject and prevent it from having the depth and breadth that it needs. The events in Crimea, Eastern Ukrainian protests, insurgency and now invasion are all directly related to Putin's military aggression. If you think that all of that can be in an article titled "Russian Invasion of Ukraine", then I am ok with that. Otherwise, "Russian Invasion of Ukraine" becomes another restrictive sub-article instead of an overview article which is needed.

All that is out there right now are subarticles. Some of them have POV titles which are dubious at best. "Insurgency or War in Donbass" Nobody is looking up Donbass. They are looking for Ukraine or East Ukraine. No one in the media is refering to it as Donbass in their titles. I guess this is the best way to bury a topic you don't want anyone to find out about. "The Crimean Crisis" Can people be more vague? I'm not sure if they can! It sounds like Crimea just ran out of water for a couple of days. Or are they talking about the the bad time the British had in Crimea over a century ago? These titles are actually worst than this article. Because people are still coming to this article because of the appropriateness of the title, not due to the content of the article.

I think the title has something going for it. I think that it's the main thing going for this article. It called a spade a spade when many of the other articles were giving equal weight to the fringe. If a lot of the article ends up removed to help make it readable, that is fine for me. However, I believe the title is very resilient.Hilltrot (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't "hide" that article, as all the titles you mention redirect to War in Donbass, a WP:NDESC title decided by consensus. To say that "no one is looking up Donbass" is nonsense, and media sources were provided in the discussion. There are good reasons why it cannot be named "War in Ukraine" or "War in Eastern Ukraine", and those were dealt with in the discussion. Regardless, those names redirect there, so it is no more difficult for people to find the article. RGloucester — ☎ 16:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, I do agree with you with regard to scope. The broad scope of this title is useful, as it encompasses all types of Russian military interference, not just direct military invasion. RGloucester — ☎ 16:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The WP:KIBOSH approach is impractical and probably won't be able to get consensus. The best thing to do is to appropriately expand the Russian invasion of Ukraine 2014 article and trim this one down. I do agree with Hilltrot that there needs to be a central article which combines all the relevant events. Obviously "War in Donbass" is too limited in scope as a title and remains only roughly descriptive as long as the conflict remains very localized. Mariupol, which is threatened by Russian forces is on the very edge of the "Donbass" (if not outside of it).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Mariupol is in the Donbass (note the first Battle of Mariupol), which includes all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. There is no evidence of the conflict moving out of Donbass, at yet. The problem, Mr Marek, is that "military intervention" and "invasion" mean exactly the same thing. RGloucester — ☎ 17:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is a decent summary of the intervention in Donbass so far... (unfortunately, in Russian) My very best wishes (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Related deletion discussion

A new fork of this article, titled Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014), was created. I've nominated it for deletion. Please comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014). RGloucester — ☎ 16:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a fork.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to create any more articles on this subject but...

... maybe split off the "reactions" stuff? It just takes up a whole bunch of space here and most of is very outdated. Instead, in this particular article we'd have a prose paragraph describing the general nature of reactions. For example that paragraph in the lede which lists all the countries could go in it. That way the content here would be more manageable and it'd be easier to focus on the key elements of this article. Thoughts? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

POV tag attached.

{{POV|POV tag attached. The entry is strongly anti-Russian, right down to the naming of the entry. Its primary failing is that it treats as facts an array of allegations regarding Russian intervention. Please understand that all allegations of Russian intervention should be stated as allegations, not facts. Also, please understand that the degree of Russian involvement is unclear in Crimea's revolt against the post-coup/revolution government in Ukraine, its declaration of independence, and its subsequent union with Russia. What is presently there needs to be rewritten as an allegation, and then the non-Western perspective on what happened also needs to be included, for balance. This should be the general procedure throughout the article. Please, emphatically, consider renaming entry as "2014 alleged Russian intervention in Ukraine." Or, even better, "2014 allegations of foreign intervention in Ukraine," and then we could add allegations of Western, U.S., IMF, and German involvement in Ukraine, both Maidan and post-Maidan. Such a new title might generate a wonderfully balanced and therefore NPOV entry.Haberstr (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources not editors' own personal feelings or ideologies. Removing the tag as spurious. Please give actual Misplaced Pages policy or guideline based reasons for the tag. Otherwise it's just simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek 08:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Sir, may I ask who is this "we"? Is this group of like-minded editors willing to abide by WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:CLOSE? If you communicate with that group informally, may I ask that you remind them of the following, from WP:CLOSE: "Misplaced Pages policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." Thank you!Haberstr (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's anti-Russian, but since the Russian military officially denies any presence in Ukraine(referring to the troops there as 'volunteers' on vacation) , I would wonder if there is a better way to reflect that in the title. "Russian military intervention' suggests an official operation. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right. Roughly speaking, the title needs to be changed to either "Russian volunteers in the Ukraine conflict" or "Alleged Russian military intervention in Ukraine."Haberstr (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Majority if not all of the sources cited don't seem to be very reliable. It is all third-hand news reports (in hardly independent outlets) or statements lacking any proof, on both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.214.16.205 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

