![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
Mzajac, the name of the section made sense when it only included information about the movements of Russian troops in March-April 2020. Recently the information about the procurement of Turkish drones, their use and responses have been added to the same section. The name no longer fits the content so we can either rename the section or create a new one. I'm fine with either option. Alaexis ¿question? 06:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi I have been working (as graphic worker) with
Jakey222 on
his request for two maps intended for
this article and maybe this one also. Unfortunately I have lost contact with Jakey222 so my question is.
Is there anyone here that could help me with their knowledge so the two maps can be completed, or can you link me to someone you think might want to do so, thanks. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en ( talk) 14:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
In Russian wiki there is an article on Displaced population in Ukraine (2014) . Similarly It may be worth to unload this article's subsection on humanitarian crisis into a separate article to keep the size reasonable and topic focused. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Наглая ложь! Это война граждан Украины, имеющих гражданство Украины с такими же гражданами Украины имеющих гражданство Украины, считающих себя русскими, и стремящихся отожествлять себя от Украины. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenta ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Russian invasion of Ukraine and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Russian invasion of Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
17:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The sidebar states "Russian troops enter the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic on their invitation". By international standards, this should be changed to "Russian troops invade Ukraine", or at least should be flagged as disputed/needs reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2D80:78:60D7:C879:8944:323 ( talk) 04:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The section in the info summary panel states "Official recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics by Russia on 21 February 2022".
This is misleading as a single nation (Russia) recognizing the independence the places they are invading is hardly appropriate to be on wikipedia.
Perfectly reasonable to leave this in place IF they clarify that Russia (The belligerent) is the only nation supporting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.196.208.148 ( talk) 23:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Shyrokyi March 1 https://ria.ru/20220301/lnr-1775729980.html Novoaidar and Shul'hynka March 2 https://suspilne.media/212928-rosijski-tanki-zajsli-u-starobilsk-ih-zupinaut-miscevi-ziteli/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.3.255.157 ( talk) 14:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? "4,595" in Poland? Perhaps from the Donbass, but there are officially like 3 million banderite troglodytes already in Poland (and still more millions unofficially) and millions more are coming in as we speak. Get your facts straight PC bots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.60.2.237 ( talk) 19:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
the map File:Map of the war in Donbass.svg titled 'Military situation as of 27 February 2022' actually shows the current situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.134.72 ( talk) 15:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I need say nothing more: History section is waaaay too long! 92.12.82.126 ( talk) 13:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
to people coming here surprised it is all russian racism and lies, lol. wiki is like that for long already. At least most of what is not politics is not that panfletary. But don't worry, this century is clearly going to be asian/BRICS anyway. -- Rbertoche ( talk) 04:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
But anyway, I only said that after reading other people's comments, what I want to point out is: there was 1,414,798 ukranians "IDPs registered by the Ministry of Social Policy (MoSP) across the country (as of 31 July) in GCAs", so that is the correct number of people, not "414,798 Ukrainians internally displaced" as the info thingie says.
Privyet, tovarishich! or just cheers, if you don't get it. -- Rbertoche ( talk) 04:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: procedurally closed. Proposer and participants blocked for suckpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Heanor. RGloucester — ☎ 16:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
War in Donbas → War in Donbas (April 2014 - February 2022) – The war in the Donbas is still going on. The article, however, describes one of the three stages into which the Russo-Ukrainian War is usually divided, the other two are the Annexation of Crimea and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Alvdal ( talk) 10:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
@ RGloucester: I have added a note, that the photograph has no relationship to the 2 June Luhansk airstrike, as the victims have died at an attach 16 days later. It seems that the picture is used for propaganda purpose against Ukrainian forces.
To my surprise my corrective note has been reverted.
There is not a problem with the "picture" itself as stated in the reverse note, but the picture is either linked to the wrong article, or a section needs to be added reporting about the circumstances that have caused the death of the two women and the man, and then the picture is to be linked to this new section. - Both is fine, but the current article describes the situation wrongly and misleadingly.
Here my note that has been reverted: Please note that the picture "Civilians killed by an airstrike in Luhansk, 18 June 2014" showing two killed women and a dead man date from another attack that most likely has not been committed by Ukrainian forces. -- Ralfkannenberg ( talk) 19:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe the phrase "Russian-backed separatist groups" is misleading as it implies that the separatist groups are backed by Russia, which according to the article this is linked to, is only "widely believed" and not necessarily true (it is only supported by UK government-backed propaganda). Even the Ukrainian source attached to the sentence calls them "pro-Russian insurgents", which is a lot more appropriate. 89.212.75.6 ( talk) 10:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
"Location: Donbas, and the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine"
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't Luhansk and Donetsk part of Donbas? Elinruby ( talk) 06:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
It was never Russo Ukrainian war. Western Ukraine has been killing Eastern Ukrainians. It’s a civil war. 170.52.114.137 ( talk) 07:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
A edit back in December slipped under radars here, but ever since then #Background has opened with this:
"In the 2000s, Russia's President Vladimir Putin began pursuing neo-imperialist politics, using the Russian diaspora as its instrument. These territorial implications were already established with South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia, as well as Transnistria in Moldova."
The citation is two reference-free introductory pages of Beyond Crimea: The New Russian Empire (by Lithuanian polsci Agnia Grigas), only added to facilitate this paragraph. Wikipedia has pages more appropriate for views on Russian foreign policy, and using value-laden language, opinionated like "neo-imperialist politics" or "using the Russian diaspora as its instrument", as well as giving undue weight to Ms. Grigas' views here naturally breaks WP:WIKIVOICE, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:BALANCE. I'm going to request it removed, or replaced. Krystoff Moholy ( talk) 05:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
This WIKI page about the war in Donbass is so heavily biased that it doesn't deserve to be on WIKI.The entire page talks only about dead Ukrainians,trying to paint them as victims,hardly any mention of the other side's casualties.Only sources that are cited are either Ukrainian or western.Any attempt to add a Russian source is squashed.There is no mention of the nature of the Ukrainian para-military units,which are neo-nazi.It is impossible to cite anything that is revealing their nature,not even when the western sources are used.Etc.,etc. Since when are the western,by a default anti-Russian news outlets like BBC and CNN credible sources of informations? Blatant anti-Russian propaganda piece. 93.86.147.140 ( talk) 11:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
https://4international.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/usnato-owned-hague-icty-kangaroo-court-frees-kla-mass-murderer-ramush-haradinaj/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.60.2.237 ( talk) 20:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
References
If you aren't sure if a source is reliable, or if you are being told it isn't and you disagree, the link for that is WP:RS Elinruby ( talk) 15:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
unless that WordPress is written by an expert however, I can save you the time. There must be an editorial review process. Elinruby ( talk) 15:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I know this is an issue more for Commons, but the map is pretty incorrect. For one thing, as of right now, Russian forces do NOT control all of Izyum, much less all the surrounding area. Is there way to tag the map? Volunteer Marek 06:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The last part of the article (Reactions) had me question its truthfulness, so I wanted to check out the source references. But they are unavailable. The link seems valid but you only get an error message saying "DB connection failed".
Whats the policy of claims made with sources based on dead urls? Example: [1] MarSwe11 ( talk) 05:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Xx236 ( talk) 07:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
https://www.amazon.pl/Putins-War-Against-Ukraine-Nationalism/dp/1543285864 Does not the book deserve to be used here? Quted 72 times according to Google Scholar. Xx236 ( talk) 07:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
in one passage it goes from being 2014 to the April 7, 2022 rocket attack on the train station without noting that we were now referencing the year 2022. It reads as if the attack took place in 2014. 67.6.147.111 ( talk) 23:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Well... why not? For one it's the simplest of English grammar. And it's capitalized nearly everywhere else, including over a dozen times on this page itself. It also just looks bad. So can we go ahead and capitalize the name? Ironmatic1 ( talk) 06:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
"War" in Donbas does not seem the best designation for the second phase of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. War is not usually designated as a subordinate part of an invasion. Also the invasion article just linked deals with the other parts of Ukraine including Kiev and Lviv, which are still receiving missile attacks as part of the 2022 Russian invasion. A better name for this article which does not use the name 'War' seems to be needed for consistency with the main article. A better option would call it Battle of Donbas, where the battle is seem as having multiple fronts in itself. ErnestKrause ( talk) 19:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
There is alot of talk about the conflict. Perhaps some balance about the resolution. ☮️ RogerRadbit ( talk) 07:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy worth noting- the key on bottom right of map indicates ukranian control as blue, whereas the description under the image of the map states that yellow indicates ukranian control. Both are wrong, as they exclude each other. 206.71.55.146 ( talk) 04:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
The article exclusively cites polls that show the separatist-parts of the Donbas mostly want to join Russia.
However, there is this ZOiS study done in 2016 and 2019 which reports very different results. It should be added into the Public Opinion section. Link: https://www.zois-berlin.de/publikationen/attitudes-and-identities-across-the-donbas-front-line-what-has-changed-from-2016-to-2019 (PDF download in link) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.124.40.227 ( talk) 16:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Moreover, this WP article shows that desires to join Russia in the separatist controlled parts of Donbas arose AFTER their separation from Ukraine, after a lengthy separation.
