Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:23, 27 October 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War in Donbas 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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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, 12Auto-archiving period: 14 days

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.

Ukrainian place names are transliterated using the National system. Please see the guidelines on the romanization of Ukrainian on Misplaced Pages for more information.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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

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 met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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. Russia High‑importance 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. Ukraine Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV deletion of cited text

Please explain how my additions specifically violate Misplaced Pages policies on neutrality. Otherwise, this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Civilians killed: 3,684 (DPR & LPR estimate) "Ukraine: Self-proclaimed Donbass republics call for UN war crimes probe". RT. 8 July 2015. Retrieved 8 July 2015. – 7,000 (Ukraine estimate)Volodymyr Verbyany (8 May 2015). "Ukraine's Poroshenko Says Fighting Killed 7,000 as Truce Strains". Bloomberg.com.

Al-Jazeera interviewed a Canadian volunteer with the Azov Battalion, and reported that the battalion's "ideological alignment with other far-right, social-nationalist groups has attracted volunteers from organisations in Sweden, Italy, France, Canada, and Russia".Sabra Ayres (24 July 2014). "Driven by far-right ideology, Azov Battalion mans Ukraine's front line". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 25 July 2014.

Chechen opponents of the Russian government, including Chechen military commander Isa Munayev, were fighting pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine for the Ukrainian government."Chechens join Ukraine fight against Russian-backed separatists". The Irish Times. 16 December 2014."'We like partisan warfare.' Chechens fighting in Ukraine – on both sides ". The Guardian. 24. July 2015.

Removed, Removed, Removed.

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

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

Don't start this again. How many times have we been through this? I really don't appreciate having my time wasted by you repeatedly and I'm sure others feel the same way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry but why haven't dubious claims sourced by youtube been removed yet?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Because youtube is not being used as a source. A video on youtube is being used as a source. This has already been explained to both you and Tobby72 so how about the two of you quit playing dumb.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Because youtube is not being used as a source. A video on youtube is being used as a source We don't use youtube videos as source.Also please refrain from personal attacks. You have been asked to do so numerous times already.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course we can use videos on youtube as sources. What in the world are you talking about? And I'm sorry but these passive-aggressive bad faith WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games become extremely irritating after awhile. Tobby72 pretending that this is some kind of new issue... as if there weren't several huge discussions about the issue right above and in the archives. You pretending that we can't use a video from a news agency because it's on youtube... as if there weren't literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of instances of youtube being used as sources on WikipediaThis is ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics has been refereed to RSN already and the opinion was that this is not a highly reliable source, and should be used only to present authors views . Since you disagree if youtube videos are reliable source of information I will ask about this on RSN. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

That discussion most certainly does NOT state "the opinion that this is not a highly reliable source". Why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why why do you insist on wasting my time with falsehoods which can be easily checked? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The video/statement that Young is reporting on can supposedly be found here .Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The relevant text: Бабай уточнил, что под "западным злом" подразумевает не весь Запад, а лишь "жидомасонов", поскольку "только они везде в мире наводят беспорядок - такой, который им нужен" и "из-за этого страдаем мы - простой православный народ".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please rephrase your statement in a readable format, thank you. For the record, the youtube channel seems to be created by amateur community site called jewishnews.com, at least this is their official website in about section.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC) You pretending that we can't use a video from a news agency because it's on youtubeLooking at the youtube channel, it is hardly a official news agency, anyone can name his/her channel so. The official website goes to a rather amateur webpage. In any case I have asked about this on RSN.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

My statement is readable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of the edit in question, I think that first (non YouTube) reference is fine for the statement, but the second one (YouTube video) should be better replaced by something else... My very best wishes (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Islamic Battalions – WP:RS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RGloucester, please participate in the discussion. You have been edit warring for the past two months - , , , but I don't see you RGloucester discussing this on the talk page. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. It has all been discussed thousands of times. We've all learned that it isn't worth "discussing" anything with you. RGloucester — ☎ 16:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

RGloucester, your response is "There is nothing to discuss"? Not how it works. Certainly if the foreign fighter of one side is mentioned, then the foreign fighter of the other side should be mentioned as well, per the words written at WP:NPOV, articles should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." We go by what reliable sources say, and reliable sources say that "Islamic militants from Chechnya have begun fighting in eastern Ukraine against the Russian-backed rebels.". It's a well-documented fact that Islamic battalions aid Kiev in war with Donbass separatists. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverter is definitely NOT interested in a discussion. Since the article is now in the shape Volunteer Marek, Iryna Harpy, RGloucester want it to be, they do not engage in discussion and leave it. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

