Talk:War in Donbas/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

"2021 escalation of fighting and Russian military buildup" section name

Mzajac, the name of the section made sense when it only included information about the movements of Russian troops in March-April 2020. Recently the information about the procurement of Turkish drones, their use and responses have been added to the same section. The name no longer fits the content so we can either rename the section or create a new one. I'm fine with either option. Alaexis_¿question? 06:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Today’s news: Satellite images show new Russian military buildup near Ukraine.

Also, I believe the TB2s were deployed six months ago, only first used in combat last week. —Michael Z. 07:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, if we go by newspaper headers, here's another one Ukraine’s Recent Drone Strike Reignites Tensions in Donbass. Should we add it to the section name too? Let's just use a more neutral wording. Alaexis_¿question? 07:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Need help to complete a request

Hi I have been working (as graphic worker) with Jakey222 on his request for two maps intended for this article and maybe this one also. Unfortunately I have lost contact with Jakey222 so my question is.

Is there anyone here that could  help me with their knowledge so the two maps can be completed, or can you link me to someone you think might want to do so, thanks. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Move Humanitarian crisis into a separate article

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

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)

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

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

territory map

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

The war in Donbass did not end on February 24, 2022.

What kind of nonsense is this in the template about the date? The war in Donbas did not end on February 24, but escalated into a much stronger phase. The war in Donbass will end only under these conditions:

1. If the Russian army destroys or expels Ukrainian forces in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions to the Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhia regions.

2. If the Ukrainian army destroys or expels Russian forces from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions back to Russia.

3. If there is a POLITICAL COMPROMISE after which all hostilities would cease.

The war is not over, but it is currently in its worst or even the most terrible phase. — Baba Mica (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

First, WP is not a forum to speculate how a conflict might end. Second, the War in Donbas was a phase of the overall continuing Russo-Ukrainian War. That phase has ended and, as you yourself said, escalated into the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. See example of Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) how a long-running war can be broken down into different phases. EkoGraf (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

As long as Slavyansk, Kramatorsk, Kostiantynivka, Drushkivka, Bakhmut, Avdeyevka, Marinka, Pokrovsk and Uglyadar are under the control of the Ukrainian army or as long as Donetsk, Luhansk, Makeyevka, Yasinuvata, Shakhtyorsk and Sverdlovsk are under the control of the Russian army, DNR and LNR not completed. Afghanistan is something else and it is a series of coups every four to five years after the Soviet occupation. There, the war was continuously fought in phases, but at the level of the entire state with different occupiers. This is not the case here because the opponents and the conflicting parties are the same from the beginning. The Taliban appeared in Afghanistan much later, while in Ukraine the same war is being fought in Donbas in the same positions as in 2014 and 2015, only in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION and with the OPEN SUPPORT of RUSSIA and NATO. The war in Afghanistan was mostly a guerrilla war with many participants and terrorist organizations fighting for local influence on the BLACK MARKET. This is not the case here because the War in Donbas is an OPEN FRONTAL WAR for control over the territory of cities, settlements and resources with the outcome OR. Only when the battles for Slavyansk, Kramatorsk, Avdeyevka and Marinka are over can it be interpreted that the war in Donbas is OVER, and only if the Russians win. These remaining four cities are symbols of the WAR IN DONBASS. Pokrovsk may still remain, but everything depends on the Ukrainian defensive and counter-offensive tactics, which proved to be VERY SUCCESSFUL in the Kharkiv region, but HAVE NOT SUCCESSFULLY in the Kherson region, at least for now. This is a war between two serious armies of two serious states, unlike Afghanistan, where the force was DISproportionate and where everything was reduced to a conflict between tribes, terrorist organizations and various criminal gangs. :) Baba Mica (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. EkoGraf (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

My justification for what I did to the dates

The situation on the ground is complex, I think having one single end date is would always be very misleading. Saying that it's still ongoing would take away from the distinct war that was fought between Ukrainian armed forces, seperatist militias, and special russian units on "vacation" and this articles specific focus on it. Saying that it ended on the day of the invasion makes it seem like the war in Donbas (in a general sense) ended, which it hasn't. And both of these dates I feel take away from the fact that the war was essentially fought from 2014 to 2015 and what had been going on from 2015 to 2022 was just soldiers in trenches taking potshots at each other. I feel like I compressed a good deal of nuance into a fairly compact and readable date section. Feel free to revert my edit if you guys think it was poorly done. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Not bad. Let it serve for a while until one of the THREE SCENARIOS I have mentioned comes true:

1. Until the battles for Severodonetsk, Slavyansk, Kramatorsk, Bakhmut, Avdiyevka, Marinka and Pokrovsk are over

2. Until Ukraine regains Donetsk, Luhansk, Gorlovka, Shakhtyorsk, Mariupol, Novoazovsk, Ilovaisk, Debaltseve and Sverdlovsk

3. Until a PEACE AGREEMENT is reached which would end the COMBAT ACTION in Donbas (Donetsk and Luhansk regions)

The easiest way to change the date. — Baba Mica (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 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: moved. There is a general consensus that the current title doesn't adequately represent the scope of this article. Of the proposed titles, the parenthetical date range title (2014–2022) seems to have received the most support. Michael Z.'s suggestion to use a comma, rather than parentheses was reasonable. But it doesn't appear to have convinced the rest of the community which clearly chose the parenthetical disambiguation. (closed by non-admin page mover) —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

---

War in Donbas → War in Donbas (2014–2022) – 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 (2014–2022)" is better. --BlackBony (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Rename but oppose proposed title such a clumsy name. War in Donas (2014-2021) or somesuch may be better if you want to exclude the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine from the article. The military buildup would be part of the 2022 invasion, so should be part of Battle of Donbas 2022. The current name is quite bad in any case, as it ignores the Donbas strategic offensive (August 1943), Donbas strategic offensive (July 1943) and all other military endeavours in the region. It should point to a disambiguation page, or become an overview of warfare in the Donets basin, from the mists of time to today (say, the Scythians, Greeks, Byzantines, Vikings, Golden Horde, etc; all covered) -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree. I think the best title should be "War in Donbas (2014-2021)", so as to differentiate the conflict of Ukraine vs. Russian separatists from the full-on Russian invasion. DishonorableKnight (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

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

@Dawsongfg We can move the small part about the current invasion to an aftermath section of the article. EkoGraf (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• Agree, but Rename instead War in Donbas (2014-2015) as most of this article describe the high-intensity conflict before Minsk II. A new Donbas conflict article should be made to cover this war, the 2015-2021 conflict and the 2022 war. Sgnpkd (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Any title with a date range should include an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-). Dekimasuよ! 03:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose parentheses Parenthetical disambiguation makes it look like a separate event also named “war in Donbas,” rather than a phase of the same war. A better title, for example, uses comma disambiguation: War in Donbas, 2014–2022. The distinction is subtle but real. There might be other versions using natural disambiguation or a descriptive title. See wp:disambiguation. —Michael Z. 13:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose between 2014 and 2021 there were skirmishes, but no war. Handfield De (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment the current article title says "War in Donbas", so simply opposing the move does not fix the issue that you brought up -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Reliable sources disagree and call the events since 2014 a war, hence the already established title of the article/conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support name change to War in Donbas (2014–2022) (end year when the invasion started) and close the article since this specific period of the overall Russo-Ukrainian War has ended. 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) 01:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support proposal by EkoGraf, but use a dash instead of a hyphen per MOS:DASH. RGloucester — ☎ 12:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, my bad, typed hyphen instead of a dash, corrected my previous comment, thanks. EkoGraf (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I think "Donbas War" would be a better name. It's used in many sources as a name for the 2014–2021 conflict; it matches Russo-Ukrainian War, Russo-Georgian War, Transnistria War etc; and it means we wouldn't need to include the years in brackets. ~Asarlaí 21:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  But Donbas War is going now, as a part of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is not a separate war, but just was of stages of Russo-Ukrainian War. BlackBony (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  In English, there's a slight difference between the two: "war in Donbas" is more of a description and could mean any wars in Donbas at any time, while "Donbas War" is more of a title and can only mean one war. It's like the difference between "war in Iraq" (there have been many) and "Iraq War", or between "civil war in England" and "English Civil War". ~Asarlaí 13:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  The fact that you changed the text of your link to List of English civil wars to “civil war in England” shows that the difference is so insignificant that either can be used to refer to its “opposite,” no? —Michael Z. 15:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  The link isn't important, it was merely to show editors that there have been many civil wars in England. ~Asarlaí 15:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support --JanPawel2025 (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support renaming to War in Donbas (2014–2022) and removing post-invasion content. Alaexis_¿question? 16:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the war in Donbas is a still ongoing conflict that has been occurring since 2014. There's no rush to split and make articles, we can always focus on things like these once the war is over. I'd also like to ask editors supporting this move where does the war in Donbas from 24 February 2022 to 18 April 2022 belong, as we also have Battle of Donbas (2022). This is why I think this kind of stuff is problematic while the conflict still takes place. Super Ψ Dro 20:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that comments dismissing the importance of the stage of the war between 2014 and 2022 are pretty ignorant. Do not base this discussion on recentism. Everything that happened between those years did not become less relevant when Russia invaded Ukraine. And no, they weren't only "skirmishes". Super Ψ Dro 20:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Super Dromaeosaurus, the war in Donbas from 24 February 2022 to 18 April 2022 belong to the Eastern Ukraine offensive. --BlackBony (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support renaming to War in Donbas (2014–2022) as fatality stats are confusing if it runs into post 2022 invasion figures. Dibdabdob (talk) 12:18, 26 June 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.

The 'interlude' was a war and included war crimes

Just to support the comment by Super Dromaeosaurus above, regarding the "nothing happened because I don't know about it" years (without re-opening the move request): Wikipedia is severely missing information on the War in Donbas from around 2015 to 2021, and about human rights violations and war crimes there and in Crimea during the same period, and this problem includes this article. If some people were interested and likely to do the work (not me), then I expect there would be plenty of WP:RS material for making separate articles for the low-intensity sustained geographically stable war and war crimes from around 2015 to 2021 in Donbas and Crimea (Crimea: probably "only" human rights violations, not war or war crimes). If people did that work, then after that, deciding what should be used for overview articles - e.g. a new article War in Donbas (2014–202x) would make sense (unfortunately, it seems unlikely that we'll have x=2; I would be happy to be wrong).

Sources:

• https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine - OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine
• https://www.ohchr.org/en/countries/ukraine/our-presence - United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine - "As of July 2020, 29 periodic reports and 6 thematic public reports have been released."

HRMMU has stayed in Ukraine since its mission is throughout Ukraine; MMU left Ukraine after the 2022 invasion (although Wikipedia only hints at that so far). These are solid sources for 2015 to 2021, and other sources, such as media sources, are certainly available. Just summarising the HRMMU and MMU reports would easily make two solid, well-sourced articles (one for the war, one for the war crimes as a complement to Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas).

