Talk:Ukrainian territorial defence battalions

National Guard?

What is the relation of the territorial battalions to the National Guard of Ukraine? The issue should be discussed in the article. Now there is not even a link. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

IP User Vandalism

Over the last 24 hours, one IP user utilizing multiple IP's has been changing article information to suit his own opinion changing "Pro-Russian Unrest" to "Anti-nationalist rebellion" and such kind of messages. I am hoping an Admin will intervene because they will not stop and change the page every few minutes. Check out the edits he has made in the history section because I'm taking all the steps and consulting other users on this. SantiLak (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Title

I've moved this page to the more appropriate translation "Territorial defense battalion", and added "(Ukraine)" for disambiguation. This is more in line with our guidelines on article titles, which ask that we use WP:SINGULAR forms when possible. This is also avoids the clunkiness of "of", which would not be used in that way in standard English. RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ignorance is bliss!

This article is a complete mess made out of the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Interior and the National Guard of Ukraine different volunteer battalions and companies (yes, some of them are companies) which confuses and bewilders readers. What is funny, everything is already delineated in the Ukranian wiki but as we know imperial hubris sometimes blinds:

• Territorial defense battalion of Ukraine
• Special police detachments in Ukraine
• Also note, that some of the so-called territorial defense battalions report only to the regional state administrations, some - are paramilitary formations of official and unregistered political organizations, which partly explains the confusion. In short, don't mess with stuff that you have no idea about....
• Solution: rename it into "Volunteer battalions of Ukraine" which at least would bring some sense! Good luck, --Nabak (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that everybody agrees that it is the right time to make the next step and put this mess up for deletion as it spreads misinformation and spawns misleading stubs! Best, --Nabak (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice letter

For those interested in these battalions, perhaps this could find its way into the article. RGloucester — ☎ 22:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

Since this article is a complete mess, as I already stated above, made out of the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Interior and the National Guard of Ukraine different volunteer (the Ministry of Interior) and conscripted (the Ministry of Defense, the 24th "Aidar" and the 11th "Kievan Rus" are the exceptions) battalions and companies (yes, some of them are companies) which confuses and bewilders readers and spawns ignorant stubs and edits not only on English Wikipedia but on all WP projects including Commons, I have nominated this article for deletion. The name is misleading, the content is confusing, the subject is misunderstood (these are not special police detachments, these are the Army detachments) and muddled, since the system of the territorial defense in Ukraine actually was introduced by Yanukovich on 2 September 2013 by his presidential decree № 471/2013. I have posted a notice about upcoming deletion on the article's talk page on 16 September 2014; nobody objected, so be it! --Nabak (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Volunteering

How long do they volunteer for? Is there a contract? Ledboots (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Article name