We've been over this a million times. Consensus is against you. Stop wasting people's time. You are being extremely disruptive with this slow motion edit warring where every couple of days, for several months now you come to the article and try to cram your version of it down everyone's throat, only to be reverted again and again and again by numerous editors. If you weren't a contributor that's been around for awhile you'd have been blocked long time ago. The fact that you are a contributor that's been around for awhile actually makes things worse though. Volunteer Marek  15:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is based on reliable published sources, not the opinions of editors. Judging by your edits, it does not seem that you quite understand WP:RS or WP:NPOV. The New York Times or The Guardian are highly reliable sources. There is no reason for them to be removed. The POV tag should stay until these issues are resolved. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

We've been over this a million times. Consensus is against you. Stop wasting people's time. You are being extremely disruptive with this slow motion edit warring where every couple of days, for several months now you come to the article and try to cram your version of it down everyone's throat, only to be reverted again and again and again by numerous editors. If you weren't a contributor that's been around for awhile you'd have been blocked long time ago. The fact that you are a contributor that's been around for awhile actually makes things worse though. Volunteer Marek  15:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

So, I ask again... Marek, WHY did you delete my edits? There's nothing "extremely disruptive" about my edits and there is hardly any consensus. User: RGloucester has been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages for being a disruptive and another editor agreed to a redacted form of the content — and it was done . WP:NPOV says clearly that the article should fairly represent all significant views published by reliable sources. Per my comments above, the "Pro-Russian insurgents" section occupies almost one third of this article. WP:NPOV requires that we also cover "Counter-insurgency forces and Ukrainian militias". -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

We've been over this a million times. Consensus is against you. Including in regard to the POV tag. Stop wasting people's time. You are being extremely disruptive with this slow motion edit warring where every couple of days, for several months now you come to the article and try to cram your version of it down everyone's throat, only to be reverted again and again and again by numerous editors. If you weren't a contributor that's been around for awhile you'd have been blocked long time ago. The fact that you are a contributor that's been around for awhile actually makes things worse though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs) 15:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read slowly and carefully: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

We've been over this a million times. Consensus is against you. Stop wasting people's time. You are being extremely disruptive with this slow motion edit warring where every couple of days, for several months now you come to the article and try to cram your version of it down everyone's throat, only to be reverted again and again and again by numerous editors. If you weren't a contributor that's been around for awhile you'd have been blocked long time ago. The fact that you are a contributor that's been around for awhile actually makes things worse though.

Also - personal attack noted. Volunteer Marek  13:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Am I missing something? (Possibly, as I have come to this party late.) But what is wrong with Tobby72's suggestion of including the references to the New York Times, The Guardian etc? It's not obvious from this Talk Page what the problem is. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ph1ll1phenry, more than likely the references to the New York Times, The Guardian were removed in order to make sure the article stayed unbalanced anti-Russian POV. Ukraine-related articles have been guarded by several editors who have certain POV and any attempt to improve has been blocked. This is an issue that goes back a long way ... – , . -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ph1ll1phenry: Actually, yes, as a new editor you haven't been engaged in the development of this article, nor surrounding articles. It's always advisable to read talk pages (in particular all of the archived talk which you'll find in the archives box at the top of article talk pages). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting on a reply to why the properly sourced section has been removed – . The New York Times enjoys the reputation of being a generally reliable source of news. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Tobby72. Iryna Harpy, I checked the archives and found no consensus that the NYT article etc was not allowed (or indeed anything similar). Tobby72, I would suggest that you start an RFC (or similar) so it can be opened up for discussion with other editors. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tobby72: Stop your edit warring. We've all been through a couple of years of disruptive and tendentious editing by you on every article related to recent events in Ukraine. Enough of your throwing tantrums in order to get your way. It's known as WP:EXHAUST... so it's time to drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Map

We need to update the map. It says last updated un February — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.13.146 (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The map hasn't really changed since February. D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• B-Class European history articles
• Mid-importance European history articles
• All WikiProject European history pages
• B-Class Russia articles
• High-importance Russia articles
• High-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class Ukraine articles
• Top-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles