Talk:War in Donbas

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War in Donbas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12: 14 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Ukrainian place names are transliterated using the National system.
Please see the guidelines on the romanization of Ukrainian on Wikipedia for more information.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Military history: Russian & Soviet B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

European history B‑class Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Russia B‑class High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ukraine B‑class Top‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

They are rebels, not insurgents.

This is because insurgents do not have flags. Rebels have flags.

2620:101:F000:700:195F:6A0F:30FE:D601 (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If the established government does not recognize the rebels as belligerents then they are insurgents and the revolt is an insurgency." This is from the Oxford Dictionary, also we go by what the reliable sources say. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. In Syria they are called rebels which is a good word. In Ukraine the rebels goal is to oust Poroshenko. Insurgents is a derogatory word and IS are called insurgents in Iraq.

2620:101:F000:700:195F:6A0F:30FE:D601 (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is because the rebels in Syria are recognized by at least one country as legitimate. It is complex but if a majority of reliable sources are calling them insurgents then as I said we cant go against that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single country recognizes rebels in Syria as legitimate. There are many rebel groups in Syria, ranging from YPG to IS.

2620:101:F000:700:D92F:DF7E:456D:5AA3 (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1], [2], [3].Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are Western media sources that refer to them as rebels.

here http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34425454

here http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/02/ukraine-ghost-brigade-ukraine-rebels

here http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2016-03-18/rebel-rep-ukraine-truce-deal-could-take-years-to-implement

here http://news.yahoo.com/next-stop-syria-ukraine-rebels-weigh-options-fighting-044631730.html

Ukraine sources also refer to them as rebels.

here http://uatoday.tv/news/ap-ukraine-truce-deal-could-take-years-to-implement-rebel-representative-613648.html

Rebel is positive word. Insurgent is negative word.

38.121.88.172 (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Knowledgekid87 Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1989. Insurgent "One who rises in revolt against constituted authority; a rebel who is not recognized as a belligerent." That means insurgents are rebels, of a particular type.... And hasn't Ukraine's government signed ceasefire agreements with these forces? How is that compatible with the idea that they are not recognized as belligerents by the government? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has been discussed to death. See links above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel and insurgent and guerrilla, etc. can have positive or negative meaning depending on the context. In the southern US, rebel could be positive; in Ukraine, insurgent could be positive (ie, the UPA). In Syria, rebel could be positive in contrast to a tyrannical regime; though pro-Assad people could see it as negative because they see the rebels as negative; whereas in Iraq insurgent could be negative because their actions are thoroughly more negative (I mean, it's ISIS). --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 19:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somme battle of WWI

Restored earlier deletion (meaning: deleted: Ewsweek (published the article after 3-4 days after original)). Before bluntly deleting it, do please "consult the source", and the history thereof; to my knowledge this is the first time DonWar was compared with trenches of Somme, and, written by a person, English speaking, English performing, who was on site, actually, for 5 days, not by a commission of saving,... "all the whales and humanoids on the planet". The article was published at first by NNN, after 3-4 days it was published by Newsweek.—Pietadè (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rebel or separatists?

I think use separist word is not neutral. At current moment if i search in the article word 'rebel' i see only 1 using this word inside the article and 87 using in the sources. Other situation about using word 'separatist' - search found 179 results with half in the article and half in the sources. I think wikipedia articles should be more neutral - cause 'separatist' word has animus. Thanks for attention. --Speakus (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Separatist" does not have "animus". It is representative of the desires of the relevant parties. "Rebel" is not, and is unacceptable as an example of value-laden language. RGloucester — ☎ 13:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebels has request of federalization of Ukraine. They don't ask for separate State. So using 'separatists' word is not so correct for them. Page 'WP:WORDS' does not have example 'rebel'. Donbas rebels don't like when they be called 'separatists'. Separatist have 'animus' cause separatism is illegal in any country. Ok if 'rebel' is not good word (although i can not understand why) - there is another word which is more neutral then separatists - Militia. I searched this word in the article and it used 41 times at current time: half in the sources and half in the article. --Speakus (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has actually asked for the federalization of Ukraine, and those who do bandy around with the terms 'decentralization' and 'federalization' do so unspecifically/vaguely with no real definition of th term. I'd leave it out because nobody knows what it means. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 19:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think "militants" is appropriate to describe the militia groups. They do want separatism, so I think separatist is okay for localized groups, but not foreign interlocutors, as their objective is more directly to attack Ukraine ("fight fascism!" or "Russia's enemies"), or expand Russia, and not achieve a reasonable form of local autonomy.--BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 19:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Units involved

Just wondering what the criteria for the pro-Russian side's inclusion is? Donetsk People's Militia under Gubarev isn't around anymore, right? There are a couple that are listed that were liquidated. Vostok I think is important for inclusion...and then we have them all pointing to the same catch-all article that doesn't even list a "Luhansk militia" as existing separately from the the other battalions in the region. Just wondering, how do we decide what gets listed in the infobox, and what should be left on the catch-all? Could we clean it up? --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 19:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a war?

Both sides taking pot shots at each other once in a while. That's about it. What qualifies this as a war and not a gang fight?

38.121.91.6 (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]