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 RGloucester (talk | contribs) at 12:34, 13 June 2022 (→‎Requested move 5 June 2022). 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]
Your above statement is effectively propaganda by itself. EU and NATO CLAIM to be MORE democratic, free and open than Russia, but if you bother to look, reality does not hold up to those claims. Belarus, sure, but even there, it's MUCH less "unfree" than commonly claimed. Also, the vast majority of "unfree" has been caused by USA and UK trying to cause regime change. And then i suggest you watch the interview with CIA whistleblower Stockwell. From the 70s, when he confirmed that CIA had, what was it, 13000 journalists on their payroll... And that's not gotten better since.
If you want a simple confirmation of "western" media and politics being ridiculously unreliable, just start going over the last few months of claims made and compare them to reality. Even just such a thing that Bucha is STILL repeteadly claimed to be a "Russian atrocity" despite the Ukraine's OWN forensic investigation showing otherwise is just one tiny hint of how far from the truth is the norm in our oh so "free and open society". Try comparing RT for a day with CNN, BBC World, Fox etc. Then factcheck. You will very rarely find actual errors from RT, and if they publish such, the are quick to apologise and correct. From western media, errors are a daily thing and they often escalate into obvious lies, and they almost never correct or apologise for said errors. DW75 (talk) 11:21, 6 June 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]
Agree, this article is Russophobic propaganda - a discredit to Wikipedia. I'm neither Russian nor Ukrainian, a neutral. 85.95.38.16 (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

SOME agendas? The article completely ignores that OSCE has stated MULTIPLE TIMES that NO RUSSIAN FORCES were involved in Donbass fighting until 24th February 2022. And yet the article and its links is CRAWLING with those rubbish claims. Even the ones that have been thoroughly debunked.
More importantly, "western" and Ukraine sources have in the last few months been BLATANTLY exposed as lying. And yet the article relies on those while completely ignoring Russian sources, which at least the official statements have yet to be shown as untrue. Russia has apparently made it standard to either tell the truth as they know it or simply not say anything. Yet blind faith in unreliable sources and automatic dismissal of what is at least not disproven sources is the norm... DW75 (talk) 11:12, 6 June 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?

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Ukrainian Public Opinion

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)[reply]


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.

https://archive.ph/TG4dO

Donbas or donbass

Why was the name changed from donbass to donbas 2600:1012:B126:C19C:0:52:F3C:A801 (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Donbas" with one "s" is the widely accepted spelling of the name according to virtually all media outlets.DishonorableKnight (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 June 2022

War in Donbas → War in Donbas (2014-2021) – 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 (2014-2021)" is better. --BlackBony (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unless the parts basically just the invasion are removed. Dawsongfg (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

territory map

you could update this more often. 2600:1700:E881:4550:2C9E:4197:B665:D221 (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_in_Donbas&oldid=1092918501"