@Peacemaker67 - is "Territorial defense battalions (Ukraine)" really the standard disambiguation for national militaries as you suggest?? Can you give me exact examples that support this? Sources usually use "Territorial defense battalions of Ukraine" rather than "Territorial defense battalions (Ukraine)", so according to the article sources and WP:Disambiguation, the page should be named either "Territorial defense battalions of Ukraine" (alternatively "Ukrainian Territorial defense battalions" as per Australian Defence Force, Russian Armed Forces etc.) or since there are no other "Territorial defense battalions", there is no disambiguation needed for this page actually; so it also would make more sense to name it "Territorial defense battalions" rather than "Territorial defense battalions (Ukraine)".--Der Golem (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Leaving aside the obvious issue of whether this is a proper name or a descriptive one, per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, "Territorial defense battalions" is so generic as to be completely useless as an article name, ie no-one will know by looking at it whose territorial defense battalions they are, or even if this is an article about the generic concept of territorial defense battalions. I had a similar discussion with an editor about the merits of "Muslim militia" as a useful WP:TITLE. It's not. Even if there are no other articles at "Territorial defense battalions" now, the likelihood of there being one in the future is very high. Pre-emptively disambiguating this one by country with a view to that is a sensible course of action, IMO. It is also consistent with the MOS and TITLE. But if you believe I am wrong, feel free to RM it and see what the community thinks. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 - You choose to avoid to discuss 2 out of my 3 proposals for article naming; and also you don't provide any explanation for your "standard disambiguation for national militaries" claim so I assume that you just made it up. Next time please don't revert an edit just because it goes against your unsubstantiated ideas. I moved it according to actual standard "national militaries" titles such as Canadian Armed Forces, French Navy, Royal Australian Air Force, Brazilian Marine Corps etc., which have the affiliation at the beginning of the title, rather than in brackets: Ukrainian territorial defense battalions. Regards.--Der Golem (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, no. I didn't. I linked to MILMOS which explains this. Please try reading it. This is NOT a national military, ie Ukrainian Armed Forces, which you seem intent on comparing it to. We also generally don't "do" plurals. It is a type of unit. Ukrainian territorial defense battalion would be fine, of course. Just so long as Ukrainian is in the title. "of Ukraine" is inconcise and too formal, which is why I moved it in the first place. It is apparent to me that you are uninterested in advice, I will stop offering it. Good luck. Peacemaker67 (example crack... thump) 05:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 Please try to use more peace-making wording in discussion. Where you refer is "Units, formations, and bases". Unlike Donbas Battalion, this article is not about a specific battalion/unit to follow 4th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (example from WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME), but about a large group of battalions. The similarity between the "Ukrainian territorial defense battalions" and any kind of "any armed forces" that I pointed out is not whether they are a national military, but rather that both refer to a group of military units, so their affiliation should not be in brackets. I have known that Ukrainian territorial defense battalion would be fine, but you didn't seem to comprehend that until just now. It is apparent to me that your feeling of entitlement to give advice to others and your notion that others somehow need your advice is an attitude that some members of the community might find rather uninteresting. Good luck to you too.--Der Golem (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Btw both Ukrainian and Russian Wikis use plural "battalions".--Der Golem (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what they do. We prefer singular here, and it was singular until you messed with it, and made it impossible to move it back to the longstanding singular title. See WP:SINGULAR. I also oppose any change. "Ukrainian" is not part of the name of these, so it cannot be included in front of the term. Please file an RM if you want to make a change, and gain consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 03:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There has been a consensus on "Ukrainian" in front of the title until you messed it :) --Der Golem (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Consensus is attained in an RM, not in discussion between two editors. The other editor preferred the original title. I reverted you bold move, and you never opened an RM. The burden is on you to attain consensus when you move an article from a longstanding title. Now, if you want anything, you'd better do it properly. RGloucester — ☎ 04:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course consensus can be reached in discussion between two editors, if no other people join the discussion. Read WP:CON and don't fabricate non-exitent rules. That something is longstanding since you made it that way does not legitimize anything unless you think you WP:OWN the article. There is no restriction on discussing and reaching consensus about article moves on article talkpage; and there is no restriction on any WP:BOLD editing. In fact, bold editing is in 95% of cases the best way to save time unless one encounters a narcissistic editor (5% of the times). As I am totally fine with any article title here, I don't see what burden is on me. Now, if you want anything, you'd better do it properly. Cheers.--Der Golem (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Please, bold editor. The other party departed because he had no desire to deal with your continued nonsense. The longstanding title remains, per WP:TITLECHANGES. Attain consensus otherwise through an RM, or depart. It is hard to say that I "own" anything, considering I've never had anything to do with this bit. There is a restriction on your bold editing. It is called WP:BRD. It is a basic process. If a bold edit you make is reverted, attain consensus through the appropriate process. In this case, that's an RM. RGloucester — ☎ 05:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Battalion "Crimea"

There is also a Volunteer Battalion "Crimea" that will join the Ukrainian Armed Forces. But I lack the energy to find out more about it today :-| — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Russian invasion and NPOV