Just want to add my view that there is a notable lack of scepticism or criticism about the actions of the Ukrainian government or the US government.-- 2A02:C7D:8A9:6700:4DEB:DC8E:67B3:F32F ( talk) 22:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Article contains so much propaganda, conspiracy theories, outright falsehoods, and anti-Russian bias that I am shocked. I was looking for an accurate account of events, not CIA talking points. I didn't know this kind of rubbish was so prevalent on Wikipedia. Vilhelmo De Okcidento ( talk) 19:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
{{Better Source Needed}}
dozens of places, I am suggesting a serious community review of this page is warranted. I disagree with the notion that this is all propaganda, as most of the contained information can be verified independently and even digging through the various pdfs published by various think tanks you can find the sources they used. What I am saying is the accusation that this article is filled with "talking points" is lent merit by the actual sources used. And I believe using the talk page to discuss better investigation and a review of
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources is more appropriate than effectively defacing an article and lending unwarranted doubt by peppering the page with tags asking for better sources.Well put Gitz and Michael Z. Netanyahuserious ( talk) 08:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I slightly agree that there may be some agendas -- I just flagged weasel words in two places -- but the thing to do about it is add in the missing detail if you see euphemism, or challenge any statement that you think is false. If the system is working properly -- I admit it doesn't always, Lord knows -- you can be the change you wish to see in the world. You do however have to find what is called a reliable source ( WP:RS) to support the change you want. Elinruby ( talk) 06:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Why was the name changed from donbass to donbas 2600:1012:B126:C19C:0:52:F3C:A801 ( talk) 06:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
you could update this more often. 2600:1700:E881:4550:2C9E:4197:B665:D221 ( talk) 19:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
What kind of nonsense is this in the template about the date? The war in Donbas did not end on February 24, but escalated into a much stronger phase. The war in Donbass will end only under these conditions:
1. If the Russian army destroys or expels Ukrainian forces in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions to the Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhia regions.
2. If the Ukrainian army destroys or expels Russian forces from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions back to Russia.
3. If there is a POLITICAL COMPROMISE after which all hostilities would cease.
The war is not over, but it is currently in its worst or even the most terrible phase. — Baba Mica ( talk) 01:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The situation on the ground is complex, I think having one single end date is would always be very misleading. Saying that it's still ongoing would take away from the distinct war that was fought between Ukrainian armed forces, seperatist militias, and special russian units on "vacation" and this articles specific focus on it. Saying that it ended on the day of the invasion makes it seem like the war in Donbas (in a general sense) ended, which it hasn't. And both of these dates I feel take away from the fact that the war was essentially fought from 2014 to 2015 and what had been going on from 2015 to 2022 was just soldiers in trenches taking potshots at each other. I feel like I compressed a good deal of nuance into a fairly compact and readable date section. Feel free to revert my edit if you guys think it was poorly done. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ ( talk) 02:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. There is a general consensus that the current title doesn't adequately represent the scope of this article. Of the proposed titles, the parenthetical date range title (2014–2022) seems to have received the most support. Michael Z.'s suggestion to use a comma, rather than parentheses was reasonable. But it doesn't appear to have convinced the rest of the community which clearly chose the parenthetical disambiguation. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 20:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
War in Donbas → War in Donbas (2014–2022) – The real war in Donbas is going now. 'War in Donbas' should better redirect to the Battle of Donbas (2022), become a disambiguation page or redirect to the general article Russo-Ukrainian War. This article is about the war in Donbas from April 2014 till February 2022. BlackBony ( talk) 15:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC) upd. my original proposal 'War in Donbas before 2022 invasion' is really a bit a clumsy, " War in Donbas (2014–2022)" is better. -- BlackBony ( talk) 20:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. Spekkios ( talk) 01:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Agree but rename to War in Donbas (2014–2022). This low intensity phase of the conflict in ukraine ended in 2022 after the russian army launched a full scale invasion of ukraine Wikiman92783 ( talk) 12:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Just to support the comment by Super Dromaeosaurus above, regarding the "nothing happened because I don't know about it" years (without re-opening the move request): Wikipedia is severely missing information on the War in Donbas from around 2015 to 2021, and about human rights violations and war crimes there and in Crimea during the same period, and this problem includes this article. If some people were interested and likely to do the work (not me), then I expect there would be plenty of WP:RS material for making separate articles for the low-intensity sustained geographically stable war and war crimes from around 2015 to 2021 in Donbas and Crimea (Crimea: probably "only" human rights violations, not war or war crimes). If people did that work, then after that, deciding what should be used for overview articles - e.g. a new article War in Donbas (2014–202x) would make sense (unfortunately, it seems unlikely that we'll have x=2; I would be happy to be wrong).
Sources:
HRMMU has stayed in Ukraine since its mission is throughout Ukraine; MMU left Ukraine after the 2022 invasion (although Wikipedia only hints at that so far). These are solid sources for 2015 to 2021, and other sources, such as media sources, are certainly available. Just summarising the HRMMU and MMU reports would easily make two solid, well-sourced articles (one for the war, one for the war crimes as a complement to Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas).
Boud ( talk) 22:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
The infobox Date field currently reads:
This is a mischaracterization. There were major combat operations in 2014 and 2015, especially from July through February, including the Battle of Ilovaisk and the Battle of Debaltseve.
The distinction after February 24, 2022, is that it is an open invasion of Ukraine beyond Crimea. — Michael Z. 23:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
The date and possibly the year must be changed (updated) at the moment when the Russians occupy the entire Donbas (which is more likely after the battles for Avdiyivka, Kurakhovo, Pokrovsk or Ugljedar) or if the Ukrainian troops in a counterattack expel the Russian troops from the territory of the Donbass all the way to the Rostov region ( which is unlikely) or if some peace agreement is concluded and the status quo. The day only one of these three things happen will be the FINAL END OF THE WAR!!! Until then, this is all just a numbers game in the template and I won't change anything else to avoid an EDIT WAR. When the time comes, I will change the date and put it to a vote. Until then, I will only dedicate myself to the battles for larger and smaller cities both in Donbass and in other parts of Ukraine. - Baba Mica ( talk) 17:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The word ‘arose’ in the first paragraph appears to be superfluous and incorrect in terms of grammar - ‘in’ is sufficient 86.18.148.124 ( talk) 15:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
It's two separate wars with the first between Ukraine and the separatist with American style proxy backing from Russia.
Russia invaded and declared war later over said war. I understand the feeling of needing to make this all Russia's fault, but we shouldn't just brush it and say Ukraine never did anything wrong in the beginning. 5.33.72.185 ( talk) 22:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Dutch court found out that Russia had overall control over the forces of the DPR in Eastern Ukraine from mid May 2014 and adopted a coordinating role and issued instructions to the DPR.
This article is full of terms like "anti-government separatists", "DPR/LPR-controlled territory", "pro-Russian militants" and etc. even though Russia had overall control over the territories and those militants.
We should remove all the false and add more true information here.
Sources:
[2] DiGriW ( talk) 16:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
This is absurd. Are there relevant Wiki guidelines that can be referred? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NANDU2005 ( talk • contribs) 07:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@
Gitz6666 changed the word invasion to intervention with the edit summary "Intervention", not "invasion". An invasion implies "large numbers of combatants". In the case of Donbas in 2014, the best available sources speak of intervention, e.g. Marples (ed.), The War in Ukraine's Donbas, CEU, 2022.
[6]
But it uses both terms.
He became one of the most prominent volunteers involved in the Euromaidan protests and after the Russian invasion co-founded Narodnyi tyl, an NGO supporting Ukrainian troops in the Donbas.
Olena Taranenko, a journalism professor at Vasyl Stus Donetsk National University, has edited two important collections of IDP memoirs about the crucial period of the war in Donbas during summer 2014. The memoirs tell emotionally strong stories of defeat: how pro-Ukrainian natives of Donbas were intimidated, beaten, murdered, or driven out through the combined effort of the pro-Russian native activists (among whom there were their neighbors, colleagues, friends, and even relatives) and the Russian invaders.
I’ll restore it for now. — Michael Z. 16:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
The advance over the border may be regarded as Russia’s second intervention; p. 4,
Russia would likely describe its intervention as a response to a US-led uprising in Kyiv; p. 8,
outside military intervention from Russia led to war".
Motivations of Pro-Russian and Pro-Ukrainian Combatants in the Context of the Russian Military Intervention in the Donbas.
when the Ukrainian forces captured Khriashchuvate and Novosvitlivka in mid-August, the military defeat of the insurgency seemed like a foregone conclusion. It was precisely at that point that Russian forces began their direct intervention. As noted, the Russian Federation supported the insurgency from the very start, informationally, in the diplomatic sphere, with weapons, irregular fighters, and from July with artillery strikes. The ground intervention by units of the regular army, however, began only in August 2014. Moreover, it is possible that this intervention did not occur in one fell swoop, but in a series of separate actions
from foreign invasion. To this general rule there's one exception at p. 113 where one finds a generic reference to
Russian invasionprobably encompassing both Crimea and Donbas.
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
Hi, @ CapLiber, please remove the icons you added to the infobox. They violate Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons. Decorating a list of entities with tiny unreadable and largely unfamiliar pictures is not helpful and hinders readability. Thanks. — Michael Z. 23:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
On the Russian side of the infobox I moved the DLNR commanders and units below the Russian ones. @ Alaexis reverted with “per Combatants of the war in Donbas the majority of separatist forces were local.” [15]
This is a serious argument?
Here’s a fact: the majority of Russian forces didn’t want to attack Ukraine before February 2022, either. But their chain of command up to the Kremlin belongs in the infobox there, with subordinate elements below their superiors. Same goes in this article. — Michael Z. 23:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The start date is given in the infobox as April 6, based on a 2017 report’s timeline, describing the first building occupations by “pro-Russian activists” and “separatists” (and also “Pro-Russian forces”), p.91: [20]
But other sources refer to a different start event and date: the April 12 seizure of the Sloviansk SBU building by Girkin’s band.
Galeotti 2019, Armies of Russia’s War in Ukraine ISBN 9781472833457:14–16, says:
It implies this was the first armed seizure that was able to resist a Ukrainian security response. And one can infer this is the first clear armed seizure by Girkin’s militants from Crimea, and not the previous building occupations by “protestors” in Ukraine.
Arel & Driscoll 2023, Ukraine’s Unnamed War: Before the Russian Invasion of 2022 ISBN 9781009059916:4 write:
Marples 2022, The War in Ukraine’s Donbas: Origins, Contexts, and the Future ISBN 9789633864203:3 writes in the introduction:
I’d appreciate more sources or other views before changing, but based on this I would propose changing the start date to April 12, 2014. — Michael Z. 21:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
If one actually reads the source, it's plain and clear that this sentence is cherry picked and does not reflect the overall material in the source. Hence, it's UNDUE. "Longstanding" is not a policy-based argument.