Boud (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

“Major combat operations”

The infobox Date field currently reads:

6 April 2014 – 24 February 2022 (7 years, 10 months, 2 weeks and 4 days)

6 April 2014 – 20 February 2015 (major combat operations)

This is a mischaracterization. There were major combat operations in 2014 and 2015, especially from July through February, including the Battle of Ilovaisk and the Battle of Debaltseve.

The distinction after February 24, 2022, is that it is an open invasion of Ukraine beyond Crimea. —Michael Z. 23:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The date and time are freaky

The date and possibly the year must be changed (updated) at the moment when the Russians occupy the entire Donbas (which is more likely after the battles for Avdiyivka, Kurakhovo, Pokrovsk or Ugljedar) or if the Ukrainian troops in a counterattack expel the Russian troops from the territory of the Donbass all the way to the Rostov region ( which is unlikely) or if some peace agreement is concluded and the status quo. The day only one of these three things happen will be the FINAL END OF THE WAR!!! Until then, this is all just a numbers game in the template and I won't change anything else to avoid an EDIT WAR. When the time comes, I will change the date and put it to a vote. Until then, I will only dedicate myself to the battles for larger and smaller cities both in Donbass and in other parts of Ukraine. - Baba Mica (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

As seen in the above discussion, a consensus was reached regarding the end date. A new discussion and consensus would be needed before any new changes are implemented. EkoGraf (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Typo

The word ‘arose’ in the first paragraph appears to be superfluous and incorrect in terms of grammar - ‘in’ is sufficient 86.18.148.124 (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

This is somewhat inaccurate.

It's two separate wars with the first between Ukraine and the separatist with American style proxy backing from Russia.

Russia invaded and declared war later over said war. I understand the feeling of needing to make this all Russia's fault, but we shouldn't just brush it and say Ukraine never did anything wrong in the beginning. 5.33.72.185 (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Russian Federation had overall control over the DPR in 2014.

Dutch court found out that Russia had overall control over the forces of the DPR in Eastern Ukraine from mid May 2014 and adopted a coordinating role and issued instructions to the DPR.

This article is full of terms like "anti-government separatists", "DPR/LPR-controlled territory", "pro-Russian militants" and etc. even though Russia had overall control over the territories and those militants.

We should remove all the false and add more true information here.

Sources:

[1]

[2] DiGriW (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

There’s also a lot of other evidence and statements in reliable sources, but remember that the Russian-appointed leaders in the DLNR had some autonomy in some of their activities. The ICC did find (in 2015?) that there was an international conflict involving Russia in both Crimea and eastern Ukraine. The DLNR forces were commanded by Russian officers and answered to the Russian army’s chain of command. After February 24 a lot of sources with maps started to indicate not “separatist controlled territory” but, e.g., “Russian-controlled Ukrainian territory before February 24”[3] (I can track down a discussion somewhere where I collected sources on this).  —Michael Z. 19:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

By December 2021, ISW labelled it “Russian-occupied.”[4]  —Michael Z. 19:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is another source by OSCE. Page 5 number 41.

[5] DiGriW (talk) 21:27, 26 November 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NANDU2005 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Yurkevych-Andriy-pohoron-5452.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

August 2014 invasion by Russian forces

@Gitz6666 changed the word invasion to intervention with the edit summary "Intervention", not "invasion". An invasion implies "large numbers of combatants". In the case of Donbas in 2014, the best available sources speak of intervention, e.g. Marples (ed.), The War in Ukraine's Donbas, CEU, 2022.[6]

But it uses both terms.

• Ernest Gyidel, “Ukrainian Internally Displaced Persons and the Future of Donbas,” in David R. Marples (2022), The War in Ukraine’s Donbas: Origins, Contexts, and the Future, Central European University Press.[7]

  p 113: He became one of the most prominent volunteers involved in the Euromaidan protests and after the Russian invasion co-founded Narodnyi tyl, an NGO supporting Ukrainian troops in the Donbas.

  pp 119–120: Olena Taranenko, a journalism professor at Vasyl Stus Donetsk National University, has edited two important collections of IDP memoirs about the crucial period of the war in Donbas during summer 2014. The memoirs tell emotionally strong stories of defeat: how pro-Ukrainian natives of Donbas were intimidated, beaten, murdered, or driven out through the combined effort of the pro-Russian native activists (among whom there were their neighbors, colleagues, friends, and even relatives) and the Russian invaders.

I’ll restore it for now.  —Michael Z. 16:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The second quotation is not particularly significant though: "Russian invaders" is a topos of Ukrainian political communication and is also factually correct, since in 2014 Russia invaded Crimea. The issue is not whether Olena Taranenko, a journalism professor at Donetsk University, can speak of "Russian invaders" when editing a book about residents intimidated and murdered by pro-Russian and Russians troops - of course she can. The issue is whether an encyclopedia committed to neutrality can describe the 2014 Russian intervention in Donbas as an "invasion" with wikivoice; in common parlance, invasion implies a large number of people crossing the border to take control of the territory of another country (see e.g. our Invasion).

To describe the kind of military operation undertaken by Russia in Donbas in 2014, we should use the NPOV word intervention, as reliable sources do. So, quoting from the book edited by Marples, the following seems revealing:

1. From the Introduction by David R. Marples: p. 3, The advance over the border may be regarded as Russia’s second intervention; p. 4, Russia would likely describe its intervention as a response to a US-led uprising in Kyiv; p. 8, outside military intervention from Russia led to war".
2. The title of Oksana Mikhet's chapter is Motivations of Pro-Russian and Pro-Ukrainian Combatants in the Context of the Russian Military Intervention in the Donbas.
3. Oleksandr Melnyk describes the operation by Russia as follows at p. 131 f.:

   when the Ukrainian forces captured Khriashchuvate and Novosvitlivka in mid-August, the military defeat of the insurgency seemed like a foregone conclusion. It was precisely at that point that Russian forces began their direct intervention. As noted, the Russian Federation supported the insurgency from the very start, informationally, in the diplomatic sphere, with weapons, irregular fighters, and from July with artillery strikes. The ground intervention by units of the regular army, however, began only in August 2014. Moreover, it is possible that this intervention did not occur in one fell swoop, but in a series of separate actions

4. In that book, which is arguably the most authoritative and recent scholarly source on the subject, the word "invasion" is either referred to the invasion of Crimea (5 times) or is used in quotation marks to express the viewpoint of volunteers who were defending Tuzla from foreign invasion. To this general rule there's one exception at p. 113 where one finds a generic reference to Russian invasion probably encompassing both Crimea and Donbas.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

My second quotation from the source you raised is not a direct quotation of Taranenko. It is text written by Gyidel and edited by Marples. It is their equivalent of our wiki voice.

Sorry, I don’t have access to the entire book, so it’s difficult to discuss all of the specific quotations. But your quoted explanatory passages give insight.

• intervention. The action or process of intervening.
• intervene. Take part in something so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events.

Intervention is a non-specific euphemism: it may work fine in certain contexts and accompanied by description, but as a heading that is read in isolation it is vague. An armed forces can intervene by making a demand, by conducting a threatening maneuver, or donating its equipment.

• invasion. An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
• invade. (Of an armed force) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it.

So, after the passages you quoted, we could write exactly what we mean in a number of ways: “August 2014 advance over the border by Russian forces,” “August 2014 outside military intervention by Russian forces,” “August 2014 military intervention in Donbas by Russian forces,” “August 2014 direct intervention by Russian forces,” or “August 2014 ground intervention by Russian forces units of the regular army.” Those literally mean “invasion,” and the single word is as meaningful and more concise.  —Michael Z. 17:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The Russian armed forces have done literally thousands of things since 2014 that we can term interventions. This section is about one of the three that have been invasions. “August 2014 invasion by Russian forces” is specific and defining. Alternative version: “2014 Russian invasion in Donbas.” —Michael Z. 17:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"2014 Russian invasion of Donbas" strikes me as odd. I'm sure this expression has been used occasionally, but I don't encounter it very often. I can see that it's used by Ukrainian press (e.g. Euromaidan [8], Ukraine/World [9]) and occasionally by Ukrainian journalists writing on the international press (e.g. Nataliya Gumenyuk on the Guardian [10]), but overall in looks quite rare and confounding: to the average reader the invasion of Donbas happened in 2022. This impression seems to be confirmed by my analysis of The War in Ukraine’s Donbas: Origins, Contexts, and the Future, which avoids the "invasion" terminology. I believe we should do the same. We can call it intervention in Donbas [11] and/or Russian covert (military) operations in Donbas or covert action [12]. It was undoubtedly an unlawful act of aggression under international, but perhaps "invasion" is not the best word to describe it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The 2022 invasion was of Ukraine on five axes. Russian forces were already in the Donbas, weren’t they? Every map today shows the Donbas southwest of the Minsk line of contact as “Russian-occupied territory before February 24” or the like. I believe ISW stopped calling it “separatist controlled” or whatever a couple of years ago.[13]

The quotations above don’t say “covert.” Russian forces that illegally invaded the Donbas “had deniability,” everyone knew about them, and some found it convenient to ignore the fact. Do you need me to find references showing what is known about Russian forces fighting in Ukraine in summer 2014 to early 2015, and how they had to surge in additional regular forces multiple times to save their “republics” in “New Russia,” especially at Ilovaisk and Debaltseve?

We’re not choosing an article name that meets WP:TITLE criteria here. We don’t need an “analysis” of a book that “avoids the ‘invasion’ terminology” (except when it doesn’t). We are writing a clear heading. Invasion is the absolute clearest, most accurate, and concise word to describe it.

This heading has been stable since @RGloucester added it in July 2020.[14] I think you need consensus to make this change, which in my view would be watering it down.  —Michael Z. 20:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Scanning over the article, I see it is largely written based on contemporary media sources, and omits things that have been written about since. It only mentions “pro-Russian forces” or whatever being present before August 2014.

We know that Russian regular forces were present much earlier, Russian officers commanded the people’s militias, and that larger formations were kept near the border and surged in multiple times from August, until February 2015. Sources supporting this include Galeotti 2019 Armies of Russia’s War in Ukraine, and Yekelchyk 2020, Ukraine: What everyone needs to know. Russia had de facto overall control (a legal term of art regarding war crimes, &c.) of the DLNR from at least mid-May, which can be referenced to sources writing about the MH17 mass murder verdicts, and at least one OSCE expert report.  —Michael Z. 20:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if section headings should follow WP:TITLE criteria, but I think it would be desirable if they did. They should be precise, recognisable and neutral, that is, based on the best available sources rather then editors' POV. I argued that "August 2014 invasion" is neither precise, recognisable nor neutral, but I agree with you: it takes consensus to change it, and I've already had my say. I suggest we leave this thread to others before it becomes TL;DR. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Infobox icons

Hi, @CapLiber, please remove the icons you added to the infobox. They violate Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons. Decorating a list of entities with tiny unreadable and largely unfamiliar pictures is not helpful and hinders readability. Thanks.  —Michael Z. 23:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done —Michael Z. 18:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Order of precedence in the infobox

On the Russian side of the infobox I moved the DLNR commanders and units below the Russian ones. @Alaexis reverted with “per Combatants of the war in Donbas the majority of separatist forces were local.”[15]

This is a serious argument?