Extended discussion

In the lead of the article one can read the phrase 'the invading Russian Armed Forces' without any reference to a source. This is a very serious claim on a very controversial subject which, independent of its truth, should be properly sourced (a reference to the UN or the OSCE would be fine) and cannot appear as such in an Encyclopaedia. It is my feeling that we should aim at higher standards of verifiability than those provided by the media. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC) The UN and the OSCE aren't the only things considered RS, many news sources are as well. - SantiLak (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC) I never claimed that the UN and the OSCE were the only sources to be considered, I gave them as examples illustrating the standards of authority and neutrality one expects of a source cited in an encyclopaedia. The news outlets suffer from a systematic bias and their main aim is to make profits and/or to further an agenda, not to establish the truth. They have been so often wrong in the past that, in my opinion, they don't meet the standards expected of a source referenced in a respectable encyclopaedia. My sole concern is the credibility of Wikipedia. Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC) I added 3 citations from reliable sources, if you want to try and change wikipedia policy on reliable sources go ahead but right now it is what it is and your opinions regarding what we consider reliable sources alleged endemic bias and inaccuracy are just that, opinions. - SantiLak (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) The Kyiv Post is cited many times in the article to support controversial claims. Is there a consensus among wikipedians to consider it a neutral source as regards the conflict in Ukraine? Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Dear Santilak, I strongly object to your use of the pronoun 'we' when referring to Wikipedia and its policies. It insinuates that you have authority to be its representative, whereas I am a newcomer who had better keep quiet and do as he is told. This, in my opinion, is contrary to the very spirit of the Wikipedia Project.Againstdisinformation (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC) @Santilak: 'the stealth invasion by Russian Armed Forces' is no better than 'the invading Russian Armed Forces'. As for the sources, I find it difficult to believe that Der Spiegel, Fortune an The Economist are impartial sources as concerns the Ukrainian conflict. In any case, all three refer themselves to NATO, which can hardly be called a neutral party. Thank you anyway for trying to add some source. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC) They are RS, this Encyclopedia has established them as that and I don't see how they aren't impartial sources. I'm sure you wish we would only use RIA Novosti or RT as our sources but then we would be filling the Encyclopedia with bias instead of reliable neutral information. - SantiLak (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Againstdisinformation, please re-read the missive I've left on Santi Laks's on talk page and let's try to address issues at one venue at a time only. You pressed me on my prior response stating that "I would like to leave all this polemic behind and come back to the heart of the matter with this simple question: Is there a consensus in Wikipedia that a phrase like 'invading Russian Forces' indisputably reflects the facts, needs no source and that removing it constitutes 'reckless edit'?" My previous comment there had addressed that issue "... you are rehashing territory covered over and over. Please have the courtesy to avoid reckless edits by reading talk pages and talk page archives on controversial articles. If you bothered to follow the trail, you would find that this issue (and every other) has been discussed carefully and intelligently over months/years on the article talk pages, the WP:RSN, and the WP:NPOVN." As expressed by Santi Lak on his own talk, discussions have taken place on the 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article, as well as a multitude of other articles surrounding the War in Donbass inclusion in the archives, plus delve further back into its archives. Yes, Russia's direct and indirect participation has been addressed thoroughly, although I fail to see any use of "invading Russian Forces" (sic) in this or any other of the articles. Where is your asserted use of this as a 'statement of fact' used? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC) @Iryna Harpy: "invading Russian Armed Forces" appeared right in the lead of this article (Territorial defense battalions). Santilak has since replaced it by "stealth invasion by Russian Armed Forces" and has added sources, when there were none previously. This, in itself, vindicates me. After all, I may not have been completely wrong to find, at least the formulation, not entirely satisfactory. You see, I have not fallen in love with Vladimir Putin. I just want to spare Wikipedia the ridicule of stating as fact what can also be construed as propaganda, just to be proven wrong a few months later. There may be a Russian invasion of Ukraine but I wouldn't bet the house on it. You surely remember the reason given for the invasion of Iraq. The media agreed almost unanimously that Iraq possessed WMD. Do you think that it would have been wise to state this as a fact in Wikipedia? Even Jen Psaki of the State Department describes the alleged Russian invasion as "likely". For these reasons, and with Wikipedia's reputation in mind, I strongly object to the present formulation. However, I would not object to a formulation like "it is widely believed in the West (or "by the international community") that an invasion..." because this is demonstrably a fact as was the case with the allegations of possession of WMD by Iraq. Anyway, let's be optmistic, things are fast improving. Had I questioned the Revealed Truth in the Middle Ages, I would most certainly have been burnt at the stake. Nowadays, the only risk is to have my Wikipedia account blocked. Againstdisinformation (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC) @Santilak: For some reason, you have chosen to systematically misrepresent my position. You resent my criticism because accepting it would shake your belief system, so you feel more comfortable painting me as a mouthpiece of the Kremlin. If you think such sources as Fortune or The Economist are RS, then, yes, you might as well use RIA Novosti and RT as well, just for balance. I, personally would use none. For such important and controversial matters as an alleged invasion I advocate being very conservative and sticking to the really indisputably neutral sources such as the UN, the OSCE, the Red Cross or Amnesty International, to name a few. Againstdisinformation (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC) And it is your prerogative to do just that, advocate for what you call indisputably neutral sources, but the consensus of editors have decided that the sources we included are RS, not me and Iryna Harpy, a consensus. Also no we won't be using RIA novosti and RT because they aren't RS at all. The invasion isn't alleged, it's been discussed over and over throughout articles as Iryna Hapry pointed out, and it is being listed as an action by the Russian military as well as separatists. - SantiLak (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC) @Iryna Harpy: I just read the Russian version of the article. Since, I believe, you speak Russian, I suggest you read it too. It is an example of encyclopaedic neutrality and factuality that we should take as a model. No nonsense there. It is also to be noted that there is very little difference between the Russian and the Ukrinian version. No propagandistic mention of a Russian invasion there. Againstdisinformation (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC) @Againstdisinformation: Further to SantiLaks's comments, please read WP:WINARS. Read the article on Azov Battalion and compare it to both the Russian and Ukrainian versions: you will notice that it is substantively different, as are many articles on global issues and history as compared to other wikis. Both SL and I are experienced editors who work across hundreds of articles, and are up on the history and consensus on any controversial subject. This is not being self-congratulatory, or superiority, but a matter of fact. This is why SantiLak salvaged the statement you deleted because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT: he knew where this content has been elaborated on. Despite your protestations your content changes, per your editing history, are emotive. Editors are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. As a new user, you've plunged into the deep end without gaining experience in policies and guidelines, and are continuing to do so without going through the learning curve by starting out on uncontroversial articles in dire need of cleaning up. When it comes to articles subject to WP:ARB sanctions, don't just delete something because your POV is that it is unfair. Instead, tag dubious or apparently unsupported content with {{cn}}, or some other appropriate template. Whether this seems fair or not to you is of no consequence because regular editors constantly have to work against their personal beliefs and instincts. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC) @Iryna Harpy: Iryna, may I make a comment without incurring your wrath? I am convinced you mean well, but you are too strident. While I wouldn't bet that the Russian Armed Forces are not already "stealthily" in Kiev, I am certain that I am not the first person who says this to you. If you want to help poor beginners like me, try to adopt a gentler tone. Reread calmly your first address to me and tell me if, in all fairness, it cannot it can be perceived as a personal frontal attack. This can create resentment and is therefore counterproductive. I admit that I am not without fault either. I can be sarcastic and therefore irritating, especially to persons with such a profound grasp of Wikipedia as you have (don't take it seriously, I just said that for illustration's sake). Now, seriously, I respect your work and I recognize that I will never attain the same level of knowledge simply because my students and my personal research take up almost all my time. However, novice as I may be, I cannot accept the statement that it is a proven fact that the Russian Armed Forces have invaded the Dombass. None of your consensus would be accepted as a proof in science. Now, of course, any encyclopedia is entitled to have its own conception of what should be considered as fact, at the risk of its credibility. As for you Santilak, I beg to differ. Your blunt statement becomes a little more neutral when qualified by "alleged", because the "alleged invader" denies the invasion and there is no worldwide consensus on this. I happen to read wikipedia in many languages and I get the feeling that, though there may be a consensus within the English Wikipedia, there is none among the different versions. I will refrain to accuse you of engaging in edit warring, even though you revert any single edit I make without trying to reach a compromise with me, since Iryna let me know that you are a superior editor and that I should confine myself to menial tasks. I am convinced you two are not neutral on the subject of Ukraine and Russia because, somehow, you have links with that region of the world whereas I have none whatsoever. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Have you not developed a sense of why it is that admins and editors you've encountered thus far don't want to engage with you except in the briefest of terms? Please stop leaving WP:WALLSOFTEXT on user talk pages and on article talk pages as to what it is you wish to challenge and why Wikipedia (or, more to the point, editors you don't believe should be involved) is wrong. I've said my piece honestly don't want to engage with you (particularly as you're now suggesting an inability by SantiLak and myself to be NPOV because of my ethnicity and some unsubstantiated perception of SantiLak's ethnicity, see WP:IUC)? Get WP:CONSENSUS for whatever WP:CENSORship meets with your use of WP:ALLEGED. I truly have a lot on my Wikipedia plate and, while WP:BITEing newbies is something I try to avoid, after having chased my tail with you on SantiLak's page fully aware of your prior editing preferences, I am unable to communicate in a personable manner with you. Read comments carefully: no one has asserted superiority over you, nor are there any policies or guidelines supporting wearing down the opponent in order to find a 'compromise' on RS content. You're turning pages into 'polite' WP:BATTLEs for your supremacy without paying attention. I'm sorry if you feel slighted, but this is the end of communications from me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Fine with me. And don't worry too much about me feeling "slighted". Againstdisinformation (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC) @Iryna Harpy:Just a final point to which you don't have to reply. "because of my ethnicity and some unsubstantiated perception of SantiLak's ethnicity", really? I never made any mention of this, i just said that "you have links with that region of the world". This is obvious from your edit history and your talk page, but I fail to see where I mentioned your or Santilak's ethnicity. Keep enjoying your experience with Wikipedia. Againstdisinformation (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Territorial defense battalions (Ukraine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141025041936/http://atocrimea.ukrinform.ua/en/publication/ukraines-volunteer-battalions-the-new-model-army to http://atocrimea.ukrinform.ua/en/publication/ukraines-volunteer-battalions-the-new-model-army

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed as correct. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)