This relies on a non-reliable source. Doesn't matter if it's attributed. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to amplify propaganda sources (by "attributing" them). This would only belong in here if this claim had received extensive coverage in SECONDARY and RELIABLE sources. It hasn't.
We need articles written on basis of policy, not on basis of "this junk made its way into the article and managed to stay in for awhile so now it's "longstanding" and no one can remove it!" Volunteer Marek 18:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The first description of the initiators is "pro-Russian, anti-government separatist groups". This is Russian POV, please compare Igor Girkin. Xx236 ( talk) 08:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Is it really warranted to include every single Ukrainian Prime Minister in the infobox as a "commander"? Shmyhal, Honcharuk, and Groysman are literally never mentioned in the article prose itself, and I've never heard of any of them - including Yatsenyuk, who is briefly mentioned in non-combat roles in the article - having any real involvement in strategy. Same goes for the Donetsk + Luhansk Oblast governors, and Medvedev on the Russian side. Are they really worth mentioning over the actual generals and commanders who planned and led offensives in the field? HappyWith ( talk) 03:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I've already done some quick trimming of the crazily long lead, but there's some stuff that would require a little more time and rewriting to do, and I'm gonna put a list here of the two main things I think could be shortened/cut:
If anyone has other suggestions or thinks these aren't reasonable things to cut, let me know. HappyWith ( talk) 16:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
This article has a gigantic readable prose size of 128 kB, well above the 100 kB at which WP:TOOBIG says an article "almost certainly should be divided". The page lags a ton on my (admittedly crappy) laptop, and the table of contents alone stretches down two whole screen-lengths on desktop. Since this is a page that was basically written in real time during a disinformation-riddled hybrid war, I can see why it's like this, but I think now that the war is over, it needs to really be cut down to get it into some semblance of a reasonable size.
Most of the events referred to in the body actually already have their own articles, so I think we can start by reducing the descriptions of those into summary style, linking the main articles, and making sure any removed cited info is in the already-split-off articles. I am not actually that familiar with the history of the war from 2014-2021, so I won't be as aggressive or fast in trimming as I was for the lead and infobox - since I'll have to be checking what the significance of each event is and how much coverage it needs, etc. - so I hope other editors can help with this. HappyWith ( talk) 18:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The information on the casualties in DPR and LPR were removed from the article. It is clearly notable and it does not contradict the OHCHR figures (6,500 members of armed groups and 3,400 civilians [24]). The information is clearly attributed, so unless there are reliable sources which contradict it, I don't see any reason to remove it. Alaexis ¿question? 09:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Previous consensus (established near the start of the war) was that self-admitted casualty figures will be admitted and will be required for neutral balance (all belligerents' POV), as long as proper attribution is provided. New editor consensus would be required to change it.While this makes sense for soldiers killed in action, it doesn't make sense for civilian casualties, since civilian casualties tend to be inflated by the parties. That's why I understood "self-admitted casualty figures" as non-civilian casualties. We may assume that both sources (eng.ombudsman-dnr.ru, ria.ru) correctly report the claims made by the separatists. But none of the sources can establish the notability. The number of casualities would surely be notable, but the fact that the separatist made this or that claim is simply not notable, if the notability cannot be established by RS. Rsk6400 ( talk) 17:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
If it's "not contradict(ed) by OHCHR figure" then just use the OHCHR figure. There's absolutely no reason why we should use LPR and Russian propaganda outlets. Volunteer Marek 18:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
@ EkoGraf: Could you please help us with a link to the "old consensus" you are referring to ? Rsk6400 ( talk) 17:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
During the entire conflict period, from 14 April 2014 to 31 December 2021, OHCHR recorded a total of 3,106 conflict-related civilian deaths (1,852 men, 1,072 women, 102 boys, 50 girls, and 30 adults whose sex is unknown). Taking into account the 298 deaths on board Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 on 17 July 2014, the total death toll of the conflict on civilians has reached at least 3,404. The number of injured civilians is estimated to exceed 7,000.
A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.The substance of DLNR casualty statements is not verifiable facts; only the fact that they publicly made some statement is. They are also not
Primary sources that have been reputably published. — Michael Z. 21:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
As for civilian casualty claims, which can be inflated for propaganda purposes, I would have no problem removing those claims if most editors agree, I suppose that my last edit (replacing the separatist sources with the OHCHR one) is OK with you. Before we head for an RfC, I'd like to remind you that there is no WP guideline saying that we should balance unreliable sources from both sides. The opposite is true: Neutrality is reporting what reliable sources say. Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Neutrality is not just that, but also fair and proportional presentation of all POVs without excluding one over the other.Rsk6400 ( talk) 19:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"Ombudsman"_of_the_"Donetsk_People's_Republic". Rsk6400 ( talk) 18:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I've added a section on the reactions to the conflict in Russia and it has been reverted. I do not agree with the reasoning "arbitrary selection from the sources (e.g. manipulation of public opinion not mentioned). Also: The war continued for 8 years, so reporting reactions from the first 6 months seems too little."
It's simply not true that the manipulation of public opinion is not mentioned. I wrote that "Those opposing the government's policy were almost never heard publicly," which is what DW reported. If you think it's not clear and want to add more details, then please do.
Regarding the 6 months, the largest protests took place in 2014 and they were widely covered by reliable sources. You are welcome to add more information about the other 7.5 years (survey results, repression, smaller protests) but it's not a valid reason to remove the information about the 2014 events. Alaexis ¿question? 19:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:AGF, WP:ONUS Rsk6400 ( talk) 11:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration [emphasis added] and consensus. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Once discussion has begun, restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive.
I believe that blanket removal of information sourced to TASS is not in line with the WP:RS policy. First, the WP:RSP entry makes an exception for "quotes of statements made by the Kremlin, the Russian State, and pro-Kremlin politicians." This is how TASS is mostly used, e.g.
“ | In turn, the DPR stated that the Ukrainian Armed Forces had broken the truce, while the LPR Luganskinformcenter news agency said the same, but also that, the "ceasefire is generally observed." [1] [2] | ” |
Second, blanket removals are not encouraged even for deprecated sources (TASS is not one) and the best practice is to use {{bettersourceneeded}} tags to give other editors an opportunity to fix issues with biased and otherwise problematic sources. Alaexis ¿question? 10:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
References
Alaexis ¿question? 10:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Mzajac, thats not what the source says. P. 3 gives 2084 civilian deaths for 2014 and 51 for years 2021-22. This is how it could be added to the article. Manyareasexpert ( talk) 14:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
A paragraph was added to the section with
this edit. I see the first sentence to be problematic. The report was prepared by the office of the prosecutor of the
ICC (OTP) - quite separate from the judiciary. Omission of the fuller detail of the report's origin is therefore misleading. The purpose of the report is to set out how the prosecutor intends to determine if a particular case can be presented to the court, including establishment of jurisdiction. At section 184, it is yet to determine the existence (or not) of international and/or non-international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine
. The first part of the problematic sentence would state: ... stating that the intensity of military conflict triggered the law of armed conflict by 30 April 2014, with the "DPR" and "LPR" as parties ...
. What is actually said at section 168 is: Based on the information available it seems [emphasis added] that ... [hostilities] reached a level that would trigger the application of the law of armed conflict.
The article is worded in such a way that implies a ruling by the court that the laws of armed conflict have been triggered. Such a representation is misleading in respect to the report. Given how and where the report is used, reference to the report does not appear to improve the article. The second source cited appears to make assertions about the report which are inconsistent with the content of the report. For this reason, it appears to be dubious. This too is a matter of
WP:ONUS. The other material in the paragraph added appears to make the point quite adequately without the need to rely on this problematic content.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
03:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
... the prosecutor wrote there is justification to believe a crime has been committed ...Please indicate where in the report this was said, as I am not seeing where. If the report is used, then it should explicitly attributed to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court as the author. I do not see that the report adds anything to the article. From the section about Ukraine, the document refers to reports of and alleged crimes. It is (as would be expected) quite circumspect in what it writes. It makes no conclusions in its own name. The report is an RS for what the report says. It is an outline of what TOP is looking to "establish" through its investigations. Consequently, what might become evident is therefore speculation. Cinderella157 ( talk) 07:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
many years. If the purpose of the problematic sentence is to show that Russia has been involed in an international armed conflict in Donbas, then the subsequent text in the paragraph does this since references appear to be made to actual rulings (findings) of courts which, if asserted as a fact by a court, can be reported as a fact. The rational for inclusion of the problematic sentence are not supported nor is the problematic nature of the sentence. Its removal does not detract from what follows. Since it fails verification for what it is alledged to report, the sentence should be removed. WP:ONUS also applies in this respect. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
At section 184, it is yet to determine the existence (or not) of international and/or non-international armed conflict.No, it doesn’t say “yet to determine.” This paragraph is only describing the prosecutor’s activities and their purpose.
Section 184 of the report states:
The Office has continued to conduct a thorough factual and legal analysis of information received in relation to the conflict in order to establish whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that the alleged crimes fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court. As described above, analysis of the situation in Ukraine in this phase has required extensive research focussed both on the examination and evaluation of information relevant for determining the existence (or not) of international and/or non-international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine and on analysing the more specific alleged acts that may constitute crimes under article 5 of the Statute.