• Russians started the war when Girkin and his militia came from Crimea, stormed the Sloviansk SBU building, and fought off SBU and Ukrainian Armed Forces.
• The majority in the Donbas didn’t support the Russian-led separatists. They didn’t fight for them, a million or more fled them, Girkin whined he couldn’t raise a thousand volunteers, and despite all the “volunteers” from Russia, the “New Russia people’s militia” were pushed back to the Russian border.
• The majority in the Donbas had already elected local politicians but the Russians imprisoned, tortured, and murdered some of them to co-opt others to act as Russian proxies in all military matters and enforce their will on the minority that remained. They threw dissidents into torture camps like Izolyatsia prison and fixed elections from Moscow.
• The majority of separatist forces – a small minority of Donbas people – were under command of Russian senior officers under the Russian 8th Combined Arms Army and Supreme C-in-C Putin. They were Russian proxies with no say.
• Russia recalled Girkin and Borodai and bulked up the Russian Armed Forces cadré to command the militias, and entire mechanized formations to demonstrate escalation dominance at Ilovaisk in 2014, and again at Debaltseve in 2014–15.
• After the 2022 invasion, Putin installed still more Russians in the Donbas governments and signed “treaties of annexation” with the Russian civil-military occupation leaders he had installed. But practically nothing changed, because the “majority of separatist forces” had been Russian proxies for years.
• The International Criminal Court found that Russia was involved in the international conflict in the Donbas: Russia is a legal belligerent, while its proxy DLNR are not! The court in the MH17 trial found that Russia had overall control (a legal term in determining responsibility for war crimes) of the militant forces by mid May 2014. An independent report for the OSCE says that “Russia exercises (at least) overall control” of occupied DLNR “through a subordinate local administration of the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk ‘People’s Republics.’” Most analysts’ and news organizations’ maps today label the pre-February DLNR territory as “Russian controlled” or “Russian occupied” (e.g.).

Here’s a fact: the majority of Russian forces didn’t want to attack Ukraine before February 2022, either. But their chain of command up to the Kremlin belongs in the infobox there, with subordinate elements below their superiors. Same goes in this article. —Michael Z. 23:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

No one disputes the Russian involvement starting from 2014. However I don't think that sources support the claim that there was a clear chain of command from Putin to Girkin already in April 2014. Also, it's also not true that the conflict started when Girkin and his men occupied the administrative buildings in Slaviansk on April 12. SBU offices were attacked by militants in Donetsk on April 7, not to mention clashes in Kharkiv in February and major protests all over Eastern Ukraine in March. Alaexis_¿question? 08:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Girkin is a Russian colonel. Not a Ukrainian. Not a DLNR. And he was already participating since the Russian invasion and coup in Crimea, Ukraine, in late February.

Protests, sit ins, riots, and police clearing them were not war.

Sources say the war was started by Girkin on April 12. See #Start date above.

You’re making me repeat myself conveying uncontroversial facts.  —Michael Z. 16:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, that’s immaterial when Russia had overall control of DLNR for eight years.  —Michael Z. 16:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide sources that say that "Russia had overall control of DLNR" in 2014? Alaexis_¿question? 21:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:War in Donbas (2014–2022)/Archive 11#Russian Federation had overall control over the DPR in 2014. —Michael Z. 21:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Multiple RS would be needed for such an impactful change to the article. One Dutch court's ruling isn't enough. EkoGraf (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying other courts have ruled that DLNR are independent of Russia? Where are your sources?

This is WP:BLUESKY.  —Michael Z. 15:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

There were a bunch of sources in the thread Michael Z linked, like the ISW calling the LPR+DPR "Russian-occupied" in Dec. 2021. If there aren't any sources saying the LPR+DPR are independent of Russia, I think we can go with Michael Z's proposal. HappyWith (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, one court’s ruling is not one source. It is a legal fact that multiple sources have reported on. As I mentioned above, the ICC is another court that made a legal finding that Russia was at war in eastern Ukraine in 2014. Yesterday yet another court said Russia can be tried for the July 2014 MH17 mass murder, because it was in charge.[16] There are already multiple sources on this talk page and in the article attesting to Russian military command in the DLNR and “New Russia” militias from 2014.

No sources now say they were independent. It is now BLUESKY that Russia has not only had the superior role in the relationship from at least May 2014, but overall control of DLNR.  —Michael Z. 16:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Court rulings do not get any special treatment in WP:RS. The Al Jazeera article you cited "[Russia] had a significant influence on the separatists’ military strategy”, including providing weapons, carrying out artillery attacks requested by the rebels and giving them political and economic support." This is a much more nuanced statement, and in any case it refers to the situation in the summer when the Malaysia Airlines flight was downed.

The Rand Corporation report says on page 39 that "It is unknown if [Strelkov] operated under Russian command or independently" Alaexis_¿question? 17:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That sentence in the 2017 report is literally referring to his decision to invade buildings on day one, May 12. Says nothing about the following eight and a half years. And “it is unknown” disproves nothing about anything.  —Michael Z. 18:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hm, the report is called “Lessons from Russia’s Operations in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine,” not DLNR’s operations (the report’s scope is February through about August 2014).

The table of contents starts the eastern campaign section with “How Russia Destabilized Eastern Ukraine,” only one of the “characters” is “The ‘Separatists’” with scare quotes, and summary sections are “Russia’s Possible Lessons Learned” and “Russia’s Operational Shortcomings.”

Intro: “this report examines the two overlapping operations to understand the Russian campaign in Ukraine in early 2014 (xi); “Russia's operations in Eastern Ukraine” (xii). The intro’s nut graf (xiii–xiv):

Russia’s efforts in Eastern Ukraine proved to be a series of improvisations in response to resistance and friction when the initial political-warfare effort foundered. A mix of actors with their own agendas and sponsors reduced the operational cost and political consequences for Moscow but at the price of control, coherency, and effectiveness. The lessons of Eastern Ukraine are rather mixed, demonstrating the limits of low-cost asymmetrical approaches even against a relatively weak and vulnerable state. In the end, Russian leaders are likely to consider Crimea an operation that could not be easily repeated elsewhere and Eastern Ukraine to be a strategic success but an unsuccessful operation. Russia achieved its primary objectives but at a much higher cost than desired and through a fitful cycle of adaptation.”

Sure, it discusses the improvisational, varying, and often not full control of Russia over many actors including separatist forces. But it barely mentions the DLNR as actors with agency. The report shows no doubt over who it considers the primary actor on the Russian side: Russia.

An argument that this source doesn’t assign Russia primary responsibility is not worth considering.

The source you refer to strongly supports my proposal to change the infobox to correctly show Russia as primary actor on the Russian side of this campaign in the Russo-Ukrainian War. —Michael Z. 18:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis, @EkoGraf, are you convinced yet, or shall I ask for more eyes from the relevant WikiProjects?  —Michael Z. 18:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

As you can see yourself, even sources which are unsympathetic to Russia acknowledge the "mix of actors with their own agendas." Having just Russia in the infobox ignores this complexity.

Also, am I right that you have provided just one primary source confirming that Russia had direct control over the separatists in 2014? If it's indeed WP:BLUESKY you should be able to easily provide many more. Alaexis_¿question? 19:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I have never proposed having just Russia in the infobox. I just want to move it above DLNR. The edit you reverted did not remove any text from the infobox.[17] —Michael Z. 20:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Right now the Belligerents infobox row has Russia on top, but the next two rows put DLNR above Russia. The only thing I changed is reversing the order in the latter two.  —Michael Z. 20:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with having Russia in the first place as over the course of the war its control over the separatists grew and more and more Russian resources were used. Alaexis_¿question? 08:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

At this point I too am fine with placing Russia in first place, with the next two being the DPR/LPR. However, in the commanders & units sections, it should remain DPR/LPR first, Russia second, since most of the fighting was primarily done by the separatists during the eight years, with Russian regular/paramilitary forces being in a secondary/supporting role. EkoGraf (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The topic here is solely changing the commanders and units rows.

1) The order should be consistent in all rows for clarity, 2) DLNR was under Russian overall control by mid May 2014, 3) from August 2014 DLNR military campaign relied on direct intervention of Russian battalion tactical groups for its existence, and 4) DLNR forces were commanded by Russian officers by September 2015,[18] and subordinated to the RF 8CAA.

Since we still have an impasse, I will ask for more input from the WikiProjects. —Michael Z. 17:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Ping @EkoGraf for a response.

I have also added some material to the article[19] about courts defining the DLNR as being under Russian control from 11 May 2014. —Michael Z. 22:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Summary: court rulings have determined that from 11 May 2014 Russia has overall control of the DLNR, that a Russia–Ukraine war exists, and that no parallel civil war exists.  —Michael Z. 22:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Start date

The start date is given in the infobox as April 6, based on a 2017 report’s timeline, describing the first building occupations by “pro-Russian activists” and “separatists” (and also “Pro-Russian forces”), p.91:[20]

• April 6

  – In Donetsk, pro-Russian activists storm the regional government building and demand that the Donetsk Oblast vote to authorize a referendum on allowing the “Donetsk Republic” to join Russia.

  – In Luhansk, separatists surround the regional SBU, break into an armory room, and seize guns.

. . .

• April 12: Pro-Russian forces take control of security facilities and weapons in Slovyansk, Kramatorsk, and Druzhivka, while an additional attack is turned back in Krasnyi Lyman; unrest in Donetsk continues.

But other sources refer to a different start event and date: the April 12 seizure of the Sloviansk SBU building by Girkin’s band.

Galeotti 2019, Armies of Russia’s War in Ukraine ISBN 9781472833457:14–16, says:

all that was needed now was a spark. / That spark was provided by 52 volunteers and mercenaries from Crimea commanded by [Girkin]. On April 12, 2014, he led his force . . .

It implies this was the first armed seizure that was able to resist a Ukrainian security response. And one can infer this is the first clear armed seizure by Girkin’s militants from Crimea, and not the previous building occupations by “protestors” in Ukraine.

Arel & Driscoll 2023, Ukraine’s Unnamed War: Before the Russian Invasion of 2022 ISBN 9781009059916:4 write:

The Donbas rebellion turned into an actual war, a military conflict, when a commando headed by Russian citizen Igor Girkin, also known by his nom de guerre Strelkov, seized Sloviansk (Donetsk oblast) in April 2014. The Ukrainian government reacted by sending the army to besiege the town.

Marples 2022, The War in Ukraine’s Donbas: Origins, Contexts, and the Future ISBN 9789633864203:3 writes in the introduction:

There is ample evidence that after the annexation of Crimea, Russia sent a combination of intelligence and mercenary forces into eastern Ukraine to foment rebellion and overthrow local governments. This was part of a mission to establish a Russian world in the southern and eastern parts of Ukraine, and perhaps elsewhere. The attempt failed, and with the wider development of war and Ukraine’s initiation of what it termed an “anti-terrorist operation” (ATO), there was every chance that the country could regain all the territories in the east.

I’d appreciate more sources or other views before changing, but based on this I would propose changing the start date to April 12, 2014.  —Michael Z. 21:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The United Nations counts casualties “from mid-April 2014.”[21]  —Michael Z. 22:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Nikolay Mitrokhin 2021, “Infiltration, Instruction, Invasion: Russia’s War in the Donbas” (in ISBN 9783838273839):115 refers to “Phase 1: ‘Armed Uprising’” saying “In the first phase, marked by the armed seizure of power in several cities in the region from 12–20 April 2014 . . .” (Phase 2 starts in “mid-May 2014. At this point, the Ukrainian army recovered from its initial collapse and moved to act against the pro-Russian fighters.”)

Other chapters in this edited book refer less specifically to events in April–May as the beginning.  —Michael Z. 22:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the exact date is terribly important. We can just say that it started in April 2014 and give more details in the body. Alaexis_¿question? 17:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of how important it seems, it’s better to get it right than to get it wrong. So let’s follow these sources, unless we discover contrary evidence. Good?  —Michael Z. 18:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I have added some material[22] about court rulings that have determined that since 11 May 2014, Russia controls the DLNR and a state of international war exists, and a civil war does not.  —Michael Z. 22:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Assorted problems

If one actually reads the source, it's plain and clear that this sentence is cherry picked and does not reflect the overall material in the source. Hence, it's UNDUE. "Longstanding" is not a policy-based argument.

This relies on a non-reliable source. Doesn't matter if it's attributed. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to amplify propaganda sources (by "attributing" them). This would only belong in here if this claim had received extensive coverage in SECONDARY and RELIABLE sources. It hasn't.

We need articles written on basis of policy, not on basis of "this junk made its way into the article and managed to stay in for awhile so now it's "longstanding" and no one can remove it!" Volunteer Marek 18:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not agree that it's cherry-picked, in the sense of giving exaggerated importance to one incident. The previous paragraph talks about "multiple instances of beatings, abductions, and possible executions of local residents by Ukrainian troops." Obviously their opponents behaved themselves no better, and we rightly describe it in the same section. Alaexis_¿question? 10:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The lead

The first description of the initiators is "pro-Russian, anti-government separatist groups". This is Russian POV, please compare Igor Girkin. Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed.  —Michael Z. 18:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The structural problem is that the lead does not define the subject adequately, before launching into a longish history in the second sentence.  —Michael Z. 18:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed this years ago. The beginning of the armed conflict is misrepresented as a legitimate separatist movement (aka "civil war" in Ukraine) due to the events in Kyiv, whereas that was a special operation by Russian GRU and FSB forces. Yes, they have incited some pro-Russian local people, but the conflict was started and directed from Moscow. My very best wishes (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

In other words, this is now correctly framed from the very beginning as a "proxy war" on the page, but not in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

In other words, the protests and occupations of buildings were started by Russian "tourists"/citizens/agents [23]. This requires a significant rewrite of leads for this page and 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Without rewriting, a first paragraph of about three sentences could be added that sums up what the conflict is.

By word count, the lead is 880 words (98% of that is reciting the history). It should probably be cut to a third of that, per MOS:LEADLENGTH.  —Michael Z. 06:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders

Is it really warranted to include every single Ukrainian Prime Minister in the infobox as a "commander"? Shmyhal, Honcharuk, and Groysman are literally never mentioned in the article prose itself, and I've never heard of any of them - including Yatsenyuk, who is briefly mentioned in non-combat roles in the article - having any real involvement in strategy. Same goes for the Donetsk + Luhansk Oblast governors, and Medvedev on the Russian side. Are they really worth mentioning over the actual generals and commanders who planned and led offensives in the field? HappyWith (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to BOLDly remove the most egregious ones for now. If someone objects, revert me and come discuss here. HappyWith (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I searched the entire "War in Donbas" Wikipedia category for mentions of Mikhail Mishustin, and there wasn't a single one. Hence, I'm going to remove him for now too. HappyWith (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Lead trimming

I've already done some quick trimming of the crazily long lead, but there's some stuff that would require a little more time and rewriting to do, and I'm gonna put a list here of the two main things I think could be shortened/cut:

• The waffling over Russian involvement: In Paragraph 2 and 3, there are large swathes of text devoted to going over the details of different Ukrainian officials calling 22 August a "stealth invasion" vs a "direct invasion", Russia's varied explanations of what happened, Borodai's offhand comment about 50K Russian "volunteers", OSCE's observations, etc etc. These could be reduced to 1-3 sentences simply summarizing the consensus now that Russia was heavily involved in the war. I don't know enough about the exact details or what sources to cite to implement this myself, so I haven't done this yet.

• The long descriptions about ceasefires and casualties: There doesn't need to be a description of the failure of every ceasefire and how many casualties happened during them in the lead. This could be summarized much more quickly as something like "There were a lot of ceasefires but none of them worked and Ukrainian soldiers kept dying because Russia didn't want peace and controlled its proxies from the beginning", to put it in a very informal way. The exact details can be given in the article body.

If anyone has other suggestions or thinks these aren't reasonable things to cut, let me know. HappyWith (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. I presume you’re checking that anything cited in the lead might already be in, or could be moved to, the main article body. Cheers.  —Michael Z. 21:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I actually just realized I should have checked that more thoroughly. I'm going to do that now and make sure anything I removed was already in the body, and if it isn't, I'll move the material over. HappyWith (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it is way too long. I only thought 1st para neededs to be rewritten. Yes, it might be shortened a little, but carefully, and with understanding of the subject. For example, August 2014 should be mentioned as an important "turning point" that marked the direct invasion of regular Russian forces, as opposed to the previous phase accomplished through the use of special forces, agents and proxies. Also, both Minsk agreements should be mentioned. My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

General trimming

This article has a gigantic readable prose size of 128 kB, well above the 100 kB at which WP:TOOBIG says an article "almost certainly should be divided". The page lags a ton on my (admittedly crappy) laptop, and the table of contents alone stretches down two whole screen-lengths on desktop. Since this is a page that was basically written in real time during a disinformation-riddled hybrid war, I can see why it's like this, but I think now that the war is over, it needs to really be cut down to get it into some semblance of a reasonable size.

Most of the events referred to in the body actually already have their own articles, so I think we can start by reducing the descriptions of those into summary style, linking the main articles, and making sure any removed cited info is in the already-split-off articles. I am not actually that familiar with the history of the war from 2014-2021, so I won't be as aggressive or fast in trimming as I was for the lead and infobox - since I'll have to be checking what the significance of each event is and how much coverage it needs, etc. - so I hope other editors can help with this. HappyWith (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

DPR and LPR casualties

The information on the casualties in DPR and LPR were removed from the article. It is clearly notable and it does not contradict the OHCHR figures (6,500 members of armed groups and 3,400 civilians [24]). The information is clearly attributed, so unless there are reliable sources which contradict it, I don't see any reason to remove it. Alaexis_¿question? 09:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Per previous editor consensus established at the start of the conflict, the claims of all of the belligerents are to be presented, as long as they are properly attributed. EkoGraf (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

EkoGraf, when you restored[25] that and other texts, you said in your edit summary, Previous consensus (established near the start of the war) was that self-admitted casualty figures will be admitted and will be required for neutral balance (all belligerents' POV), as long as proper attribution is provided. New editor consensus would be required to change it. While this makes sense for soldiers killed in action, it doesn't make sense for civilian casualties, since civilian casualties tend to be inflated by the parties. That's why I understood "self-admitted casualty figures" as non-civilian casualties. We may assume that both sources (eng.ombudsman-dnr.ru, ria.ru) correctly report the claims made by the separatists. But none of the sources can establish the notability. The number of casualities would surely be notable, but the fact that the separatist made this or that claim is simply not notable, if the notability cannot be established by RS. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Rsk6400 You are correct. When I said "self-admitted casualties" I was referring to military ones solely (at least in my opinion). Because self-admitted military casualties are at the very least the bare minimum confirmed if anything. I also basically agree both belligerents tend to inflate the civilian casualty figures. The restored DPR-reported toll includes both military and civilian, without distinguishing between the two. So I restored it to at least give some sense of the toll as per the DPR. As for the LPR-reported civilian toll per ria.ru, it was originally added recently (two weeks ago). I actually have a problem with how it is worded. Because, although the LPR claim said it was referring to civilians only, from their earlier reporting it was evident that the LPR's figures included both civilians and soldiers as well. So this should be either noted with an additional sentence, or change "civilians" to "people" with the addition of the note in this regard. I also agree with Alaexis that the DPR/LPR claims do not contradict the UN's figures and are within that range (by several thousand). EkoGraf (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Rsk6400 I can think of one solution for the DPR issue. Up until recently, the DPR would always include in their reports figures distinguishing between military and civilian dead for the reporting year since its start. We could include individual year-end reports showing how many of their soldiers had died during the reporting year, while setting aside the civilian figures, due to the possibility of inflated figures. That way only the self-admitted (military) casualties would be presented. EkoGraf (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Checked, we would be able to cover DPR's military casualties for the 2016-22 (up to the invasion) period as per them, while setting aside the civilian casualties (due to the possibility of propaganda). EkoGraf (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the DLNR “ombudsman’s” statement is not comparable to the OHCHR’s and it is wrong to say it doesn’t contradict it (as if that somehow made it reliable).

The OHCHR report cited says 2014–2021 casualties are “at least 3,404 civilians, estimated 4,400 Ukrainian forces, and estimated 6,500 members of armed groups.” That’s civilians killed as a result of military action by both Russian and Ukrainian sides, in territory controlled by the government, DNR, and LNR. That “at least” means it is not an estimate, but a minimum actual count. Total: ~14,304.

The DNR report says “in the territory of the Donetsk People’s Republic” . . . “5042 people,” including only DNR militias and only DNR civilians, with no indication how the latter is defined. No indication whether this is a count or estimate, or how it is determined.

The numbers are not admissible, and statements that they should be “because they don’t contradict” other completely incomparable figures don’t change anything.  —Michael Z. 21:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

If it's "not contradict(ed) by OHCHR figure" then just use the OHCHR figure. There's absolutely no reason why we should use LPR and Russian propaganda outlets. Volunteer Marek 18:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

We would then be required to remove claims of Ukrainian outlets as well, which would tend to be also fudging the figures for civilian casualties for example as Rsk6400 pointed out as one of the warring parties. Otherwise, by excluding one over the other, there is no balanced representation of all belligerents POV and it will be skewed in favor of Ukraine solely. That's why the old consensus was to include all claims, regardless of who was making them. EkoGraf (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

DLNR reports of civilian casualties are not “self-reported.” DLNR were under overall control of Russia since May, 2014, and are literally Russian civil-military occupation administrations since September 30, 2022, and cannot be considered to have any kind of autonomy since then (or legitimacy ever). These are Russian occupiers reporting on Ukrainian civilian casualties in Ukraine. They report to the Kremlin which cares about what they say, and they may have reasons to distort figures, considering the credible accusations of thousands of war crimes that Russia has completely denied, and the credible reports and public admissions of forcible population transfers by Russian occupation authorities.