176.214.16.205, perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with Misplaced Pages policy before making sweeping generalisations. Misplaced Pages uses secondary sources, not primary sources as we are WP:NOTNEWS and do not indulge in WP:OR. Pray tell, which of the "majority" of sources don't "seem very reliable" according to you? Perhaps you need to bone up on what reliable sources are. If you have a comment/criticism of the content to make, please be precise as to which content and why the sources are questionable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Fellow editor, I kindly ask you to please review and follow the WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:CLOSE. The first step in a successful discussion here is WP:CIVILITY.Haberstr (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Haberstr: How many articles surrounding recent events in Ukraine are you proposing to tag for WP:POV based on pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT? You are engaging in tendentious editing. The only neutrality in question here is your own. Suddenly, every "... entry is strongly anti-Russian, right down to the naming of the entry.". Have you created a template for the talk page justification (per pro-Russian unrest and media portrayal)? Your concerns with content are not issues of neutrality, but indicative of a disruptive pattern. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ms. or Mr. Harpy, may I ask that you be less contentious in your discussion here? Please have initial good faith in my motivations, as I do in yours.Haberstr (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The comments here saying the POV tag is "I don't like that", are either based on ignorance or are downright lying. The article treats unfounded allegations and claims as facts. For example, 11 Russian soldiers captured some inside Ukraine's border is portrayed as a full scale "invasion" of Ukraine, the fact that it's about 11 soliders is buried behind a reference to Time magazine (which draws the unfounded generalization soliders -> invasion), and a much higher number of Ukrainian soldiers captured in Russia and now exchanged for the aforementioned 11 is not regarded as an "invasion" of Russia, or even mentioned. General phrases are used to convey impressions that are contrary to reality. As it stands this article is a pure expression of a single propaganda view, with frivolous citing of sources (e.g. the Time magazine, regarding the 11) that don't establish the alleged facts. The POV tag is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.150.50.9 (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Everyone: It is against Misplaced Pages policy to remove POV tags before a discussion AND CONSENSUS has been reached. In this case, it was removed without any discussion, and without any engagement at all with the POV criticisms I have mentioned in the long paragraph above. A good start to a collegial discussion would be any response at all to the statements I have made in my paragraph above. I am restoring the POV tag, and assume generously that someone has simply made a mistake, and doesn't know Misplaced Pages policy on this matter. Haberstr (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It is about more than 11 Russian soldiers; it is about hundreds and their equipment which has been photographed; some rebels have also admitted to getting Russian help. All of this is being reported in reliable sources which is all that we deal in here; you are free to disbelieve anything you read here, but that doesn't change the fact that this is the information that is out there. If you have evidence of Western interference or troops in Ukraine, feel free to begin your own article about it, or add the information to an appropriate existing article. I think the POV tag is invalid. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

RS sources disagree on whether there is evidence pointing to official "Russian military intervention" in Ukraine. I agree, and everyone agrees I think, that Russian volunteers are active in the conflict, and privately funded military supplies are being delivered to the eastern Ukraine rebels. The name of this WP entry is "Russian miltiary intervention," which indicates intervention by the Russian government. That is a controversial topic on which there is stark disagreement, and so we need to reflect both sides of the debate.Haberstr (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If 100 Rusian

If 100 Rusian can defeat Ukrainian army what can do 5 milons? ... the article is completly misleding duplicating existing art. The propaganda line is to group Crimeria anexation with current aleged events.

The Z line of prop, known from earlier ops, aparently is this.

whie we(Z) ruin cities kill anybody, we report aterroist op progres (ATO), and they use of human shields
we take teritory we report mass graves and blame is on kiling by them. (publik can not conclude thy may be pple killed by us)
we retreat we report killing of cyvilians, destruction on property, and how they killing us by trachery.

IMO it looks like the Z goal is to kill as m.a.p. 'own' people . Which can have explanation if you follow what do Z. For any usurper their 'own' people are they biggest anemy. 73.50.83.60 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. (Also, your comment is incomprehensible). Volunteer Marek 20:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories: