Jump to content

Talk:War in Donbas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:85:c101:c9d0:c8f5:681b:5214:c75e (talk) at 19:30, 14 April 2021 (→‎Infobox Map: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Redaction of words "annexion" and "illegal"

In the article there was "annexation of Crimea by Russian Federation" , but I change this with "Crimean joining in Russian Federation" an I put the article about this (2014 Crimean status referendum). I think that in the beginning of this article is better to say "joining", because here is about all events in Crimea as an aggregate, which includes and the referendum in Crimea.

In article there was "illegal annexation". I change it with "leagel annexation". That, again, because in Crimea was held the referendum, in which referendum there was 2(two) options: 

                              1)  Joining to the Russian Federation
                              2)  Restore Constitution since 1992. (Stay in Ukraine)

MarsoBG (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the respective articles. The referendum was just a small part of the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, and was preceded by demonstrations, the occupation by foreign troops (starting February 20), and the installation of Aksionov as prime minister, and followed by a declaration of independence, formal accession to the RF, and amendment to the Russian constitution, and final capture of Ukrainian military forces and assets (March 26). It was certainly not legal, as each of these elements violated the law of the land and international law, and this is the position of most of the United Nations. —Michael Z. 15:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true. The UN did not confess. But for what are made laws? That's right - for the punishment of crimes to the identity of peoples and for their protection, and etc. But if there is a crime, there must be victims. So in this case, who is protecting the UN. Here, for veracity of the article can not be said to be illegal, because there are no real victims for in favor of which we must punish someone. In addition, there is a legal referendum. Yes, there is russian military troops and changing of the administration in Crimea, but this one who started the crisis was crimean rebels not russian military troops, forces and etc. They solved the problem. And since the referendum is something that confirms that the annexation is not to the detriment to the Crimean people, and since the referendum is de facto after the beginning of the annexation, in my opinion, it is better to write "joining" (for the beginning of the article, where we want to indicate the events in Crimea as a aggregate event). If "joining" is unacceptable for you and for the true, I suggest you write "crisis in Crimea". "Please refer to the respective articles": If you mean that I should specify more reliable sources. The result is no secret to anyone, and it is in all sources on this issue (the result is not controversial) but it is better to refer to another article in Wikipedia. If you mean that I should get better acquainted with the already mentioned article 2014 Crimean status referendum I did it. MarsoBG (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vaticidalprophet 14:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


War in Donbass → War in Donbas –   After the move of “Donbass” to “Donbas”, this descriptive name for a conflict in Ukraine should be updated for wp:CONSISTENCY.

A G Books Ngram chart shows this war is variously named and capitalized. Unlike, for example, World War II which is always capitalized, names of this subject are not universally recognized as proper names.

Individual searches in the corpus of reliable sources show that the current phrasing and spelling Donbas War is probably the most wp:COMMONNAME out of these variations.

Google Advanced Book Search of English-language pages, with quotation marks, and excluding Wikipedia, per WP:SET, 2014–2019 (accurate estimate of results is only at the top of the last page of results, when you hide the “Tools” menu). Total hits about 8,980:

  • W/war in Donbas*: 1,700 to 1,620 (+5%)
  • W/war in the Donbas*: 1,950 to 1,820 (+7%)
  • Donbas* W/war: 1,310 to 841 (+56%)

Google Scholar Search, with quotation marks and excluding Wikipedia per WP:SET, 2014–2019. Total hits about 3,147:

  • W/war in Donbas*: 1,050 to 730 (+44%)
  • W/war in the Donbas*: 518 to 367 (+41%)
  • Donbas* W/war: 282 to 200 (+41%)

Summing up all of the above, Donbas beats Donbass by 6,810 to 5,578 (+22%)