Reading the section in full, TOP is still examining and evaluating information relevant for determining the existence (or not) of international and/or non-international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine
. It has continued to conduct
the investigations describe. It has not yet reached a conclusion (a determination) on the question. Their activities and purpose are to establish whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that the alleged crimes fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court
. They have not yet reached a conclusion. To assert otherwise misrepresents the report. Please see
synonyms for seems (appear; give the impression). These are all very equivocal. They are not an assertion of fact, even in the most circumspect of language. Seems speaks to available evidence insufficient for a firm opinion and presenting a case to the court - a long way from being a "fact", legal or otherwise. The report is detailing the nature of investigations and where they may or may not lead. To that extent, it is reasonable to characterise the report as speculative. The dependence described between the first and second sentences sounds like synth? If the report does have a place in the article, it is because of Russia's withdrawal but not as written.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
00:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Please see the 2019 TOP report and the more unequivocal language. However, this source is not consistent with the temporal relationsip of the 3 paras such that it could be a replacement for the first para. TOP has only in 2022 "opened an investigation" following the preliminary investigation referred to in 2016. The premises for inclusion of the first para are not established. The sentence is removed per ONUS. Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
In the ICC prosecutor’s 2016 report,
[31] ¶ 169 made it clear that the prosecutor believed there were both non-international and international armed conflicts in eastern Ukraine: Additional information . . . points to direct military engagement between Russian armed forces and Ukrainian government forces that would suggest the existence of an international armed conflict in the context of armed hostilities in eastern Ukraine
¶ 170 made it clear that the prosecutor had not yet determined whether it actually constituted only a single international armed conflict due to Russian control of the militias.
Some secondary sources refer directly to the 2016 report and confirm this view:
the conflict that has claimed 9,578 lives is an ‘international armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine.’[32]
the ICC Prosecutor’s damning report in 2016, which recognised that . . . Russia was militarily involved in the conflict in eastern Ukraine (paras 158, 169-170)[33]
the mixed armed conflict in eastern Ukraine (2014-2022)[34]
In its 2019 report,
[35] the prosecutor unequivocally confirmed this in ¶ 266: In its Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2016, the Office assessed that by 30 April 2014, the intensity of hostilities between Ukrainian government forces and anti-government armed elements in eastern Ukraine had reached a level that would trigger the application of the law of armed conflict and that the armed groups operating in eastern Ukraine, including the LPR and DPR, were sufficiently organised to qualify as parties to a non-international armed conflict. The Office also assessed that direct military engagement between the respective armed forces of the Russian Federation and Ukraine, indicated the existence of an international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine from 14 July 2014 at the latest, in parallel to the non-international armed conflict.
—
Michael
Z.
15:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
the recent removal was inappropriate.is not helpful, since it does not indicate that why you would form the opinion nor any understanding of the issues which have been discussed. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC) PS It was in fact, a suggestion by which the sentence could be retained. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Mzajac, your comments on my recent edit please with respect to it being an iteration toward building consensus by which the first sentence might be retained in a form that we can both live with. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
we can both live with [it], but for our readers' benefit. WP:ONUS is no licence for WP:STONEWALLING. Agreeing with Michael Z. and Andrevan. Rsk6400 ( talk) 07:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
[Something] that we can both live withis a paraphrase from WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS:
The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution.Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT:
The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.The two comments in support of the original are essentially of this type. They do not establish consensus. To be clear for the benefit of others, it is the first of three sentences added which has been challenged. Upon some discussion, I have proposed an alternative that has been reverted. You would state that you strongly disagree with the proposed alternative but this does not articulate the basis for your disagreement and why your version should be preferred over the alternative proposed. Articulating this is an essential element of the consensus building process.
stating that by 30 April 2014, the high intensity of military conflict [seemed to] triggered the law of armed conflict with the "DPR" and "LPR" as parties, it remains unclear to me the significance you would appear to attached to this when clearly, the main point to be made is that, investigations to be conducted might lead to an assertion (or not) that Russia was engaged in an international armed conflict with Ukraine - the key point leading to Russia withdrawing its signature. It then flows to the two subsequent sentences that were added (and are not contested), that courts have reached such a conclusion as a legal fact. I believe I have identified all of these points in the preceding discussion. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS explicitly says that consensus is not unanimity. Cinderella157, since you are the only one disagreeing, I don't think that you can justly claim there is no consensus. Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
nor is it the result of a vote.Per above it also states:
The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.Your own previous comment falls to this as do those by Andrevan, for the most part. There is no consensus for the sentence at present. Per WP:CON and WP:DR, it is inappropriate to reinstate an edit without consensus or without revision that works toward consensus. Please contribute here toward establishing a consensus for the sentence or a revision thereof. In the meantime, it should be removed. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
“per previous editor”(or similar) are superficial responses and indicate a lack of engagement not dissimilar to "I do/don't like it". At best, it depends on the other's strength of argument. Michael uses strawman arguments several times. Consequently, these are inherently fallacious and carry little weight. Their arguments might be extensive but not overly deep IMO. I don't think you are in a position to assert a consensus to justify your revert. As I have indicated, this sentence does belong but I don't believe it belongs in its present form Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration [emphasis added] and consensus. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments. You forked this discussion to at least two personal talk pages, and you were already told "Enough !". Feel free to start an RfC. Rsk6400 ( talk) 07:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Cinderella157: what exactly would you like to change in the current version? Alaexis ¿question? 20:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Alaexis, here is the version of the sentence I have proposed.
The 2016 annual report by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court outlined its ongoing investigations. It detailed the preliminary examination of the situation in Ukraine stating that its ongoing investigation would focus on determining whether or not it could assert that an international armed conflict existed between Ukraine and Russia in eastern Ukraine. [1] The day following the release of the report, Russia announced its intention to withdraw from joining the International Criminal Court (ICC). [2] [a]
For comparison, here is the present version of the sentence.
The International Criminal Court issued a report in November 2016 as part of its investigations, stating that by 30 April 2014, the high intensity of military conflict triggered the law of armed conflict with the "DPR" and "LPR" as parties, that engagement with Russian armed forces in eastern Ukraine suggested the existence of a parallel international armed conflict by 14 July 2014, and that if it were determined that Russia exercised overall control over the militant groups, then this would comprise only a single international armed conflict [4] [5] [6] [7] (Russia withdrew from the ICC the next day).
Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Responding to Rsk6400:
Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
suggests to me that a misrepresentation is intentional- see WP:AGF. Rsk6400 ( talk) 17:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Responding to Andrevan:
Russian President Vladimir Putin has approved an order to withdraw the nation from the process of joining the International Criminal Court (ICC).That Russia would "withdraw from joining" the ICC is using the terminology from the cited source. The meaning is also explained in the accompanying footnote in the proposal. In the light of the source cited (and my other reading), I do not see how
... Russia announced its intention to withdraw from joining the International Criminal Court (ICC)is inaccurate or misleading. On further reasoned discussion, my view might change, as might the wording of this sentence.
Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
References
In its Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2016, the Office assessed that by 30 April 2014, the intensity of hostilities between Ukrainian government forces and anti-government armed elements in eastern Ukraine had reached a level that would trigger the application of the law of armed conflict and that the armed groups operating in eastern Ukraine, including the LPR and DPR, were sufficiently organised to qualify as parties to a non-international armed conflict. The Office also assessed that direct military engagement between the respective armed forces of the Russian Federation and Ukraine, indicated the existence of an international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine from 14 July 2014 at the latest, in parallel to the non-international armed conflict
Cinderella157, we had a really exhaustive discussion, and after the text has been stable for weeks, you start again changing to what you proposed without having achieved consensus here. Please, if you think this is so important, you should start an RfC here. Rsk6400 ( talk) 16:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I suggest we add 2 more pages that belong to this article: Donbas Insurgency (from April to August 2014), 2014 Russian invasion of Donbas from August 2014 to February 2015 and Ceasefire phase of the War in Donbas from February 2015 to February 2022. It would be more detailed. It’s just like the Russo-Ukrainian War page has: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, War in Donbas and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. TankDude2000 ( talk) 15:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
This title “War in Donbas” just proves Russian trolls’ points about “Ukraine bombing Donbas”. I think it should be renamed to the “Insurgency in Donbas”. Then, Wikipedia would not have any Russian propaganda!
TankDude2000 (
talk)
17:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Non-extended-confirmed users (including User:TankDude2000) may not make edits in internal project discussions, including requested moves, in this topic area, per wp:GS/RUSUKR. — Michael Z. 15:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
War in Donbas (2014-2022) ->
War in Donbas The title would be shorter. Plus, if we are going to reffer to the current situation in Donbas, we would use the title
Battle of Donbas (2022-present).
TankDude2000 (
talk)
15:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Non-extended-confirmed users (including User:TankDude2000) may not make edits in internal project discussions, including requested moves, in this topic area, per WP:GS/RUSUKR. — Michael Z. 15:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
War in Donbas (2014–2022) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please WP:BLPREMOVE the fully unsourced paragraph between
''[[Novaya Gazeta]]'' concluded in 2020 that, as long Russia doesn't prosecute these "poorly prepared hooligans turning a whole region into a bloodbath", it is morally and politically responsible for all casualties.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=Бесславные гибриды |url=https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2020/07/17/86300-besslavnye-gibridy |access-date=20 July 2020 |website=Новая газета – Novayagazeta.ru |language=ru}}</ref>
and
=== Expansion of separatist territorial control ===
89.206.112.12 ( talk) 13:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
and there is not a single WP:BLPRS here. 89.206.112.12 ( talk) 13:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)contentious material about living persons that is unsourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.
already supported by a reliable sourcewhen it does not mention a single reference for its criminal accusations that I avoided repeating here as per the header at WP:BLPN? 89.206.112.12 ( talk) 14:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Closed per WP:GS/RUSUKR. RM opened by non-ECP user. ( non-admin closure) Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
War in Donbas (2014–2022) → War in Donbas – People already know that the War in Donbas ended in 2022 with the Russian invasion. Also, it’s not the same name as the Battle of Donbas (2022-present. 109.166.133.175 ( talk) 07:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Please add number of refugees - [38] [39] The report also said that Ukrainian government registered 1.6 million internally displaced persons, who fled their homes as a result of the conflict. From 800,000 to 1 million of them lived on Kyiv-controlled territory, the report said. Manyareasexpert ( talk) 22:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
Mzajac, the name of the section made sense when it only included information about the movements of Russian troops in March-April 2020. Recently the information about the procurement of Turkish drones, their use and responses have been added to the same section. The name no longer fits the content so we can either rename the section or create a new one. I'm fine with either option. Alaexis ¿question? 06:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi I have been working (as graphic worker) with
Jakey222 on
his request for two maps intended for
this article and maybe this one also. Unfortunately I have lost contact with Jakey222 so my question is.
