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 2a02:c7d:8a9:6700:4deb:dc8e:67b3:f32f (talk) at 22:55, 23 March 2022 (→‎Pure Propaganda). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Pure Propaganda

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fully agree, 100%. I see one of the "sources" is from Santa Monica, California. Probably CIA garbage. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:8169:9AE7:F0F9:AB06 (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In times of war, communication bubbles can easily emerge: US and EU readers get US and EU mainstream information (or propaganda, if you like) and the Russians get their own mainstream information or propaganda in turn. So don't assume you have better access to the Truth and nothing but the Truth: you just get the information you get, same as us. CIA has not been writing this article, the Wikipedians have, and generic lamentations like "it's all wrong" are not particularly helpful. Why don't you use this talk page for pinpointing biased/unreliable/false contents and sources, and for providing better contents and sources, if you have some? That would be useful. Mind WP:TALK#POSITIVE and WP:TALKPOV please :-) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not an objective characterization. Thirty EU members, the USA, Ukraine, and many other states in the rest of the world have various levels of free speech, independent media, and public broadcasters with non-political policies. These may have their own, various, agendas, but they are competitive and have the freedom to criticize. In the Russian Federation, Belarus, and the few other authoritarian states that share an anti-democratic agenda the situation is extremely different: state media publish blatant disinformation and use social media and other agents to launder it, and internet trolls to amplify and muddy it, while persecuting independent journalism. Perhaps academic sources are less affected, but don’t kid yourself that they can’t suffer pressure for self-censorship in oppressive social, political, and state environments. (It’s a serious mistake to infer that the truth always lies somewhere between one side’s truth and another’s blatant lies.)
Wikipedia has rules guidelines about WP:reliable sources and a list of WP:perennial sources that recognizes the differences and helps us keep track of which is which. We also have well-sourced articles on many media that identify some as unreliable, politically biased, or sources of disinformation.
Anyway, I suggest we WP:NOTCHAT too much, especially with anons and users with a few dozen edits who come only to cast doubt. —Michael Z. 17:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I am one of those new users / anons, and while I do not share the opinions of Vilhelmo De Okcidento or the anon with ipv6 starting with 2a00, when I came to this page hoping to learn more about the situation I was in fact dismayed to see sources such as this article from the RAND corporation think tank being used for evidence, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas#cite_note-de-31 , supporting for instance "While the initial protests were largely native expressions of discontent with the new Ukrainian government, Russia took advantage of them to launch a co-ordinated political and military campaign against Ukraine". Whether or not this is actually the case there are two problems : we do not have a full picture of the data supporting the first half of that sentence (what percentage of protestors? What was the duration of this "initial" period?) but we also have a vague and largely unsupported view of the 2nd half of the sentence (what definitive action is this referring to? How do we know? How did this change the statistics with respect to percentage of protestors protesting the government as opposed to separatists?). Looking over the 300 sources at the bottom of the page, we see a rogue's gallery of magazines, think tanks, private blogs, Radio Free Europe, and yes, the national news agencies of the major countries involved that were of concern to the two mentioned editors. I'm not suggesting going through and marking {{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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Tha's not helpful. If you got any specific sources that are bulshitting we can scrutinize them. Or if, for instance, if you think that some might have been omitted unfairly, you can bring them over here for a thorough discussion. I generally agree with Gitz and Michael above. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. Do you have a specific complaint, or wish to discuss a Reliable Source content for the improvement of the article?50.111.36.47 (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well put Gitz and Michael Z. Netanyahuserious (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda

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)[reply]

Is there something specific you'd like to add? Alaexis¿question? 12:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes- the introduction section speaks in detail about Ukranian armed forces casualties but is silent about Russian casualties and more importantly Civillian casualties!!. If that isn't bias then I don't know what to tell you. [1]. Either mention all three or mention just the civillian casualties. Mentioning just the Russian armed forces or Just the Ukranian armed forces casualties is bias. NANDU2005 (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC) N[reply]
Russian military casualties are a state secret, so the few Russian sources on them are officially suppressed and we have to make the best of other estimates. Yes, one of the 37 Ukrainian volunteer battalions defending Donbas has a neo-Nazi reputation, but several of the Russian mercenary units and individuals that invaded Ukraine are bona fide extremists of neo-Nazi, imperialist, or religious fundamentalist persuasion too. BBC and CNN are reliable sources. So, yes, to balanced WP:NPOV and WP:due weight. —Michael Z. 15:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's like complaining about the coverage of Serb genocide against Albanians as being somehow 'biased' - if you have doubts about the validity of a Reliable Source, take it to the proper Wikipedia review board. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serbian what? Was that a slip of the tongue? You mean Albanian genocide of the Serbs obviously:

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)[reply]

How do we reach the proper wikipedia review board? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yozora 1980 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "COHCHR records 3,339 civilian casualties in Donbas since 2014 – report". {{cite news}}: |first1= missing |last1= (help); External link in |first1= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Move Humanitarian crisis into a separate article

In Russian wiki there is an article on Displaced population in Ukraine (2014) [ru]. 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)[reply]

Это не русская - украинская война!

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)[reply]

This is WP:NOTFORUM. Is there something specific you'd like to change? Alaexis¿question? 15:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Russian invasion of Ukraine" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)[reply]

Invited or Invaded?

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)[reply]

Official Recognition?

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)[reply]

No mention of civillian casualties in introductory page- but Ukranian armed force casualty is mentioned!!!

This is absurd. Are there relevant Wiki guidelines that can be referred?

Lies

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)[reply]

Luhansk towns taken

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)[reply]

refugees in Poland

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)[reply]

"Russian-backed" separatist groups

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)[reply]

On the other hand, many reliable sources also call them Russian proxies, or Russian-led “republics”, or so-called DLNR, and consider their military forces (the United Armed Forces of New Russia) to be under the direct command of the Russian Federation’s 8th Combined Arms Army. I would welcome a debate on the naming of these entities. —Michael Z. 18:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP, read War in Donbas#Russian involvement. There are more than enough reliable sources supporting the position that these entities are 'Russian-backed', and as Michael says one could go much further than that. RGloucester — ☎ 18:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

map

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)[reply]

Tldr;

I need say nothing more: History section is waaaay too long!92.12.82.126 (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_in_Donbas&oldid=1078900177"