And if they don’t diverge from the OHCHR figures, then there is no argument that the article is poorer without them.  —Michael Z. 00:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Explained above what I meant when I said "self-reported". EkoGraf (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Possible reasons to distort figures: OHCHR reports confirmed casualties, as far as I know. Every death is actually counted. Russian occupation officials (DLNR) have good reason to be aware of additional casualties – for example, the tens of thousands being bulldozed under ruins in Mariupol that OHCHR is prevented from counting by the Russian occupation – but may choose to reinforce lower figures. They should be considered unreliable. —Michael Z. 00:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That logic about Ukrainian outlets doesn’t follow from previous discussion. Based on what do you state that they “would tend to be also fudging the figures”? They are not considered unreliable. They are mainly reporting figures from sources, not making them up themselves, as far as I know, but there’s no reason to doubt that a news organization is lying in its own investigations just because it is based in Ukraine. —Michael Z. 00:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

"They are mainly reporting figures from sources, not making them up themselves". Neither are Russian outlets making up the figures. They are reporting as per Russian and pro-Russian officials. The Ukrainian outlets as well report per Ukrainian officials in a very factually way (as do Russian outlets), who are the ones I was referring to when I said they are very possibly fudging the figures as one of the belligerents, just like Russia. Ukrainian outlets do not call into question figures claimed by Ukrainian officials. Other 3rd party sources at least say they can not confirm them. As you see TASS, RT or other Russian outlets as equal to claims made by Russian officials, I see both them and Ukrainian outlets equal to claims made by Ukrainian officials. Since they are both belligerents in the conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Russian statements about civilian casualties in Ukraine are not “self-reporting.”

(And independent Ukrainian media are not equal to Russian government “media” TASS and RT, nor do the report the same way as Russian non-government media still in Russia, which are constrained by draconian Russian speech laws. Ukrainian and foreign media reporting in Ukraine are only constrained by the rules of reporting under martial law, e.g., can’t report on disposition of Ukrainian troops or publish pictures of Russian strikes before they’re cleared, but that is far less restrictive.)  —Michael Z. 05:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, I already said above what I meant when I said "self-reporting" and that it does not include civilian casualties, military only. "Independent" Ukrainian media are all inherently anti-Russian in their reporting as media of one of their belligerents and thus reliable or unreliable as much as Russian state media. Ukrayinska Pravda and Kyiv Independent are a universe away from being RS on the level of Reuters or AP. EkoGraf (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That is absolutely wrong about the reliability of media, and it contradicts the ongoing consensus. You can see Russian state “media” that speak directly for the Kremlin listed at WP:RSP, for starters. Please don’t edit articles with unfounded prejudices like this.

Reuters partnered with TASS, was directly reselling its content until a month after the invasion, and has been criticized for bias.  —Michael Z. 02:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Volunteer_Marek, I would happily use the OHCHR figures but the report I cited only provides the total figures for civilian deaths, both in Ukrainian-controlled and Russian/separatist-controlled territories. If there is a more reliable source which provides such breakdown, we can certainly use it instead of the DNR ombudsman. Alaexis_¿question? 10:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: Could you please help us with a link to the "old consensus" you are referring to ? Rsk6400 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Was sometime back in 2014 or 2015 at the start of the war. EkoGraf (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• The DPR/LPR sources are extremely unreliable and WP:PRIMARY. They should not be used. We can use only OHCHR data [26]. According to them,

During the entire conflict period, from 14 April 2014 to 31 December 2021, OHCHR recorded a total of 3,106 conflict-related civilian deaths (1,852 men, 1,072 women, 102 boys, 50 girls, and 30 adults whose sex is unknown). Taking into account the 298 deaths on board Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 on 17 July 2014, the total death toll of the conflict on civilians has reached at least 3,404. The number of injured civilians is estimated to exceed 7,000.

Importantly, it also provides year by year statistics (table at the bottom of page 2). It shows significant decrease of the civilian casualties over the years. That must be noted on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The DPR/LPR are reliable or unreliable as much as any Ukrainian sources/allegations. Excluding them is excluding the POV of one of the belligerents which is contrary to WP policy on maintaining neutrality and balance. Otherwise, we would have to start excluding Ukrainian sources/outlets as well. Also, per WP: Primary, straightforward statements of facts from the source (number of claimed casualties) can be used without any additional interpretation. Previous editor agreement was that self-confirmed military casualties by both sides can be included. As for civilian casualty claims, which can be inflated for propaganda purposes, I would have no problem removing those claims if most editors agree. EkoGraf (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

That is false, as already mentioned above. The DLNR were an unreliable source for the eight-and-a-half years they were denied to be Russian-controlled by the Kremlin, for anything except for referring to statements they made. There are many reliable Ukrainian sources.

Can you cite a specific guideline or interpretation on how we’re supposed to include the POV of all belligerents, either specifically or generally? DLNR leader Pavel Gubarev, for example, made a statement threatening genocide against Ukraine and I wonder how we should respect that POV. It’s an acute example, but I ask in seriousness how we incorporate this and other statements by people like Girkin and Borodai for neutral balance against Ukrainian sources.

WP:PRIMARY says A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. The substance of DLNR casualty statements is not verifiable facts; only the fact that they publicly made some statement is. They are also not Primary sources that have been reputably published.  —Michael Z. 21:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The DLNR were an unreliable source ... for anything except for referring to statements they made. As per WP guidelines, their unreliability needs to be proven. Also, as you yourself stated, they were only reliable for referring to statements they made. This is a statement they made. We are not stating the casualty claim is factual, but a figure claimed by the DPR (with proper attribution). There are many reliable Ukrainian sources, questionable when Ukraine is a party to the conflict and regarding issues related to Russia, the other party to the conflict.

The substance of DLNR casualty statements is not verifiable facts, WP guidelines require the Primary source to be used only to make a straightforward statement that can be verified by an educated person with access to the primary source. The educated person verifies the information stated on Wikipedia is directly supported by the source. See WP:PRIMARYCARE. Whether the statement is true or not, depending on ones POV, is a different matter. They are also not Primary sources that have been reputably published Their military casualty claims have actually been published by various RS over the years when major military incidents took place, just like the RS published Ukraine's claims of their own military losses. BBC News Russian has also until recently been reporting the DPR's self-reported military casualties every few weeks.

Can you cite a specific guideline or interpretation on how we’re supposed to include the POV of all belligerents, either specifically or generally? That's a very good question and thanks for raising it. The example of a basic editor guideline established over at the Syria war article (after much discussion) is I think perfect. Un-controversial claims by the belligerents (such as military casualties, units or territorial changes) are ok to include as long as they are properly attributed. Controversial claims, such as those of genocide that you mention or regarding massacres, are not to be included, unless reported on by long-standing reliable sources. In any case, I will say again, I don't mind removing DPR/LPR claims on the civilian casualties since those are inherently to be used for propaganda purposes by both sides. As for DPR/LPR claims of their military losses, just like Ukrainian claims of their own military losses, there is nothing controversial about using them, as editors previously agreed, as long as we properly attribute the claims. If you still disagree, then I think an RFC is in order. EkoGraf (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Why do we need DPR/LPR claims if we have a much better OHCHR source? And no, any claims by rebels or unrecognized state "authorities" (such as DPR/LNR) should be avoided if possible. Statements by official entities, being that Russian or Ukrainian MoD, can be used with proper attribution. My very best wishes (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Officially, due to Russia's denial of even being present during the 2014-2022 conflict, the DPR/LPR were the main combatant during much of the 2014-2022 war (even though being controlled as a proxy by Russia). So the DPR/LPR statements are the only official belligerent statements from that side. If we remove the DPR/LPR statements we should be removing official Ukrainian statements as well. Like the Ukrainian claim that 7,577 separatists had been killed and 12,000 were missing by early 2015, which is not backed up by the UN or 3rd party sources at all, unlike DPR/LPR statements that are at least much closer to the UN's estimates. EkoGraf (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

EkoGraf, I'm not sure whether I understood you correctly, but since you said As for civilian casualty claims, which can be inflated for propaganda purposes, I would have no problem removing those claims if most editors agree, I suppose that my last edit (replacing the separatist sources with the OHCHR one) is OK with you. Before we head for an RfC, I'd like to remind you that there is no WP guideline saying that we should balance unreliable sources from both sides. The opposite is true: Neutrality is reporting what reliable sources say. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The addition of the UN's civilian figures to the section is repetitive/redundant since they are already stated in the lead of the overall Casualties section, as well as in the section on civilian casualties. That section is reserved for DPR/LPR combatant casualties only, just like the Ukrainian one. But will use some of the info you added to expand the civilian casualties subsection. Neutrality is not just that, but also fair and proportional presentation of all POVs without excluding one over the other. Excluding the DPR/LPR's view, unless backed up by third party sources, would require us to exclude Ukraine's views. EkoGraf (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Please read again WP:NPOV. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are referring to reliability, I would again remind unreliability of the DPR Ombudsman needs to be first proven, as per WP guidelines. And that official DPR claims can be reliable or unreliable as much as official Ukrainian claims, which we are also using (both belligerents' official positions). In any case, I have no problem with your removal of the civilian casualty claim. EkoGraf (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Ha! Which guideline says an unelected official of Russia’s illegal puppet militia the “DNR” is reliable by default?  —Michael Z. 02:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

That's your personal view of the DPR, which you are entitled to. EkoGraf (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The DLNR Russian-controlled militias objectively do not resemble the definition of WP:reliable sources, and that is a fact.  —Michael Z. 20:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

That is blatant WP:POVPUSH. Sources do not support it.  —Michael Z. 02:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:GOODFAITH. In any case, like I said, RFC and we have 3rd party opinion expressed. EkoGraf (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Nobody accused you of bad faith, but I want to repeat my suggestion that you read WP:NPOV, especially WP:GEVAL, which directly contradicts your claim that Neutrality is not just that, but also fair and proportional presentation of all POVs without excluding one over the other. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I made no statement about presuming bad faith. But you are constantly advocating a POV that is not neutral. You are equating the DLNR’s “views” with citations of “Ukraine” and of “any Ukrainian sources” which is removed from any Wikipedia consensus, any consensus in reliable sources, and indeed from reality.  —Michael Z. 20:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I am saying that claims by both belligerents during a conflict should be viewed as equally reliable or unreliable, just as in any conflict, and both views require equal representation. Which doesn't seem to have been an issue on Wikipedia, until now. If I am being judged of POV-pushing and not being neutral because I don't agree that one side (Ukrainian) can be more reliable than the other, then I guess this conflict has really impacted Wikipedia's neutrality as well. In that case, I expect articles related to the Russo-Ukrainian War will obviously be more skewed towards Ukraine's POV in the future, while almost totally excluding the other sides views. In any case, I leave the decision to an RFC. What do you think Alaexis? EkoGraf (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

No. Every source is judged on its own merits.  —Michael Z. 03:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"Ombudsman"_of_the_"Donetsk_People's_Republic". Rsk6400 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Just use the OHCHR figures. That seems like the simplest and best way to go. I agree with @Volunteer Marek:, There's absolutely no reason that we should use Russian state-run propaganda outlets. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Reactions in Russia

I've added a section on the reactions to the conflict in Russia and it has been reverted. I do not agree with the reasoning "arbitrary selection from the sources (e.g. manipulation of public opinion not mentioned). Also: The war continued for 8 years, so reporting reactions from the first 6 months seems too little."