Is there anyone here that could help me with their knowledge so the two maps can be completed, or can you link me to someone you think might want to do so, thanks. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en ( talk) 14:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
In Russian wiki there is an article on Displaced population in Ukraine (2014) . Similarly It may be worth to unload this article's subsection on humanitarian crisis into a separate article to keep the size reasonable and topic focused. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Наглая ложь! Это война граждан Украины, имеющих гражданство Украины с такими же гражданами Украины имеющих гражданство Украины, считающих себя русскими, и стремящихся отожествлять себя от Украины. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenta ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Russian invasion of Ukraine and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Russian invasion of Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
17:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
The sidebar states "Russian troops enter the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic on their invitation". By international standards, this should be changed to "Russian troops invade Ukraine", or at least should be flagged as disputed/needs reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2D80:78:60D7:C879:8944:323 ( talk) 04:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The section in the info summary panel states "Official recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics by Russia on 21 February 2022".
This is misleading as a single nation (Russia) recognizing the independence the places they are invading is hardly appropriate to be on wikipedia.
Perfectly reasonable to leave this in place IF they clarify that Russia (The belligerent) is the only nation supporting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.196.208.148 ( talk) 23:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Shyrokyi March 1 https://ria.ru/20220301/lnr-1775729980.html Novoaidar and Shul'hynka March 2 https://suspilne.media/212928-rosijski-tanki-zajsli-u-starobilsk-ih-zupinaut-miscevi-ziteli/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.3.255.157 ( talk) 14:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? "4,595" in Poland? Perhaps from the Donbass, but there are officially like 3 million banderite troglodytes already in Poland (and still more millions unofficially) and millions more are coming in as we speak. Get your facts straight PC bots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.60.2.237 ( talk) 19:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
the map File:Map of the war in Donbass.svg titled 'Military situation as of 27 February 2022' actually shows the current situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.134.72 ( talk) 15:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I need say nothing more: History section is waaaay too long! 92.12.82.126 ( talk) 13:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
to people coming here surprised it is all russian racism and lies, lol. wiki is like that for long already. At least most of what is not politics is not that panfletary. But don't worry, this century is clearly going to be asian/BRICS anyway. -- Rbertoche ( talk) 04:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
But anyway, I only said that after reading other people's comments, what I want to point out is: there was 1,414,798 ukranians "IDPs registered by the Ministry of Social Policy (MoSP) across the country (as of 31 July) in GCAs", so that is the correct number of people, not "414,798 Ukrainians internally displaced" as the info thingie says.
Privyet, tovarishich! or just cheers, if you don't get it. -- Rbertoche ( talk) 04:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: procedurally closed. Proposer and participants blocked for suckpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Heanor. RGloucester — ☎ 16:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
War in Donbas → War in Donbas (April 2014 - February 2022) – The war in the Donbas is still going on. The article, however, describes one of the three stages into which the Russo-Ukrainian War is usually divided, the other two are the Annexation of Crimea and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Alvdal ( talk) 10:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
@ RGloucester: I have added a note, that the photograph has no relationship to the 2 June Luhansk airstrike, as the victims have died at an attach 16 days later. It seems that the picture is used for propaganda purpose against Ukrainian forces.
To my surprise my corrective note has been reverted.
There is not a problem with the "picture" itself as stated in the reverse note, but the picture is either linked to the wrong article, or a section needs to be added reporting about the circumstances that have caused the death of the two women and the man, and then the picture is to be linked to this new section. - Both is fine, but the current article describes the situation wrongly and misleadingly.
Here my note that has been reverted: Please note that the picture "Civilians killed by an airstrike in Luhansk, 18 June 2014" showing two killed women and a dead man date from another attack that most likely has not been committed by Ukrainian forces. -- Ralfkannenberg ( talk) 19:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe the phrase "Russian-backed separatist groups" is misleading as it implies that the separatist groups are backed by Russia, which according to the article this is linked to, is only "widely believed" and not necessarily true (it is only supported by UK government-backed propaganda). Even the Ukrainian source attached to the sentence calls them "pro-Russian insurgents", which is a lot more appropriate. 89.212.75.6 ( talk) 10:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
"Location: Donbas, and the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine"
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't Luhansk and Donetsk part of Donbas? Elinruby ( talk) 06:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
It was never Russo Ukrainian war. Western Ukraine has been killing Eastern Ukrainians. It’s a civil war. 170.52.114.137 ( talk) 07:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
A edit back in December slipped under radars here, but ever since then #Background has opened with this:
"In the 2000s, Russia's President Vladimir Putin began pursuing neo-imperialist politics, using the Russian diaspora as its instrument. These territorial implications were already established with South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia, as well as Transnistria in Moldova."
The citation is two reference-free introductory pages of Beyond Crimea: The New Russian Empire (by Lithuanian polsci Agnia Grigas), only added to facilitate this paragraph. Wikipedia has pages more appropriate for views on Russian foreign policy, and using value-laden language, opinionated like "neo-imperialist politics" or "using the Russian diaspora as its instrument", as well as giving undue weight to Ms. Grigas' views here naturally breaks WP:WIKIVOICE, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:BALANCE. I'm going to request it removed, or replaced. Krystoff Moholy ( talk) 05:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
This WIKI page about the war in Donbass is so heavily biased that it doesn't deserve to be on WIKI.The entire page talks only about dead Ukrainians,trying to paint them as victims,hardly any mention of the other side's casualties.Only sources that are cited are either Ukrainian or western.Any attempt to add a Russian source is squashed.There is no mention of the nature of the Ukrainian para-military units,which are neo-nazi.It is impossible to cite anything that is revealing their nature,not even when the western sources are used.Etc.,etc. Since when are the western,by a default anti-Russian news outlets like BBC and CNN credible sources of informations? Blatant anti-Russian propaganda piece. 93.86.147.140 ( talk) 11:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
https://4international.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/usnato-owned-hague-icty-kangaroo-court-frees-kla-mass-murderer-ramush-haradinaj/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.60.2.237 ( talk) 20:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
References
If you aren't sure if a source is reliable, or if you are being told it isn't and you disagree, the link for that is WP:RS Elinruby ( talk) 15:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
unless that WordPress is written by an expert however, I can save you the time. There must be an editorial review process. Elinruby ( talk) 15:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I know this is an issue more for Commons, but the map is pretty incorrect. For one thing, as of right now, Russian forces do NOT control all of Izyum, much less all the surrounding area. Is there way to tag the map? Volunteer Marek 06:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The last part of the article (Reactions) had me question its truthfulness, so I wanted to check out the source references. But they are unavailable. The link seems valid but you only get an error message saying "DB connection failed".
Whats the policy of claims made with sources based on dead urls? Example: [1] MarSwe11 ( talk) 05:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Xx236 ( talk) 07:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
https://www.amazon.pl/Putins-War-Against-Ukraine-Nationalism/dp/1543285864 Does not the book deserve to be used here? Quted 72 times according to Google Scholar. Xx236 ( talk) 07:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
in one passage it goes from being 2014 to the April 7, 2022 rocket attack on the train station without noting that we were now referencing the year 2022. It reads as if the attack took place in 2014. 67.6.147.111 ( talk) 23:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Well... why not? For one it's the simplest of English grammar. And it's capitalized nearly everywhere else, including over a dozen times on this page itself. It also just looks bad. So can we go ahead and capitalize the name? Ironmatic1 ( talk) 06:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
"War" in Donbas does not seem the best designation for the second phase of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. War is not usually designated as a subordinate part of an invasion. Also the invasion article just linked deals with the other parts of Ukraine including Kiev and Lviv, which are still receiving missile attacks as part of the 2022 Russian invasion. A better name for this article which does not use the name 'War' seems to be needed for consistency with the main article. A better option would call it Battle of Donbas, where the battle is seem as having multiple fronts in itself. ErnestKrause ( talk) 19:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
There is alot of talk about the conflict. Perhaps some balance about the resolution. ☮️ RogerRadbit ( talk) 07:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy worth noting- the key on bottom right of map indicates ukranian control as blue, whereas the description under the image of the map states that yellow indicates ukranian control. Both are wrong, as they exclude each other. 206.71.55.146 ( talk) 04:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
The article exclusively cites polls that show the separatist-parts of the Donbas mostly want to join Russia.
However, there is this ZOiS study done in 2016 and 2019 which reports very different results. It should be added into the Public Opinion section. Link: https://www.zois-berlin.de/publikationen/attitudes-and-identities-across-the-donbas-front-line-what-has-changed-from-2016-to-2019 (PDF download in link) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.124.40.227 ( talk) 16:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Moreover, this WP article shows that desires to join Russia in the separatist controlled parts of Donbas arose AFTER their separation from Ukraine, after a lengthy separation.
