Iryna Harpy (talk | contribs) |
Iryna Harpy (talk | contribs) m →Note added to infobox: ce |
||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
::::Do you mean like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_in_Donbass&diff=666026730&oldid=666026488]? Let me know. If not I will revert myself. [[User:EkoGraf|EkoGraf]] ([[User talk:EkoGraf|talk]]) 12:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC) |
::::Do you mean like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_in_Donbass&diff=666026730&oldid=666026488]? Let me know. If not I will revert myself. [[User:EkoGraf|EkoGraf]] ([[User talk:EkoGraf|talk]]) 12:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::::Yes, that's what I was thinking of just for the sake of keeping the infobox as clean as possible. I've reinstated the full citation. Hopefully that'll make it clear to readers where the info comes from! --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 23:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC) |
:::::Yes, that's what I was thinking of just for the sake of keeping the infobox as clean as possible. I've reinstated the full citation. Hopefully that'll make it clear to readers where the info comes from! (I'm starting to feel that all of this pedantry may be the sign of becoming mentally defective as a result of spending too much time on controversial articles...) --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 23:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:40, 8 June 2015
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
General Staff of Ukraine:there is no regular Russian units in Ukraine
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b3nL4i914m0 I suggest we should remove regular Russian troops as a participant of the conflict and keep it on as a supporter. Because general staff of Ukraine admitted absence of Russian forces — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDK-169 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- There are no Russian regular troops in Donbas. If so, General Lentsov wouldn't be in the JCCC. In western countries, the law specifies very clearly, innocent unless proven guilty. No proof of Russian regular troops sent by the Russian government, then by law there is no Russian regular troops in Donbas. No one denies there are Russian troops in Crimea. In Donbas, there isn't any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.58.86.171 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is an article WP:TALK page, not a WP:SOAPBOX. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a court of law, nor is it original research. We use reliable sources, not 'contributor' WP:POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- None of the sources listed state there are Russian troops in Donbas. They say there is evidence. They do not say there is proof. It's all speculative. At the end of the day, you have to make a choice. If you put Russian armed forces in the infobox, then you have to put a footnote saying denied by Russia, which means it means nada putting Russian armed forces in the infobox. Either they are there or they aren't there. This isn't Schroedinger's cat which is both dead and alive at the same time. Either the Russian armed forces is in the infobox or the Russian armed forces is not in the infobox. It cannot be both in and not in at the same time. As of now, there is a footnote stating denied by Russia, so by assumption the Russian armed forces is not in the infobox. The Russian armed forces is in the infobox only if there is no footnote which states denied by Russia. Simple as that. A man cannot be innocent and guilty at the same time. You cannot say a man is guilty with a footnote stating denied by that man. That is not western logic. And wikipedia is a western website. So there you go.45.58.86.171 (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Evidence is proof. And yes, the sources do say that there are Russian troops in Donbass. I have no idea what you are going on about in the rest of your comment. WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Evidence is not proof. Otherwise we would already know who shot down MH17. Put Russian armed forces in the infobox if you want. It means absolutely nothing because of the footnote which states denied by Russia. Anyone with half a brain knows Ukraine does not dare to fight the Russian armed forces. See? No fighting in Crimea, is there? 69.166.125.108 (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Proof is a word that is only applicable to mathematics. There is so much evidence at this point that it is effectively a fact. There is no absence of evidence to warrant what is suggested. Russian military forces are in Ukraine, it shouldn't deny that. 68.227.167.123 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Evidence is not proof. Otherwise we would already know who shot down MH17. Put Russian armed forces in the infobox if you want. It means absolutely nothing because of the footnote which states denied by Russia. Anyone with half a brain knows Ukraine does not dare to fight the Russian armed forces. See? No fighting in Crimea, is there? 69.166.125.108 (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Evidence is proof. And yes, the sources do say that there are Russian troops in Donbass. I have no idea what you are going on about in the rest of your comment. WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- None of the sources listed state there are Russian troops in Donbas. They say there is evidence. They do not say there is proof. It's all speculative. At the end of the day, you have to make a choice. If you put Russian armed forces in the infobox, then you have to put a footnote saying denied by Russia, which means it means nada putting Russian armed forces in the infobox. Either they are there or they aren't there. This isn't Schroedinger's cat which is both dead and alive at the same time. Either the Russian armed forces is in the infobox or the Russian armed forces is not in the infobox. It cannot be both in and not in at the same time. As of now, there is a footnote stating denied by Russia, so by assumption the Russian armed forces is not in the infobox. The Russian armed forces is in the infobox only if there is no footnote which states denied by Russia. Simple as that. A man cannot be innocent and guilty at the same time. You cannot say a man is guilty with a footnote stating denied by that man. That is not western logic. And wikipedia is a western website. So there you go.45.58.86.171 (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is an article WP:TALK page, not a WP:SOAPBOX. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a court of law, nor is it original research. We use reliable sources, not 'contributor' WP:POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Ukrainian public opinion
...According to the International Republican Institute.
(Not that the IRI would ever push a right-wing point of view?)
- Just because it has the word "Republican" in it does not mean it's affiliate with the Republican party. It's just a word. Anyway, WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
IRI Principals
"IRI Board of Directors and Personnel includes major Republican foreign policy voices, and other prominent Republicans."
International Republican Institute, Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.239.252 (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Note added to infobox
Hi, EkoGraf. Just to let you know that I've added a note to the number of Russian soldiers killed in the infobox. User Kapcapkapm left a message on my talk page expressing his/her confusion as to whether Russian soldiers were included in the separatist figures, or whether they were separate (due to the Nuland ref). I've simply added a note, for clarity, that it is unknown whether they're included as Russia hasn't confirmed any numbers killed). If you'd like to make some sort of amendment to the note style, feel free to do so. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Iryna Harpy I thought it was already clear because the number of Russian dead was in brackets beside the larger toll. I will check to make an edit to the style of the note. EkoGraf (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- I know it seems a little trivial, and that the purpose of the exercise was to de-clutter the infobox however, after I'd received the query, I checked it again objectively and, while the numbers being in small font was an indication, I found myself agreeing that it could be a little clearer as it isn't elaborated on in the "casualties" section summary. Another alternative could be to pop the info into the Nuland ref before the citation so's to not extend the infobox any further, but I'm good with it either way. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Do you mean like this [1]? Let me know. If not I will revert myself. EkoGraf (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I was thinking of just for the sake of keeping the infobox as clean as possible. I've reinstated the full citation. Hopefully that'll make it clear to readers where the info comes from! (I'm starting to feel that all of this pedantry may be the sign of becoming mentally defective as a result of spending too much time on controversial articles...) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Do you mean like this [1]? Let me know. If not I will revert myself. EkoGraf (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)