It's simply not true that the manipulation of public opinion is not mentioned. I wrote that "Those opposing the government's policy were almost never heard publicly," which is what DW reported. If you think it's not clear and want to add more details, then please do.

Regarding the 6 months, the largest protests took place in 2014 and they were widely covered by reliable sources. You are welcome to add more information about the other 7.5 years (survey results, repression, smaller protests) but it's not a valid reason to remove the information about the 2014 events. Alaexis_¿question? 19:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Alaexis, there is a big difference between the passive wording "were almost never heard" and the active manipulation of public opinion attested by an opposition politician in the DW text and well documented by many RS. Already back in 2014 that manipulation included murder, torture, and arbitrarily sending people to prison camps. It has become even worse since. Each editor (in this case: you) is responsible for giving balance and completeness to their edits, you should not ask others (in this case: me) to complete your edits. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I've added Nemtsov's words about the state propaganda from the same article, this should address your concerns. Alaexis_¿question? 19:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Btw I agree that the repression has become worse since 2014. I don't have sources at hand for this, you are welcome to add it. Alaexis_¿question? 19:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I think mentioning that Russians support the aggression without explaining the causes for that (in Wikivoice, not only by quoting Nemtsov) is anti-Russian POV. After WWII, there was much debate about German collective guilt, and I don't want to claim or insinuate something like a "Russian collective guilt". I already said something about asking me to complete your edits. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

My personal impression is that a significant part of the population support the war as they are influenced by the propaganda and have little exposure to alternative views. A lot are on the fence and a lot are against but afraid of speaking out.

However my views (or yours, for that matter) are irrelevant, we need to follow what the sources say.

Also, if you don't agree with one part of my edit (about the majority support of the war) then you could add a {{bettersourceneeded}} tag or remove just that sentence. Reverting the whole edit, which is well-sourced and deals with an important aspect of the topic, is disruptive. I suggest you find more sources on this and add information to the section to make it more complete. Alaexis_¿question? 10:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF, WP:ONUS Rsk6400 (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• I would make an observation from WP:EDITCON: the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration [emphasis added] and consensus. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  That's precisely my point. I'm not claiming that my addition is perfect and covers all the relevant aspects of the issue. However it is well sourced and covers important events (protests and the government's suppression of the dissent). It can surely be improved - by adding new details, challenging certain claims and bringing new sources. Alaexis_¿question? 19:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis: WP:BRD says Once discussion has begun, restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive. And please don't call my edits disruptive when they aren't. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw that you didn't re-instate what I called "anti-Russian POV" above. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Glad we were able to reach consensus here! Alaexis_¿question? 19:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

TASS

I believe that blanket removal of information sourced to TASS is not in line with the WP:RS policy. First, the WP:RSP entry makes an exception for "quotes of statements made by the Kremlin, the Russian State, and pro-Kremlin politicians." This is how TASS is mostly used, e.g.

“ In turn, the DPR stated that the Ukrainian Armed Forces had broken the truce, while the LPR Luganskinformcenter news agency said the same, but also that, the "ceasefire is generally observed." ”

Second, blanket removals are not encouraged even for deprecated sources (TASS is not one) and the best practice is to use {{bettersourceneeded}} tags to give other editors an opportunity to fix issues with biased and otherwise problematic sources. Alaexis_¿question? 10:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The DPR is not the Kremlin, the Russian State, nor pro-Kremlin politicians.

I interpret this as meaning Russian politicians associated with the Russian government, and certainly not, say a US politician that somebody interprets to favour the Kremlin in some arena. If someone wants to challenge that, then we should discuss the wording at WP:RSP talk. —Michael Z. 22:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Alaexis_¿question? 10:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree. As long as they are properly attributed, official statements/positions made by Russia and/or the DPR/LPR can be presented with TASS, which is not a deprecated source. The addition of the "Better source needed" tag is also the better course of action in these situations. EkoGraf (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ll remind you that DLNR many times made statements contrary to the Kremlin’s. Zakharchenko, for example, said forces and equipment are coming from Russia before the Battle of Ilovaisk, said that thousands of Russians fought in Donbas afterwards, which are certainly not statements the Kremlin endorsed, and he said “Little Russia” was being formed to replace the failed “New Russia,” and was quickly shut down.

1) They had a degree of autonomy in non-military matters, especially the ability to shoot off their mouths. 2) They made statements that, whether they served the Kremlin’s purposes or not, were contrary to the Kremlin’s public policy, and we could expect TASS to ignore, or deny, or contradict.

We can’t accept Russian state sources to faithfully report statements by the DLNR. We can only use them as a source of their own statements.

Courts found that Russia is responsible for their crimes due to overall control, but they also found that the DLNR are not Russian Forces or the Russian state.

Tass is an organ of the Russian government, DLNR were not, pre-September 30, 2022. Statements by TASS are statements by the Russian government: one and the same. Statements by DLNR were not.  —Michael Z. 04:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

And certainly TASS was never under control of DLNR, which is even more directly relevant.  —Michael Z. 04:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this, Michael Z. Let me add that the relevance (notability) of a fact or statement cannot be based on TASS. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Why? Alaexis_¿question? 09:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if this was already mentioned: see WP:RSP, and the table entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#TASS.  —Michael Z. 05:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

As per previous editor consensus established at the start of the conflict (9 years ago), the claims of all of the belligerents are to be presented, as long as they are properly attributed. If this is to be overruled a new consensus would need to be established. If TASS presents the claim, we present it, and properly attribute and cite it. As for TASS itself, its not a declared deprecated source by Wikipedia and editor consensus is that although it is considered unreliable in regard to contentious facts, it is considered reliable for quotes of statements made by the Kremlin, the Russian State, and pro-Kremlin politicians. Michael Z, you argued that the DPR is not the Kremlin, the Russian State, nor pro-Kremlin politicians. However, in the above discussion regarding the order of belligerents in the infobox you argued Russia had overall control of the DPR and LPR. You cann't have it both ways. Statements made by DPR/LPR officials are statements made by either Russian-controlled politicians or pro-Kremlin politicians, depending how you look at the DPR/LPR. EkoGraf (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Nope, not the same thing. 1) Russian overall control of DLNR does not mean Russia = DLNR, especially while Russia was denying the relationship, and 2) TASS is an organ of Russia, so the Kremlin speaks through TASS, but the DLNR did not speak through TASS, certainly not before September 30, 2022.

After that, one could argue the Kremlin speaks through both TASS and through the DLNR Russian occupation authorities, but it’s still debatable.  —Michael Z. 05:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

If Russia have control over them, they are pro-Kremlin politicians. Simple as that. EkoGraf (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Michael Z. DLNR officials are pro-Kremlin but still having their own agendas, even though they sometimes clash. And the region could be mostly controlled by Russia (especially militarily) while DLNR officials still have their own agendas, even though they sometimes clash. I don't think there's any contradiction here. LordDiscord (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope. At the time they were not openly Russian politicians (nor were they politicians). They feigned independence. The relationship was covert and denied. They made deniable statements that the Kremlin would not or could not make and that did not represent the Kremlin’s public position, and vice versa. This rule might be applicable after September 30, 2022, but not for earlier statements.

TASS openly issues statements for the Kremlin. Fundamentally different.  —Michael Z. 16:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

more than half of them

@Mzajac, thats not what the source says. P. 3 gives 2084 civilian deaths for 2014 and 51 for years 2021-22. This is how it could be added to the article. Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

What I removed[27] referred to “the vast majority” of all 14,000 deaths, not just of the 6,500 civilian deaths. (It was also a written in a confusing way where it was not clear if the numbers referred to all or the vast majority.) I distinctly remember multiple sources saying that more than half of the 14k had been killed after the Minsk 2 agreement, but don’t have any sources at hand, so I tagged my addition with {{cn}} until I can find one.  —Michael Z. 16:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Never seen such a source but a contrary. There were no major engagements after Minsk2. Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay. But there were seven years of constant “minor” engagements which I believe killed more people.  —Michael Z. 07:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

In February 2015 the UN had counted “at least 5,665 people … were killed.”[28] In January 2022, it “estimates the total number of conflict-related casualties in Ukraine from 14 April 2014 to 31 December 2021 to be 51,000–54,000: 14,200-14,400 killed.”[29]

I don’t know if the pre-February 2015 figure had been significantly adjusted since the February 2015 report, but simple math tells us that around 8,535 were killed after that, or over 60% of the total. The article’s “vast majority” was absolutely wrong.  —Michael Z. 07:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thats an artifact of their counting methodology, where they need to gather specific proofs to count a person as killed, which takes time. So in their 2022 assession they had more people counted for year 2014 (and others) than in their 2015 assession. I dont have assession for all deaths but for civilians we have https://meduza.io/feature/2022/07/15/kakoy-smysl-dumat-kto-seychas-spuskaet-kurok Однако вплоть до начала полномасштабного вторжения интенсивность боевых действий в Донбассе постоянно снижалась. Если в 2014-м счет погибших гражданских шел на тысячи, то с 2017-го — на десятки. За весь 2021 год, по данным ООН, в обеих республиках погибли 36 мирных жителей, причем большинство — от мин и неосторожного обращения с неразорвавшимися снарядами (а не от обстрелов). with reference to UN report. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m not quite following all of that, but the Meduza quotation seems to be restricted to only civilian casualties, which is not what we were taking about.  —Michael Z. 19:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I dont have assession for all deaths but for civilians we have ... Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit at War in Donbas (2014–2022)#Labelling of the conflict

A paragraph was added to the section with this edit. I see the first sentence to be problematic. The report was prepared by the office of the prosecutor of the ICC (OTP) - quite separate from the judiciary. Omission of the fuller detail of the report's origin is therefore misleading. The purpose of the report is to set out how the prosecutor intends to determine if a particular case can be presented to the court, including establishment of jurisdiction. At section 184, it is yet to determine the existence (or not) of international and/or non-international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine. The first part of the problematic sentence would state: ... stating that the intensity of military conflict triggered the law of armed conflict by 30 April 2014, with the "DPR" and "LPR" as parties .... What is actually said at section 168 is: Based on the information available it seems [emphasis added] that ... [hostilities] reached a level that would trigger the application of the law of armed conflict. The article is worded in such a way that implies a ruling by the court that the laws of armed conflict have been triggered. Such a representation is misleading in respect to the report. Given how and where the report is used, reference to the report does not appear to improve the article. The second source cited appears to make assertions about the report which are inconsistent with the content of the report. For this reason, it appears to be dubious. This too is a matter of WP:ONUS. The other material in the paragraph added appears to make the point quite adequately without the need to rely on this problematic content. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

There are some good points above. I will review the source and clarify where necessary.

Although the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is independent, both the judges and prosecutor are part of the court and both are elected by the Assembly of State Parties. If some clarification is needed on this it can be added, but I think the link to the article about the court is sufficient for this article.

The other material in the paragraph makes completely different points, but they are more meaningful in the context of the ICC’s prosecutor’s report.