Just want to add my view that there is a notable lack of scepticism or criticism about the actions of the Ukrainian government or the US government.-- 2A02:C7D:8A9:6700:4DEB:DC8E:67B3:F32F ( talk) 22:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Article contains so much propaganda, conspiracy theories, outright falsehoods, and anti-Russian bias that I am shocked. I was looking for an accurate account of events, not CIA talking points. I didn't know this kind of rubbish was so prevalent on Wikipedia. Vilhelmo De Okcidento ( talk) 19:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
{{Better Source Needed}}
dozens of places, I am suggesting a serious community review of this page is warranted. I disagree with the notion that this is all propaganda, as most of the contained information can be verified independently and even digging through the various pdfs published by various think tanks you can find the sources they used. What I am saying is the accusation that this article is filled with "talking points" is lent merit by the actual sources used. And I believe using the talk page to discuss better investigation and a review of
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources is more appropriate than effectively defacing an article and lending unwarranted doubt by peppering the page with tags asking for better sources.Well put Gitz and Michael Z. Netanyahuserious ( talk) 08:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I slightly agree that there may be some agendas -- I just flagged weasel words in two places -- but the thing to do about it is add in the missing detail if you see euphemism, or challenge any statement that you think is false. If the system is working properly -- I admit it doesn't always, Lord knows -- you can be the change you wish to see in the world. You do however have to find what is called a reliable source ( WP:RS) to support the change you want. Elinruby ( talk) 06:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Why was the name changed from donbass to donbas 2600:1012:B126:C19C:0:52:F3C:A801 ( talk) 06:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
you could update this more often. 2600:1700:E881:4550:2C9E:4197:B665:D221 ( talk) 19:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
What kind of nonsense is this in the template about the date? The war in Donbas did not end on February 24, but escalated into a much stronger phase. The war in Donbass will end only under these conditions:
1. If the Russian army destroys or expels Ukrainian forces in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions to the Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhia regions.
2. If the Ukrainian army destroys or expels Russian forces from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions back to Russia.
3. If there is a POLITICAL COMPROMISE after which all hostilities would cease.
The war is not over, but it is currently in its worst or even the most terrible phase. — Baba Mica ( talk) 01:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The situation on the ground is complex, I think having one single end date is would always be very misleading. Saying that it's still ongoing would take away from the distinct war that was fought between Ukrainian armed forces, seperatist militias, and special russian units on "vacation" and this articles specific focus on it. Saying that it ended on the day of the invasion makes it seem like the war in Donbas (in a general sense) ended, which it hasn't. And both of these dates I feel take away from the fact that the war was essentially fought from 2014 to 2015 and what had been going on from 2015 to 2022 was just soldiers in trenches taking potshots at each other. I feel like I compressed a good deal of nuance into a fairly compact and readable date section. Feel free to revert my edit if you guys think it was poorly done. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ ( talk) 02:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. There is a general consensus that the current title doesn't adequately represent the scope of this article. Of the proposed titles, the parenthetical date range title (2014–2022) seems to have received the most support. Michael Z.'s suggestion to use a comma, rather than parentheses was reasonable. But it doesn't appear to have convinced the rest of the community which clearly chose the parenthetical disambiguation. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 20:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
War in Donbas → War in Donbas (2014–2022) – The real war in Donbas is going now. 'War in Donbas' should better redirect to the Battle of Donbas (2022), become a disambiguation page or redirect to the general article Russo-Ukrainian War. This article is about the war in Donbas from April 2014 till February 2022. BlackBony ( talk) 15:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC) upd. my original proposal 'War in Donbas before 2022 invasion' is really a bit a clumsy, " War in Donbas (2014–2022)" is better. -- BlackBony ( talk) 20:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. Spekkios ( talk) 01:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Agree but rename to War in Donbas (2014–2022). This low intensity phase of the conflict in ukraine ended in 2022 after the russian army launched a full scale invasion of ukraine Wikiman92783 ( talk) 12:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Just to support the comment by Super Dromaeosaurus above, regarding the "nothing happened because I don't know about it" years (without re-opening the move request): Wikipedia is severely missing information on the War in Donbas from around 2015 to 2021, and about human rights violations and war crimes there and in Crimea during the same period, and this problem includes this article. If some people were interested and likely to do the work (not me), then I expect there would be plenty of WP:RS material for making separate articles for the low-intensity sustained geographically stable war and war crimes from around 2015 to 2021 in Donbas and Crimea (Crimea: probably "only" human rights violations, not war or war crimes). If people did that work, then after that, deciding what should be used for overview articles - e.g. a new article War in Donbas (2014–202x) would make sense (unfortunately, it seems unlikely that we'll have x=2; I would be happy to be wrong).
Sources:
HRMMU has stayed in Ukraine since its mission is throughout Ukraine; MMU left Ukraine after the 2022 invasion (although Wikipedia only hints at that so far). These are solid sources for 2015 to 2021, and other sources, such as media sources, are certainly available. Just summarising the HRMMU and MMU reports would easily make two solid, well-sourced articles (one for the war, one for the war crimes as a complement to Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas).
Boud ( talk) 22:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
The infobox Date field currently reads:
This is a mischaracterization. There were major combat operations in 2014 and 2015, especially from July through February, including the Battle of Ilovaisk and the Battle of Debaltseve.
The distinction after February 24, 2022, is that it is an open invasion of Ukraine beyond Crimea. — Michael Z. 23:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
The date and possibly the year must be changed (updated) at the moment when the Russians occupy the entire Donbas (which is more likely after the battles for Avdiyivka, Kurakhovo, Pokrovsk or Ugljedar) or if the Ukrainian troops in a counterattack expel the Russian troops from the territory of the Donbass all the way to the Rostov region ( which is unlikely) or if some peace agreement is concluded and the status quo. The day only one of these three things happen will be the FINAL END OF THE WAR!!! Until then, this is all just a numbers game in the template and I won't change anything else to avoid an EDIT WAR. When the time comes, I will change the date and put it to a vote. Until then, I will only dedicate myself to the battles for larger and smaller cities both in Donbass and in other parts of Ukraine. - Baba Mica ( talk) 17:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The word ‘arose’ in the first paragraph appears to be superfluous and incorrect in terms of grammar - ‘in’ is sufficient 86.18.148.124 ( talk) 15:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
It's two separate wars with the first between Ukraine and the separatist with American style proxy backing from Russia.
Russia invaded and declared war later over said war. I understand the feeling of needing to make this all Russia's fault, but we shouldn't just brush it and say Ukraine never did anything wrong in the beginning. 5.33.72.185 ( talk) 22:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Dutch court found out that Russia had overall control over the forces of the DPR in Eastern Ukraine from mid May 2014 and adopted a coordinating role and issued instructions to the DPR.
This article is full of terms like "anti-government separatists", "DPR/LPR-controlled territory", "pro-Russian militants" and etc. even though Russia had overall control over the territories and those militants.
We should remove all the false and add more true information here.
Sources:
[2] DiGriW ( talk) 16:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
This is absurd. Are there relevant Wiki guidelines that can be referred? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NANDU2005 ( talk • contribs) 07:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@
Gitz6666 changed the word invasion to intervention with the edit summary "Intervention", not "invasion". An invasion implies "large numbers of combatants". In the case of Donbas in 2014, the best available sources speak of intervention, e.g. Marples (ed.), The War in Ukraine's Donbas, CEU, 2022.
[6]
But it uses both terms.
He became one of the most prominent volunteers involved in the Euromaidan protests and after the Russian invasion co-founded Narodnyi tyl, an NGO supporting Ukrainian troops in the Donbas.
Olena Taranenko, a journalism professor at Vasyl Stus Donetsk National University, has edited two important collections of IDP memoirs about the crucial period of the war in Donbas during summer 2014. The memoirs tell emotionally strong stories of defeat: how pro-Ukrainian natives of Donbas were intimidated, beaten, murdered, or driven out through the combined effort of the pro-Russian native activists (among whom there were their neighbors, colleagues, friends, and even relatives) and the Russian invaders.
I’ll restore it for now. — Michael Z. 16:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
The advance over the border may be regarded as Russia’s second intervention; p. 4,
Russia would likely describe its intervention as a response to a US-led uprising in Kyiv; p. 8,
outside military intervention from Russia led to war".
Motivations of Pro-Russian and Pro-Ukrainian Combatants in the Context of the Russian Military Intervention in the Donbas.
when the Ukrainian forces captured Khriashchuvate and Novosvitlivka in mid-August, the military defeat of the insurgency seemed like a foregone conclusion. It was precisely at that point that Russian forces began their direct intervention. As noted, the Russian Federation supported the insurgency from the very start, informationally, in the diplomatic sphere, with weapons, irregular fighters, and from July with artillery strikes. The ground intervention by units of the regular army, however, began only in August 2014. Moreover, it is possible that this intervention did not occur in one fell swoop, but in a series of separate actions
from foreign invasion. To this general rule there's one exception at p. 113 where one finds a generic reference to
Russian invasionprobably encompassing both Crimea and Donbas.
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
Hi, @ CapLiber, please remove the icons you added to the infobox. They violate Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons. Decorating a list of entities with tiny unreadable and largely unfamiliar pictures is not helpful and hinders readability. Thanks. — Michael Z. 23:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
On the Russian side of the infobox I moved the DLNR commanders and units below the Russian ones. @ Alaexis reverted with “per Combatants of the war in Donbas the majority of separatist forces were local.” [15]
This is a serious argument?
Here’s a fact: the majority of Russian forces didn’t want to attack Ukraine before February 2022, either. But their chain of command up to the Kremlin belongs in the infobox there, with subordinate elements below their superiors. Same goes in this article. — Michael Z. 23:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The start date is given in the infobox as April 6, based on a 2017 report’s timeline, describing the first building occupations by “pro-Russian activists” and “separatists” (and also “Pro-Russian forces”), p.91: [20]
But other sources refer to a different start event and date: the April 12 seizure of the Sloviansk SBU building by Girkin’s band.
Galeotti 2019, Armies of Russia’s War in Ukraine ISBN 9781472833457:14–16, says:
It implies this was the first armed seizure that was able to resist a Ukrainian security response. And one can infer this is the first clear armed seizure by Girkin’s militants from Crimea, and not the previous building occupations by “protestors” in Ukraine.
Arel & Driscoll 2023, Ukraine’s Unnamed War: Before the Russian Invasion of 2022 ISBN 9781009059916:4 write:
Marples 2022, The War in Ukraine’s Donbas: Origins, Contexts, and the Future ISBN 9789633864203:3 writes in the introduction:
I’d appreciate more sources or other views before changing, but based on this I would propose changing the start date to April 12, 2014. — Michael Z. 21:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
If one actually reads the source, it's plain and clear that this sentence is cherry picked and does not reflect the overall material in the source. Hence, it's UNDUE. "Longstanding" is not a policy-based argument.