The total numbers are not huge but the results are consistent. If they are unconvincing, then we should fall back on consistency with the main article and others, and rename anyway.  —Michael Z. 22:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out below, this would lead to renaming subordinate articles Timeline of the war in Donbass, Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass, International reactions to the war in Donbass, List of equipment used by separatist forces of the war in Donbass, List of Ukrainian aircraft losses during the War in Donbass [have I missed any?]. For consistency, I propose lowercasing “war” in the single exception. Category names would follow, where capitalized War is also the minority (I count 4 of 10, omitting instances in the initial position that are capitalized anyway). —Michael Z. 20:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see the subordinate timelines have cap W, which I would change to match their parent. —Michael Z. 20:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those articles are rather old, admittedly neither of those sources seem to have used either variant of the word for some time. Articles from this year favour 'Donbas' see: Wapo [3], BBC [4], The Times [5] and Reuters [6]—blindlynx (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both those news sites use both spellings for the geographical name. If you look at recent years, NY Times slightly favours Donbas, the Guardian largely uses Donbass. If you search Google News for the last week, Donbas is favoured by 86 to 29 (+197%). You’ll find different usage by particular authors, editors, or websites, but all the general evidence I’ve seen is that Donbas is more common in the corpus. —Michael Z. 19:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For 2017–present, I get Wapo 56:18 (+211%), BBC 50:42 (+19%), the Times (London) 24:20 (+20%), and Reuters 21:204 (-871%). Each of these numbers is anecdotal, and means nothing on its own. —Michael Z. 19:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't use recent google news to determine the usage. Most of "Donbas" comes from Kyiv Post and many "Donbass" from English-language TASS news. I think we shouldn't use either when determining the usage in English. Alaexis¿question? 10:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Kremlin-owned TASS is listed at WP:RSP as “marginally reliable.” It makes up about 20% of the smaller group. On the other hand, disqualifying independent Ukrainian source Kyiv Post about news in Ukraine because it is Ukrainian is something like “Wikipedia needs more wp:bias.” —Michael Z. 13:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with bias. This is not a question of WP:NPOV but of usage in English-language media. Alaexis¿question? 14:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kyiv Post is English-language media. So I’m not sure why you want to deprecate it. —Michael Z. 14:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against it. My point is that when 9 out of 10 recent google news search results belong to Ukrainian media (Kyiv Post, UNIAN, Ukrinform) it's hardly an argument about the prevalence of a certain variant in English-language media in general. Again, it has nothing to do with reliability. Alaexis¿question? 15:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of google results most reliable sources tend to favour 'Donbas' particularly in recent articles this has been stated a few times now—blindlynx (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. And searches for US place names are dominated by a few sources, like the NY Times, CNN, USA Today, &c. We should weed all of those out to remove certain variants from how English-language media in general name regions in the United States. —Michael Z. 15:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As an uninvolved reader: is there an ethnic sensitivity to this naming? Is Donbass the transliteration of the Russian name and Donbas of the Ukrainian one? Is the former preferred by Russians and the latter by Ukrainians, seen the dispute over the region? If there’s an ethnic sensitivity, I would be cautious to change the name based on only marginal ngram usage differences. Ideally there would be a stronger argument then. Morgengave (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, those are the respective transliterations. Thank you for bringing up the subject. The decision on the geographic name was already made when the main article was moved to Donbas. In my opinion it could be considered ethnically insensitive to then pointedly choose not to move the article about a war in Ukraine from the spelling based on the former colonizers’ imposed language, in light of what is going on today. What’s the stronger argument to keep, then? Damned if we don’t, etcetera. I suggest we 1. follow the guidelines, 2. defer to the main article’s spelling, and 3. avoid politicizing this as much as is possible. —Michael Z. 04:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am explicitly only "commenting", being a mirror to what you say. I am sure that the ethnic Russians in Donbas(s) don't see it from the same POV as you do (I am not taking sides; I know a bit of the history of the Russification of Ukraine); many of them will likely see the war as a struggle of self-determination and see Ukraine as the aggressor or oppressor. Generally, we shouldn't rename articles to advance a POV, but we should base it on usage in the English language. If there's only a marginal difference in usage, it is controversial to move the article name as it would seem that Wikipedia supports one of the POVs in the conflict. However, if one of the names is already used in most other articles, then it does make sense to align all others to it (i.e. we should aim to be consistent lest we confuse the reader). Morgengave (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not sure everyone would agree with your analysis about who sees what as a struggle of self-determination. I don’t think we should get into it here, but one could point out that the “struggle for self-determination” has many Russian citizens in key positions, and two million people left the region, partly because of ethnic, religious, and language oppression by its self-appointed leaders supported by a revanchist foreign power. Anyway, not moving supports a POV too, to stick to the legacy of a colonial history, so we should consider WP:BIAS but mainly stick to our