And note that the prosecutor wrote there is justification to believe a crime has been committed, and Russia quit the Rome Treaty the next day.

If you have sources that support your views on the ICC report, you may as well not keep them to yourself.  —Michael Z. 05:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

... the prosecutor wrote there is justification to believe a crime has been committed ... Please indicate where in the report this was said, as I am not seeing where. If the report is used, then it should explicitly attributed to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court as the author. I do not see that the report adds anything to the article. From the section about Ukraine, the document refers to reports of and alleged crimes. It is (as would be expected) quite circumspect in what it writes. It makes no conclusions in its own name. The report is an RS for what the report says. It is an outline of what TOP is looking to "establish" through its investigations. Consequently, what might become evident is therefore speculation. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Court officers don’t publish formal reports of meaningless guesswork. It is important that we already had reason then to believe there was a Russo-Ukrainian war, and the fact has since been confirmed. It was the precedent for the investigation of the court and for proceedings of other courts. If there are better or more recent sources about the ICC’s investigation then we can consider using them. but you seem to be eager to But why simply remove the fact that this legal proceedings has been in progress for so many years? Why?  —Michael Z. 16:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC) Edited. —Michael Z. 00:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion this paragraph is just a start, and could grow into a section on legal proceedings concerning the war, and also provide material for the broader Russo-Ukrainian War article. The ICC’s investigation from 2014 has been expanded in 2022.[30]  —Michael Z. 17:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The OP report is not meaningless in that its purpose is to tell the world what it is investigating. However, it does not assert any conclusions or findings. To the extent that the first sentence asserts a conclusion by the OP, it is incorrect as evidenced by the report. An investigation is not a legal proceeding. A legal proceeding occurs when a case is bought before the judiciary. The report does not evidence the assertion that proceedings have been in progress for many years. If the purpose of the problematic sentence is to show that Russia has been involed in an international armed conflict in Donbas, then the subsequent text in the paragraph does this since references appear to be made to actual rulings (findings) of courts which, if asserted as a fact by a court, can be reported as a fact. The rational for inclusion of the problematic sentence are not supported nor is the problematic nature of the sentence. Its removal does not detract from what follows. Since it fails verification for what it is alledged to report, the sentence should be removed. WP:ONUS also applies in this respect. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I’ll check and correct the text. The purpose is to show the history of legal statements about the existence of war and Russia’s involvement. Sorry I haven’t gotten to this yet. It may be another day, but I agree with you concerns about what the wording implies, and do intend to improve it after a close rereading of the sources. Is that okay? If you really must, remove the sentence with the understanding that I’ll restore a better version, but I do think that what follows, the way it was written, depends on it for context. Okay?  —Michael Z. 01:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

If the salient points intended are: that the conflict was an international conflict and that Russia is the controlling mind then these are made quite adequately by the subsequent sources. I see no inherent dependence. If a further point is the durations of proceeding, that is not made by the first sentence. I do think it is best removed at this point because of the fundamental problematic issues which we appear to both acknowledge. I would therefore appreciate you removing it. While the report is a RS, the inherently speculative nature of the report would IMO make it near impossible to utilise as a source except say, in reporting Russia's reaction to the report. However, (if I have this correctly) Russia withdrew from the Rome convention immediately after the report's release. That is noteworthy. The report made no conclusion as to Russia's involvement in an international conflict nor that Russia was asserting control of one side. Rather, the report was indicating a line of enquiry and what it might reveal. That too is prima facie noteworthy though one would need to be careful to sail a narrow course that did not veer into synth or need sources that explicitly joined the two assertions before reaching a conclusion that Russia withdrew because of the report. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so I’ve taken another look.

Quoting you from the 1st post above: At section 184, it is yet to determine the existence (or not) of international and/or non-international armed conflict. No, it doesn’t say “yet to determine.” This paragraph is only describing the prosecutor’s activities and their purpose.

Regarding “seems,” I have now added that word so there’s no misinterpretation. Seems speaks to available evidence, presumably because the investigation was not complete and no court had yet ruled. “Seems” could be a reasonable way for a legal professional to express facts in evidence at a time when they are not yet facts in law resulting from a court finding or ruling. Regarding “implies a ruling,” I don’t believe it does: if you still think so, then let’s talk about the specific phrasing.

I see the important points from this sentence:

• It seemed to a competent party (the OTP of the ICC) in 2016 that a war had started by 2014-04-30
• It then seemed that the DLNR were parties to the conflict, constituting a civil war (¶ 168)
• It then seemed that Russian forces were fighting Ukrainian forces in Ukraine which would suggest an international war is taking place by 2014-07-14
• It was then undetermined but a matter of investigation that if the Russians controlled the DLNR then there was only a single international conflict, and not two in parallel (¶ 170)

None of that was “speculative.” It was normal observation of facts that were not a matter of law at the time. —Michael Z. 03:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, by the way.  —Michael Z. 03:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Another important point is the implications that these points have on the following sentences. For example, the implication that overall control by Russia of the militants means there is no civil war. It is absolutely salient. If this sentence were removed, then we would have to find a source that says so directly in regards to the Dutch court ruling (which would be a useful thing to find anyway).  —Michael Z. 03:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Section 184 of the report states:

The Office has continued to conduct a thorough factual and legal analysis of information received in relation to the conflict in order to establish whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that the alleged crimes fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court. As described above, analysis of the situation in Ukraine in this phase has required extensive research focussed both on the examination and evaluation of information relevant for determining the existence (or not) of international and/or non-international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine and on analysing the more specific alleged acts that may constitute crimes under article 5 of the Statute.

Reading the section in full, TOP is still examining and evaluating information relevant for determining the existence (or not) of international and/or non-international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine. It has continued to conduct the investigations describe. It has not yet reached a conclusion (a determination) on the question. Their activities and purpose are to establish whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that the alleged crimes fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court. They have not yet reached a conclusion. To assert otherwise misrepresents the report. Please see synonyms for seems (appear; give the impression). These are all very equivocal. They are not an assertion of fact, even in the most circumspect of language. Seems speaks to available evidence insufficient for a firm opinion and presenting a case to the court - a long way from being a "fact", legal or otherwise. The report is detailing the nature of investigations and where they may or may not lead. To that extent, it is reasonable to characterise the report as speculative. The dependence described between the first and second sentences sounds like synth? If the report does have a place in the article, it is because of Russia's withdrawal but not as written. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see the 2019 TOP report and the more unequivocal language. However, this source is not consistent with the temporal relationsip of the 3 paras such that it could be a replacement for the first para. TOP has only in 2022 "opened an investigation" following the preliminary investigation referred to in 2016. The premises for inclusion of the first para are not established. The sentence is removed per ONUS. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sources

In the ICC prosecutor’s 2016 report,[31] ¶ 169 made it clear that the prosecutor believed there were both non-international and international armed conflicts in eastern Ukraine: Additional information . . . points to direct military engagement between Russian armed forces and Ukrainian government forces that would suggest the existence of an international armed conflict in the context of armed hostilities in eastern Ukraine

¶ 170 made it clear that the prosecutor had not yet determined whether it actually constituted only a single international armed conflict due to Russian control of the militias.

Some secondary sources refer directly to the 2016 report and confirm this view:

• 2016-11-20: the conflict that has claimed 9,578 lives is an ‘international armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine.’[32]
• 2020-12-16: the ICC Prosecutor’s damning report in 2016, which recognised that . . . Russia was militarily involved in the conflict in eastern Ukraine (paras 158, 169-170)[33]
• 2022-07-05: the mixed armed conflict in eastern Ukraine (2014-2022)[34]

In its 2019 report,[35] the prosecutor unequivocally confirmed this in ¶ 266: In its Report on Preliminary Examination Activities 2016, the Office assessed that by 30 April 2014, the intensity of hostilities between Ukrainian government forces and anti-government armed elements in eastern Ukraine had reached a level that would trigger the application of the law of armed conflict and that the armed groups operating in eastern Ukraine, including the LPR and DPR, were sufficiently organised to qualify as parties to a non-international armed conflict. The Office also assessed that direct military engagement between the respective armed forces of the Russian Federation and Ukraine, indicated the existence of an international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine from 14 July 2014 at the latest, in parallel to the non-international armed conflict.  —Michael Z. 15:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

(It also said so in 2017, ¶ 94[36] and 2018, ¶ 72,[37] but this one has minor wording changes that make it clearer.) —Michael Z. 16:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

So everything it said regarding the existence of an international conflict in 2014 meant there is evidence that, and did not mean have not yet reached a conclusion. The “equivocal” argument is spurious because, as I think I’ve said before, in law there is only 1) things that appear to be a certain way due to evidence, and 2) things that are a matter of law as determined by a court. If we followed the logic, then no facts can exist without a court ruling, and that is simply wrong.

Anyway, following the unequivocal confirmation of the ICC prosecutor’s intent by the prosecutor and secondary sources, I will restore the sentence.  —Michael Z. 16:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The subject sentence is misrepresenting the temporal context by asserting a subsequent firm opinion formed in 2019 upon further investigation existed in 2017 where it was being reported as a line of investigation to be followed that may reach a conclusion one way or the other - something clearly stated in that report. This sentence is therefore dubious. Your comments above only confirm the distinct difference between what was said by the report of 2017 compared with 2019. The sentence was one of three added but the others are not contested. WP:ONUS applies. Please correct to directly refer to the 2019 report or remove the sentence so as not to give the impression of acting contrary to WP:ONUS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No. That is an unreasonable interpretation. The ICC in 2019 is describing its own 2016 statement. It happened to word it a bit better that time but there is no difference in meaning. Secondary sources confirm it. You are going way over the top trying to find nothing where there has been something the whole time. Stop being disruptive and get more opinions if you want to keep pursuing this. —Michael Z. 02:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the recent removal was inappropriate. I reverted it. Andre🚐 02:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Andrevan, my recent edit was not a removal of a sentence but a copy edit to a sentence recently added and challenged per WP:ONUS, substantively because it misrepresents the report by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Stating, the recent removal was inappropriate. is not helpful, since it does not indicate that why you would form the opinion nor any understanding of the issues which have been discussed. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC) PS It was in fact, a suggestion by which the sentence could be retained. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Mzajac, your comments on my recent edit please with respect to it being an iteration toward building consensus by which the first sentence might be retained in a form that we can both live with. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Cinderella157, we are not working for our own benefit, so that we can both live with [it], but for our readers' benefit. WP:ONUS is no licence for WP:STONEWALLING. Agreeing with Michael Z. and Andrevan. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and, ONUS isn't a license to just remove stuff. Especially if there is a consensus not to. Andre🚐 16:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

“We can both live with it” sounds like an appeal for compromise and consensus to me, so I wouldn’t criticize it as such. But as I strongly disagree, I would rather work the dispute resolution process, were it needed.  —Michael Z. 19:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

[Something] that we can both live with is a paraphrase from WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS: The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT: The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. The two comments in support of the original are essentially of this type. They do not establish consensus. To be clear for the benefit of others, it is the first of three sentences added which has been challenged. Upon some discussion, I have proposed an alternative that has been reverted. You would state that you strongly disagree with the proposed alternative but this does not articulate the basis for your disagreement and why your version should be preferred over the alternative proposed. Articulating this is an essential element of the consensus building process.