This relies on a non-reliable source. Doesn't matter if it's attributed. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to amplify propaganda sources (by "attributing" them). This would only belong in here if this claim had received extensive coverage in SECONDARY and RELIABLE sources. It hasn't.
We need articles written on basis of policy, not on basis of "this junk made its way into the article and managed to stay in for awhile so now it's "longstanding" and no one can remove it!" Volunteer Marek 18:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The first description of the initiators is "pro-Russian, anti-government separatist groups". This is Russian POV, please compare Igor Girkin. Xx236 ( talk) 08:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Is it really warranted to include every single Ukrainian Prime Minister in the infobox as a "commander"? Shmyhal, Honcharuk, and Groysman are literally never mentioned in the article prose itself, and I've never heard of any of them - including Yatsenyuk, who is briefly mentioned in non-combat roles in the article - having any real involvement in strategy. Same goes for the Donetsk + Luhansk Oblast governors, and Medvedev on the Russian side. Are they really worth mentioning over the actual generals and commanders who planned and led offensives in the field? HappyWith ( talk) 03:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I've already done some quick trimming of the crazily long lead, but there's some stuff that would require a little more time and rewriting to do, and I'm gonna put a list here of the two main things I think could be shortened/cut:
If anyone has other suggestions or thinks these aren't reasonable things to cut, let me know. HappyWith ( talk) 16:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
This article has a gigantic readable prose size of 128 kB, well above the 100 kB at which WP:TOOBIG says an article "almost certainly should be divided". The page lags a ton on my (admittedly crappy) laptop, and the table of contents alone stretches down two whole screen-lengths on desktop. Since this is a page that was basically written in real time during a disinformation-riddled hybrid war, I can see why it's like this, but I think now that the war is over, it needs to really be cut down to get it into some semblance of a reasonable size.
Most of the events referred to in the body actually already have their own articles, so I think we can start by reducing the descriptions of those into summary style, linking the main articles, and making sure any removed cited info is in the already-split-off articles. I am not actually that familiar with the history of the war from 2014-2021, so I won't be as aggressive or fast in trimming as I was for the lead and infobox - since I'll have to be checking what the significance of each event is and how much coverage it needs, etc. - so I hope other editors can help with this. HappyWith ( talk) 18:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The information on the casualties in DPR and LPR were removed from the article. It is clearly notable and it does not contradict the OHCHR figures (6,500 members of armed groups and 3,400 civilians [24]). The information is clearly attributed, so unless there are reliable sources which contradict it, I don't see any reason to remove it. Alaexis ¿question? 09:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Previous consensus (established near the start of the war) was that self-admitted casualty figures will be admitted and will be required for neutral balance (all belligerents' POV), as long as proper attribution is provided. New editor consensus would be required to change it.While this makes sense for soldiers killed in action, it doesn't make sense for civilian casualties, since civilian casualties tend to be inflated by the parties. That's why I understood "self-admitted casualty figures" as non-civilian casualties. We may assume that both sources (eng.ombudsman-dnr.ru, ria.ru) correctly report the claims made by the separatists. But none of the sources can establish the notability. The number of casualities would surely be notable, but the fact that the separatist made this or that claim is simply not notable, if the notability cannot be established by RS. Rsk6400 ( talk) 17:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
If it's "not contradict(ed) by OHCHR figure" then just use the OHCHR figure. There's absolutely no reason why we should use LPR and Russian propaganda outlets. Volunteer Marek 18:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
@ EkoGraf: Could you please help us with a link to the "old consensus" you are referring to ? Rsk6400 ( talk) 17:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
During the entire conflict period, from 14 April 2014 to 31 December 2021, OHCHR recorded a total of 3,106 conflict-related civilian deaths (1,852 men, 1,072 women, 102 boys, 50 girls, and 30 adults whose sex is unknown). Taking into account the 298 deaths on board Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 on 17 July 2014, the total death toll of the conflict on civilians has reached at least 3,404. The number of injured civilians is estimated to exceed 7,000.
A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.The substance of DLNR casualty statements is not verifiable facts; only the fact that they publicly made some statement is. They are also not
Primary sources that have been reputably published. — Michael Z. 21:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
As for civilian casualty claims, which can be inflated for propaganda purposes, I would have no problem removing those claims if most editors agree, I suppose that my last edit (replacing the separatist sources with the OHCHR one) is OK with you. Before we head for an RfC, I'd like to remind you that there is no WP guideline saying that we should balance unreliable sources from both sides. The opposite is true: Neutrality is reporting what reliable sources say. Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Neutrality is not just that, but also fair and proportional presentation of all POVs without excluding one over the other.Rsk6400 ( talk) 19:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"Ombudsman"_of_the_"Donetsk_People's_Republic". Rsk6400 ( talk) 18:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I've added a section on the reactions to the conflict in Russia and it has been reverted. I do not agree with the reasoning "arbitrary selection from the sources (e.g. manipulation of public opinion not mentioned). Also: The war continued for 8 years, so reporting reactions from the first 6 months seems too little."
It's simply not true that the manipulation of public opinion is not mentioned. I wrote that "Those opposing the government's policy were almost never heard publicly," which is what DW reported. If you think it's not clear and want to add more details, then please do.
Regarding the 6 months, the largest protests took place in 2014 and they were widely covered by reliable sources. You are welcome to add more information about the other 7.5 years (survey results, repression, smaller protests) but it's not a valid reason to remove the information about the 2014 events. Alaexis ¿question? 19:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:AGF, WP:ONUS Rsk6400 ( talk) 11:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration [emphasis added] and consensus. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Once discussion has begun, restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive.
I believe that blanket removal of information sourced to TASS is not in line with the WP:RS policy. First, the WP:RSP entry makes an exception for "quotes of statements made by the Kremlin, the Russian State, and pro-Kremlin politicians." This is how TASS is mostly used, e.g.
“ | In turn, the DPR stated that the Ukrainian Armed Forces had broken the truce, while the LPR Luganskinformcenter news agency said the same, but also that, the "ceasefire is generally observed." [1] [2] | ” |
Second, blanket removals are not encouraged even for deprecated sources (TASS is not one) and the best practice is to use {{bettersourceneeded}} tags to give other editors an opportunity to fix issues with biased and otherwise problematic sources. Alaexis ¿question? 10:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
References
Alaexis ¿question? 10:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Mzajac, thats not what the source says. P. 3 gives 2084 civilian deaths for 2014 and 51 for years 2021-22. This is how it could be added to the article. Manyareasexpert ( talk) 14:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
A paragraph was added to the section with
this edit. I see the first sentence to be problematic. The report was prepared by the office of the prosecutor of the
ICC (OTP) - quite separate from the judiciary. Omission of the fuller detail of the report's origin is therefore misleading. The purpose of the report is to set out how the prosecutor intends to determine if a particular case can be presented to the court, including establishment of jurisdiction. At section 184, it is yet to determine the existence (or not) of international and/or non-international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine
. The first part of the problematic sentence would state: ... stating that the intensity of military conflict triggered the law of armed conflict by 30 April 2014, with the "DPR" and "LPR" as parties ...
. What is actually said at section 168 is: Based on the information available it seems [emphasis added] that ... [hostilities] reached a level that would trigger the application of the law of armed conflict.
The article is worded in such a way that implies a ruling by the court that the laws of armed conflict have been triggered. Such a representation is misleading in respect to the report. Given how and where the report is used, reference to the report does not appear to improve the article. The second source cited appears to make assertions about the report which are inconsistent with the content of the report. For this reason, it appears to be dubious. This too is a matter of
WP:ONUS. The other material in the paragraph added appears to make the point quite adequately without the need to rely on this problematic content.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
03:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
... the prosecutor wrote there is justification to believe a crime has been committed ...Please indicate where in the report this was said, as I am not seeing where. If the report is used, then it should explicitly attributed to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court as the author. I do not see that the report adds anything to the article. From the section about Ukraine, the document refers to reports of and alleged crimes. It is (as would be expected) quite circumspect in what it writes. It makes no conclusions in its own name. The report is an RS for what the report says. It is an outline of what TOP is looking to "establish" through its investigations. Consequently, what might become evident is therefore speculation. Cinderella157 ( talk) 07:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
many years. If the purpose of the problematic sentence is to show that Russia has been involed in an international armed conflict in Donbas, then the subsequent text in the paragraph does this since references appear to be made to actual rulings (findings) of courts which, if asserted as a fact by a court, can be reported as a fact. The rational for inclusion of the problematic sentence are not supported nor is the problematic nature of the sentence. Its removal does not detract from what follows. Since it fails verification for what it is alledged to report, the sentence should be removed. WP:ONUS also applies in this respect. Cinderella157 ( talk) 00:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
At section 184, it is yet to determine the existence (or not) of international and/or non-international armed conflict.No, it doesn’t say “yet to determine.” This paragraph is only describing the prosecutor’s activities and their purpose.
Section 184 of the report states:
The Office has continued to conduct a thorough factual and legal analysis of information received in relation to the conflict in order to establish whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that the alleged crimes fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court. As described above, analysis of the situation in Ukraine in this phase has required extensive research focussed both on the examination and evaluation of information relevant for determining the existence (or not) of international and/or non-international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine and on analysing the more specific alleged acts that may constitute crimes under article 5 of the Statute.