guidelines. —Michael Z. 14:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not making an analysis about this conflict; I am not an expert on this topic at all. I am just saying that, in general, page moves should be inspired by usage, and not by a POV. Anyway, I am, in all friendliness, leaving this conversation, as I won't be able to contribute further. Morgengave (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a very reasonable statement and you’re welcome to stay or go. I am willing to discuss all of the concerns. I’ll avoid being confrontational, but if you bring a POV to the table, don’t be perturbed if an editor presents evidence that some other one exists. If you’re implying that the move to Donbas was somehow not “representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic” (WP:NPOV): the move proposal there was grounded in Wikipedia guidelines, factual, and supported unanimously by the editors who responded, so I believe it was. If you have concerns about it, I urge you ask the closing editor to give their view and listen to your arguments, and I believe they can reopen that move if your concerns aren’t addressed. If they don’t, then (from memory) there is also a formal appeal process, but I believe it can only address matters of procedure. I’m not eager to reopen the move, but I’d rather not see editors harbour suspicions about sneaky moves or hidden motives. —Michael Z. 16:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of the main article name change, it was done very quickly and I'm not sure of the outcome if the community had been informed and had a chance to participate in the discussion. Alaexis¿question? 10:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know, wikiprojects were informed and guidelines were followed. I believe you can contact the closer to appeal, if you object to the procedure. —Michael Z. 13:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is indeed so then there is no point in appealing. Btw which wikiprojects have been notified? Alaexis¿question? 14:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Three WikiProjects are listed at the top of that article’s talk page. The automated notification system posts updates to those projects pages, like the one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine/Article alerts. Project participants can follow these pages to see updates on their watchlist. —Michael Z. 14:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Both wikiprojects Ukraine and russia have automated lists of active move requests in their scope—blindlynx (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    this line of reasoning risks false balance, the overwhelming majority of people living in Ukraine—including Russian speakers—see themselves as 'Ukrainian' [7]—blindlynx (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The only thing that should matter here is WP:COMMONNAME, not whether one or another variant rights this or that wrong. Any "arguments" about "colonial legacy" or "self-determinations" are, preferably, to be disregarded at sight. The only question that actually worth resolving is whether war in Donbas(s) is a well-established common name on its own (that is: [[war in Donbas(s)]]), which means that we should evaluate its own commonity, not "blindly drawing" on the name of Donbas(s) entity, or is merely a descriptive name (war in [[Donbas]](s)), which makes it dependent on the other name. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the case can be made that 'war in donbas(s)' as a single phrase is established as a common name for either spelling. Based on the numbers presented 'Donbas' appears to be common usage albeit fairly narrowly. In the case that this margin of usage is to narrow we to establish a common name we should use WP:UKR ie. 'Donbas'—blindlynx (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UKR is merely a page describing the transliteration of Ukrainian and is not a Wikipedia policy on when Ukrainian-language names should be used. Alaexis¿question? 19:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weirdly WP:TRANSLITERATE links to WP:ROMAN that links to WP:UKR. Unless your saying that Ukrainian isn't the appropriate language to be transliterating from per WP:TRANSLITERATE—blindlynx (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely what I'm saying. This is a contentious topic and there is no reason to prefer one language to another automatically. Alaexis¿question? 11:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong question. We’re using English, not Ukrainian nor Russian. We’re not translating uk:Війна на сході України nor transliterating Viina na skhodi Ukrainy, nor any variation. This nomination and the guideline posits that Donbas is the most common English name for the region, and furthermore that war in Donbas is also the most common name of this article’s subject so there is no reason to break from consistency with the geographic region’s article title. But if you want to bring non-English names into it, on top of all the above, not a single word of WP:TRANSLITERATE implies that we should impose a Russian name “automatically” on a Ukrainian subject. Going against the guideline this way, in a “contentious topic,” is egregiously inappropriate. —Michael Z. 16:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Donbas has always been the correct spelling, and has a similar degree of search potential. Given how obscure the subject is, the fact we're using an incorrect variation here is probably the only reason Donbass has held out. Change it to Donbas and see. 206.174.216.170 (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Upcoming "liberation" Operation of Russian in Ukraine 2021

The ongoing military massement of Russian needs a seperaten article. Lovemankind83 (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. If something actually happens, we can create a spinoff. Until then, no. RGloucester — ☎ 02:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Map

In my humble opinion, a new map should be added to the infobox. The current map is date to 2016, and I believe some changes have taken place, and more changes are bound to happen eventually. Perhaps a map that can be updated like that for the Syrian Civil War, or for the Libya and Yemen wars, would suffice? Thank you in advance. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:C8F5:681B:5214:C75E (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_in_Donbas&oldid=1017820673"