Talk:War in Donbas

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Is there something specific you'd like to add? Alaexis_¿question? 12:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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. . 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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

I question your version of reality but more to the point nobody is going to discuss that statement unless you have a source for it.Elinruby (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

At a minimum it's definitely based on much more than British propaganda. Some people think the misleading part of that phrase is "separatists". The Ukrainians and Americans are very definite about the presence of Russian tanks and special forces. Elinruby (talk) 06:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

Tldr;

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

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)

wrong number of Ukrainians internally displaced, does not currently match source

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)

@Rbertoche: I've fixed this with the appropriate numbers. It seems like someone purposely changed them to present a skewed picture. A shame no one noticed until now. RGloucester — ☎ 13:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 March 2022

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: 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)

• Oppose I don't see any advantage to adding a set of parentheses to the title. In general we add parentheses only when we need to disambiguate between two articles that would otherwise have the same title. Here, there is no other article. --GRuban (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Support, War in Donbas should become a DAB page between Donbas offensive and this article. Olchug (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Ukraine offensive is a sub-article of this one. They are not at an equal level in the article hierarchy. The Donbas War has been identified by RS as a distinct subject. It cannot be treated as equivalent to one particular offensive that took place as part of the conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 14:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – The brackets are confusing. The war hasn't finished, and the conflict remains unresolved. The reason current content isn't being inserted here is because of page size. After the conflict resolves, a WP:SUMMARY of Eastern Ukraine offensive will be included here. RGloucester — ☎ 13:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Support, The Russo-Ukrainian war entered a new stage. This stage is Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, called by the Russian media a "special operation". The article should describe the events by February 24, 2022. JanPawel2025 (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

What? How does this align with the proposal here? RGloucester — ☎ 22:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It is compatible, because when we describe an event, we should take into account all variants and events that are currently taking place. JanPawel2025 (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose name change, Support article closure, I think the dates in the brackets are superfluous. There is no other event/article called War in Donbas at the moment so I wouldn't change the title to add the dates. However, I do think that specific period of the overall Russo-Ukrainian War has ended, and I would just close the article with the results list including the ultimate start of the 2022 invasion, which is the next period of the Russo-Ukrainian War. An example of a proper breakdown of a long-running war into different phases can be seen in the Afghanistan conflict (1978–present). EkoGraf (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a possibility, but I think it depends on what happens with the 'new phase' of operations that Russia claims it will start 'focused on Donbas'...seems a bit WP:CRYSTAL to make this determination now. RGloucester — ☎ 01:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

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.

Propaganda Photograph of Civilians killed by an airstrike in Luhansk, 18 June 2014

@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 have removed the picture altogether. Given it isn't possible to verify what specific events it is displaying, it is better to not put it in at all. RGloucester — ☎ 19:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok to me, thank you. Still I think that the victims have deserved that one day the true circumstances causing their deaths are revealed and the persons responsible are accused. -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Background opener removal

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)

That's a weird way to open the background section regardless of the quality or lack thereof of the sourcing. If I were going to write a piece on the Donbas Conflict I'd likely start with Maidan and it's leadup, not Putinist neo-imperialism. I'd suggest rewriting the paragraph altogether to focus on the immediately preceding event that sparked the separatists and associated Russian incursion in the first place, though obviously other editors should weigh in first. BSMRD (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

A weird way, indeed. I thought of removal (and was going to do it before I realised I don't have edit perms) because the section functioned perfectly fine before the unilateral addition of that opener, but yeah, a nice rewrite that goes over what you mentioned would probably be ideal. Krystoff Moholy (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it. It seems to have been a drive-by addition. By the way, BSMRD, the preceding events are detailed at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. There isn't space in this article for that stuff... RGloucester — ☎ 12:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Location in infobox

"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)

Yes they are. I've shifted the infobox location a little to reflect that. BSMRD (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks Elinruby (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Map

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)

Bad source links

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: MarSwe11 (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

References

The lead

Isn't the lead unproportionally long?

The first sentence says 'immediately following the Euromaidan protest movement'. The first paragraph references an Ukrainian article (2014) which informs about federalisation plans and does not contain the word 'Euromaidan'. However the word 'federalisation' is not mentioned in the lead.

https://dgap.org/en/events/russkiy-mir-russian-world The Donbas war has been ideologically prepared as 'Russian World', not even mentioned in the page.

Such bias has been perfectly described by one editor 'If I were going to write a piece on the Donbas Conflict I'd likely start with Maidan and it's leadup, not Putinist neo-imperialism.' So 'I do not see any elephant in this room'.

Xx236 (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Putin's War Against Ukraine: Revolution, Nationalism, and Crime

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)

Dates

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)

Fixed. RGloucester — ☎ 02:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

'Please reach consensus before capitalising "war".'

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)

The Wikipedia manual of style section on that issue is MOS:CAPS, please consult. Meanwhile, normal English grammar says "a war", "the Second World War". So both "the war in Donbas" and 'the Donbas War" are both correct whereas "the War in Donbas" and "the Donbas war" are both wrong. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s not “grammar” that determines capitalization. It depends whether this is a formal title or simply a descriptive phrase. The test is prevailing usage, so please show some evidence, like a survey of sources or a WP:search engine test, showing that most sources either capitalize or do not. —Michael Z. 21:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

War in Donbas, or, Consolidated invasion of Donbas

"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)

Have you even read the introductory paragraph to this article? The subject is the eight-year war in eastern Ukraine, and the title is a matter of long-term consensus. If you want to change it, please file a formal move request per WP:RM. —Michael Z. 20:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

MZajac; Normally an article which refers to a War would be expected to have a section about the actual Declaration of War, though there is no such section in this article. When did Russia declare the War, on what date, and with what words did Russia declare War. Similarly for Ukraine, on what date did Ukraine declare/acknowledge War, and with what words did Ukraine declare/acknowledge War. Can a Declaration of War section be added to this article or is there a reason for no such section being in the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

User:ErnestKrause, no, a declaration of war is a violation of international law, stigmatizes the declarer and imposes legal disadvantages on them, and the vast majority of wars since 1945 don’t have one.

The consensus title of this article calls it a war. If you think you can find consensus to change it, you know what to do. —Michael Z. 14:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Peace in the region

There is alot of talk about the conflict. Perhaps some balance about the resolution. ☮️ RogerRadbit (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see content policies WP:Wikipedia is not a forum and WP:CRYSTAL. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Key on lower right of Map and Map Description in Contradiction

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)