Reading the section in full, TOP is still examining and evaluating information relevant for determining the existence (or not) of international and/or non-international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine
. It has continued to conduct
the investigations describe. It has not yet reached a conclusion (a determination) on the question. Their activities and purpose are to establish whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that the alleged crimes fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court
. They have not yet reached a conclusion. To assert otherwise misrepresents the report. Please see
synonyms for seems (appear; give the impression). These are all very equivocal. They are not an assertion of fact, even in the most circumspect of language. Seems speaks to available evidence insufficient for a firm opinion and presenting a case to the court - a long way from being a "fact", legal or otherwise. The report is detailing the nature of investigations and where they may or may not lead. To that extent, it is reasonable to characterise the report as speculative. The dependence described between the first and second sentences sounds like synth? If the report does have a place in the article, it is because of Russia's withdrawal but not as written.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
00:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Please see the 2019 TOP report and the more unequivocal language. However, this source is not consistent with the temporal relationsip of the 3 paras such that it could be a replacement for the first para. TOP has only in 2022 "opened an investigation" following the preliminary investigation referred to in 2016. The premises for inclusion of the first para are not established. The sentence is removed per ONUS. Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
In the ICC prosecutor’s 2016 report,
[31] ¶ 169 made it clear that the prosecutor believed there were both non-international and international armed conflicts in eastern Ukraine: Additional information . . . points to direct military engagement between Russian armed forces and Ukrainian government forces that would suggest the existence of an international armed conflict in the context of armed hostilities in eastern Ukraine
¶ 170 made it clear that the prosecutor had not yet determined whether it actually constituted only a single international armed conflict due to Russian control of the militias.
Some secondary sources refer directly to the 2016 report and confirm this view:
the conflict that has claimed 9,578 lives is an ‘international armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine.’[32]
the ICC Prosecutor’s damning report in 2016, which recognised that . . . Russia was militarily involved in the conflict in eastern Ukraine (paras 158, 169-170)[33]
the mixed armed conflict in eastern Ukraine (2014-2022)[34]
In its 2019 report,
[35] the prosecutor unequivocally confirmed this in ¶ 266: In its Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2016, the Office assessed that by 30 April 2014, the intensity of hostilities between Ukrainian government forces and anti-government armed elements in eastern Ukraine had reached a level that would trigger the application of the law of armed conflict and that the armed groups operating in eastern Ukraine, including the LPR and DPR, were sufficiently organised to qualify as parties to a non-international armed conflict. The Office also assessed that direct military engagement between the respective armed forces of the Russian Federation and Ukraine, indicated the existence of an international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine from 14 July 2014 at the latest, in parallel to the non-international armed conflict.
—
Michael
Z.
15:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
the recent removal was inappropriate.is not helpful, since it does not indicate that why you would form the opinion nor any understanding of the issues which have been discussed. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC) PS It was in fact, a suggestion by which the sentence could be retained. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Mzajac, your comments on my recent edit please with respect to it being an iteration toward building consensus by which the first sentence might be retained in a form that we can both live with. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
we can both live with [it], but for our readers' benefit. WP:ONUS is no licence for WP:STONEWALLING. Agreeing with Michael Z. and Andrevan. Rsk6400 ( talk) 07:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
[Something] that we can both live withis a paraphrase from WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS:
The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution.Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT:
The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.The two comments in support of the original are essentially of this type. They do not establish consensus. To be clear for the benefit of others, it is the first of three sentences added which has been challenged. Upon some discussion, I have proposed an alternative that has been reverted. You would state that you strongly disagree with the proposed alternative but this does not articulate the basis for your disagreement and why your version should be preferred over the alternative proposed. Articulating this is an essential element of the consensus building process.
stating that by 30 April 2014, the high intensity of military conflict [seemed to] triggered the law of armed conflict with the "DPR" and "LPR" as parties, it remains unclear to me the significance you would appear to attached to this when clearly, the main point to be made is that, investigations to be conducted might lead to an assertion (or not) that Russia was engaged in an international armed conflict with Ukraine - the key point leading to Russia withdrawing its signature. It then flows to the two subsequent sentences that were added (and are not contested), that courts have reached such a conclusion as a legal fact. I believe I have identified all of these points in the preceding discussion. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS explicitly says that consensus is not unanimity. Cinderella157, since you are the only one disagreeing, I don't think that you can justly claim there is no consensus. Rsk6400 ( talk) 08:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
nor is it the result of a vote.Per above it also states:
The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.Your own previous comment falls to this as do those by Andrevan, for the most part. There is no consensus for the sentence at present. Per WP:CON and WP:DR, it is inappropriate to reinstate an edit without consensus or without revision that works toward consensus. Please contribute here toward establishing a consensus for the sentence or a revision thereof. In the meantime, it should be removed. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
“per previous editor”(or similar) are superficial responses and indicate a lack of engagement not dissimilar to "I do/don't like it". At best, it depends on the other's strength of argument. Michael uses strawman arguments several times. Consequently, these are inherently fallacious and carry little weight. Their arguments might be extensive but not overly deep IMO. I don't think you are in a position to assert a consensus to justify your revert. As I have indicated, this sentence does belong but I don't believe it belongs in its present form Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration [emphasis added] and consensus. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments. You forked this discussion to at least two personal talk pages, and you were already told "Enough !". Feel free to start an RfC. Rsk6400 ( talk) 07:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Cinderella157: what exactly would you like to change in the current version? Alaexis ¿question? 20:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Alaexis, here is the version of the sentence I have proposed.
The 2016 annual report by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court outlined its ongoing investigations. It detailed the preliminary examination of the situation in Ukraine stating that its ongoing investigation would focus on determining whether or not it could assert that an international armed conflict existed between Ukraine and Russia in eastern Ukraine. [1] The day following the release of the report, Russia announced its intention to withdraw from joining the International Criminal Court (ICC). [2] [a]
For comparison, here is the present version of the sentence.
The International Criminal Court issued a report in November 2016 as part of its investigations, stating that by 30 April 2014, the high intensity of military conflict triggered the law of armed conflict with the "DPR" and "LPR" as parties, that engagement with Russian armed forces in eastern Ukraine suggested the existence of a parallel international armed conflict by 14 July 2014, and that if it were determined that Russia exercised overall control over the militant groups, then this would comprise only a single international armed conflict [4] [5] [6] [7] (Russia withdrew from the ICC the next day).
Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Responding to Rsk6400:
Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
suggests to me that a misrepresentation is intentional- see WP:AGF. Rsk6400 ( talk) 17:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Responding to Andrevan:
Russian President Vladimir Putin has approved an order to withdraw the nation from the process of joining the International Criminal Court (ICC).That Russia would "withdraw from joining" the ICC is using the terminology from the cited source. The meaning is also explained in the accompanying footnote in the proposal. In the light of the source cited (and my other reading), I do not see how
... Russia announced its intention to withdraw from joining the International Criminal Court (ICC)is inaccurate or misleading. On further reasoned discussion, my view might change, as might the wording of this sentence.
Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
References
In its Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2016, the Office assessed that by 30 April 2014, the intensity of hostilities between Ukrainian government forces and anti-government armed elements in eastern Ukraine had reached a level that would trigger the application of the law of armed conflict and that the armed groups operating in eastern Ukraine, including the LPR and DPR, were sufficiently organised to qualify as parties to a non-international armed conflict. The Office also assessed that direct military engagement between the respective armed forces of the Russian Federation and Ukraine, indicated the existence of an international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine from 14 July 2014 at the latest, in parallel to the non-international armed conflict
Cinderella157, we had a really exhaustive discussion, and after the text has been stable for weeks, you start again changing to what you proposed without having achieved consensus here. Please, if you think this is so important, you should start an RfC here. Rsk6400 ( talk) 16:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I suggest we add 2 more pages that belong to this article: Donbas Insurgency (from April to August 2014), 2014 Russian invasion of Donbas from August 2014 to February 2015 and Ceasefire phase of the War in Donbas from February 2015 to February 2022. It would be more detailed. It’s just like the Russo-Ukrainian War page has: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, War in Donbas and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. TankDude2000 ( talk) 15:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
This title “War in Donbas” just proves Russian trolls’ points about “Ukraine bombing Donbas”. I think it should be renamed to the “Insurgency in Donbas”. Then, Wikipedia would not have any Russian propaganda!
TankDude2000 (
talk)
17:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Non-extended-confirmed users (including User:TankDude2000) may not make edits in internal project discussions, including requested moves, in this topic area, per wp:GS/RUSUKR. — Michael Z. 15:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
War in Donbas (2014-2022) ->
War in Donbas The title would be shorter. Plus, if we are going to reffer to the current situation in Donbas, we would use the title
Battle of Donbas (2022-present).
TankDude2000 (
talk)
15:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Non-extended-confirmed users (including User:TankDude2000) may not make edits in internal project discussions, including requested moves, in this topic area, per WP:GS/RUSUKR. — Michael Z. 15:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
War in Donbas (2014–2022) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please WP:BLPREMOVE the fully unsourced paragraph between
''[[Novaya Gazeta]]'' concluded in 2020 that, as long Russia doesn't prosecute these "poorly prepared hooligans turning a whole region into a bloodbath", it is morally and politically responsible for all casualties.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=Бесславные гибриды |url=https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2020/07/17/86300-besslavnye-gibridy |access-date=20 July 2020 |website=Новая газета – Novayagazeta.ru |language=ru}}</ref>
and
=== Expansion of separatist territorial control ===
89.206.112.12 ( talk) 13:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
and there is not a single WP:BLPRS here. 89.206.112.12 ( talk) 13:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)contentious material about living persons that is unsourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.
already supported by a reliable sourcewhen it does not mention a single reference for its criminal accusations that I avoided repeating here as per the header at WP:BLPN? 89.206.112.12 ( talk) 14:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Closed per WP:GS/RUSUKR. RM opened by non-ECP user. ( non-admin closure) Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
War in Donbas (2014–2022) → War in Donbas – People already know that the War in Donbas ended in 2022 with the Russian invasion. Also, it’s not the same name as the Battle of Donbas (2022-present. 109.166.133.175 ( talk) 07:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Please add number of refugees - [38] [39] The report also said that Ukrainian government registered 1.6 million internally displaced persons, who fled their homes as a result of the conflict. From 800,000 to 1 million of them lived on Kyiv-controlled territory, the report said. Manyareasexpert ( talk) 22:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)