From my perspective, my edit would address a number of my key concerns, while retaining the relative position of the sentence (ie maintaining a temporal relationship with the sentences that follow). It clearly identifies the author, where it is otherwise misrepresented by omission of detail. It clearly articulates the preliminary nature of the report in that the report outlines lines of investigation to be pursued. In this respect, the report falls to WP:CRYSTAL in that the outcome of the investigations are an anticipated event. The significance of the report, however, is the withdrawal of Russia and the reasons for this. The proposed edit focuses on this and places a source to verify where one was not previously provided. You would add a citation to the 2019 report but they are quite different in nature. The 2019 report is in a position to assert conclusions because of investigations that have occurred in the three preceding years. However, a reference to the 2019 report is temporally out of context when referring to the 2016 report and events and was removed for that reason. To that part of the sentence: stating that by 30 April 2014, the high intensity of military conflict [seemed to] triggered the law of armed conflict with the "DPR" and "LPR" as parties, it remains unclear to me the significance you would appear to attached to this when clearly, the main point to be made is that, investigations to be conducted might lead to an assertion (or not) that Russia was engaged in an international armed conflict with Ukraine - the key point leading to Russia withdrawing its signature. It then flows to the two subsequent sentences that were added (and are not contested), that courts have reached such a conclusion as a legal fact. I believe I have identified all of these points in the preceding discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The courts have already asserted that Russia is engaged in an international armed conflict with Ukraine, but more importantly, reliable sources have stated this. Andre🚐 03:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Andrevan, it is not disputed that the courts have ruled that Russia has engaged in an international armed conflict. That is precisely what the second and third sentences added by Michael are telling us and these are not disputed. These rulings are, however, subsequent to the 2016 report that is the subject of the first sentence. If the last two sentences tell us about the rulings by the courts, then why is the 2016 report relevant? Why should it not be removed? Cinderella157 (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You’re saying that the quote from the 2019 report says something different from the 2016 report because of the word seems and minor phrasing differences. You’re flat wrong. 2019 is clearly relating the content of 2016. I’ve written it several times: your interpretation is not reasonable, and it contradicts the secondary sources. I disagree and I’ll not “compromise” by admitting to some unreal false balance.

Give it up or work WP:DR.  —Michael Z. 04:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I have raised several issues as to why the particular sentence is problematic. I have proposed a revision that addresses these but retains the sentence in essence. I have outlined how the proposal addresses these and why I believe it should be preferred. I have asked for clarification where the reasons/rational for your position are not clear to me. Your response addresses but one issue and what I view to be a refusal to discuss any of the matters raised any further. This discussion is an intrinsic part of WP:DR. In any escalation of DR beyond this discussion would require your engagement to address the matters I have raised fully. To the particular point you raise. If one is directly attributing a close paraphrase of a particular source, it must be an accurate representation of what the source has said. In the case of the 2016 report (and given the fuller context of the report) "seems" is significant in accurately representing what has been said. This is a matter of accuracy in our reporting. There is nothing "false" in being accurate. There is no "imbalance" in being accurate. If one prefers an alternative from a later report, then it is that report that should be directly attributed. However, there would be no good reason to rely on a later report when the earlier is available. Furthermore, to have a "preference" would appear to me to imply that there is an alterior motive at play with accuracy as the victim. At present there is no consensus for either the problematic sentence added nor the alternative I have proposed. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Except the 2016 report is cited, @Cinderella157. The only reason to additionally cite the 2019 report is for your sake because it clarifies exactly what the earlier one meant, but you are too stubborn to accept that, so it may a well not be added. You are edit warring now by removing text that two of us agree to and only you object to. Please restore it and use the options outlined in DR, or this is a problem.  —Michael Z. 15:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I have commented at your TP. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS explicitly says that consensus is not unanimity. Cinderella157, since you are the only one disagreeing, I don't think that you can justly claim there is no consensus. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You would also be aware that WP:CONSENSUS continues to say: nor is it the result of a vote. Per above it also states: The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. Your own previous comment falls to this as do those by Andrevan, for the most part. There is no consensus for the sentence at present. Per WP:CON and WP:DR, it is inappropriate to reinstate an edit without consensus or without revision that works toward consensus. Please contribute here toward establishing a consensus for the sentence or a revision thereof. In the meantime, it should be removed. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the exhaustive argumentation by Michael Z., so I don't see the need to repeat what he said above. Please note that his arguments went much deeper than "I just like it." Rsk6400 (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ACD, “per previous editor” (or similar) are superficial responses and indicate a lack of engagement not dissimilar to "I do/don't like it". At best, it depends on the other's strength of argument. Michael uses strawman arguments several times. Consequently, these are inherently fallacious and carry little weight. Their arguments might be extensive but not overly deep IMO. I don't think you are in a position to assert a consensus to justify your revert. As I have indicated, this sentence does belong but I don't believe it belongs in its present form Cinderella157 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, you don't get to say that the arguments aren't strong enough therefore there isn't a consensus. This is a WP:1AM situation. Andre🚐 16:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

As I observed elsewhere, from WP:EDITCON: the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration [emphasis added] and consensus. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: WP:BLUDGEONing is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments. You forked this discussion to at least two personal talk pages, and you were already told "Enough !". Feel free to start an RfC. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

@Cinderella157: what exactly would you like to change in the current version? Alaexis_¿question? 20:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Alaexis, in short, I would amend the sentence to this version or similar.

1. I would accurately report the authorship of the report - the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. The present version is a misrepresentation by omission.
2. I would accurately report the nature of the report - it is preliminary.
3. I would be more focused on the key takeaway - investigating if Russia was a party to an international armed conflict and at the mere suggestion, Russia withdrew as a signatory.
4. I would accurately paraphrase the report (in the present version, seems is omitted and is significant).
5. If the report is accurately paraphrased, only the report needs to be cited - get rid of the over citation.
6. I would place a ref to directly support Russias withdrawal - not done at present.
7. The present sentence is very long. I would break it down for readability.

Thank you for asking. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I think a lot of these changes aren't controversial. Can you draft your version of the passage? I think it will make it easier to arrive to a consensus (apologies if such a draft or page revision already exists). Alaexis_¿question? 18:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Alaexis, here is the version of the sentence I have proposed.

The 2016 annual report by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court outlined its ongoing investigations. It detailed the preliminary examination of the situation in Ukraine stating that its ongoing investigation would focus on determining whether or not it could assert that an international armed conflict existed between Ukraine and Russia in eastern Ukraine. The day following the release of the report, Russia announced its intention to withdraw from joining the International Criminal Court (ICC).

For comparison, here is the present version of the sentence.

The International Criminal Court issued a report in November 2016 as part of its investigations, stating that by 30 April 2014, the high intensity of military conflict triggered the law of armed conflict with the "DPR" and "LPR" as parties, that engagement with Russian armed forces in eastern Ukraine suggested the existence of a parallel international armed conflict by 14 July 2014, and that if it were determined that Russia exercised overall control over the militant groups, then this would comprise only a single international armed conflict (Russia withdrew from the ICC the next day).

Cinderella157 (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Alaexis, could you please specify which changes you think "aren't controversial" ?

Cinderella157, I suggest you correct the word "outline" in your proposal (should be "outlined", shouldn't it ?). Also: Regarding your point 5, please remember that we normally don't analyse primary sources (like the report), but base our articles on reliable secondary sources. And that's the key point, because from the secondary sources also your points 1 to 4 are untenable. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll respond regarding the proposed changes later, but I want to note that we should use reliable secondary sources which summarise the primary ones, the sources used in the current version are not necessarily reliable. Forbes contributors are deemed "unreliable" in general (see WP:RSP) while the blog falls under WP:NEWSBLOGS. Alaexis_¿question? 18:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the change. 1) It's overly convoluted. Wikipedia policy is to use plain and simple language, not dissemble or use complex and legalese terminology. 2) It consists largely of a misapprehension that courts in any way do not have jurisdiction over Russia or that their findings/rulings are somehow preliminary, non-binding, non-conclusive/non-applicable, or that courts haven't already found that a) Russia was engaged in an unjustified, unprovoked territorial act of armed expansion into Ukraine, b) that the courts have jurisdiction over Russia. "Withdraw from joining" is also inaccurate, and misleading. Oppose all of everything proposed and it is not an improvement. The article certainly could be improved, but this does not. Andre🚐 06:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Responding to Rsk6400:

1. I have corrected outline to outlined.
2. By virtue that both Michael and I use stating we are both making an attributed indirect quote (ie a very close paraphrase) in respect to the report. Such a case should be an accurate representation of the actual source being attributed. What other sources might have to say are immaterial when making an indirect quote - no different from making a direct quote. The attribution should accurately represent the author - the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. It is also appropriate to accurately represent the context - that this is a report on preliminary investigations. There is no analysis in accurately representing these matters. They are clearly stated by the report. Accurately representing an attributed quote (direct or indirect) is a matter of editorial integrity and honesty. I do not see how there should be any reasonable fuss about remedying an inadvertent misrepresentation in text. However, push-back to maintain a misrepresentation suggests to me that a misrepresentation is intentional.
3. If we wish to introduce sources that do provide analysis of the report, they should be clearly distinguished as being such and not represented in a way that mixes sourcing - ie what comes from the horse's arse should not be represented as coming from the horse's mouth. Again, this is a matter of editorial integrity and honesty.
4. Identifying key takeaway is synonymous with identifying and reporting key points from sources. It is simply the appropriate application of Wikipedia:Summary style. It is what Wiki editors are expected to do.

Cinderella157 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

suggests to me that a misrepresentation is intentional - see WP:AGF. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Assuming in the first instance that a misrepresentation is inadvertent is an assumption of good faith. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Responding to Andrevan:

1. The two options have not been presented as a binary choice. The option I have presented addresses the concerns I have raised. I have clearly stated or similar. It (and Michael's version) are starting points upon which to collaboratively build consensus for what should ultimately be reported.
2. Your first point would characterise my proposal in a certain way. However, the characterisation is not offered with evidence as to why the characterisation is valid. More importantly, it is not offered with a comparison against the alternative. It does not rise to the level of counter argument in Graham's hierarchy of disagreement since the contradiction is not backed up with reasoning and evidence. It is unsubstantiated opinion unhelpful in building a consensus and a hollow argument.
3. The second point would make broad generalisations about what courts (the judiciary) may have ruled and that my proposal is therefore a "misapprehension" [misrepresentation]. The actual issue is what this source [the report] has said, who is saying it and when it was said. The report was made by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and not by the judiciary of the ICC. Point 2 does not acknowledge that elsewhere in the section, the rulings of courts have been reported in the appropriate temporal context. To characterise my proposal as contradicting the ruling of a court or courts is a misdirection and a misrepresentation of the issue. The assertions being made at point 2 are therefore a strawman argument. Consequently, it is a fallacious argument. It is unhelpful in building a consensus.
4. The BBC source relied upon states: Russian President Vladimir Putin has approved an order to withdraw the nation from the process of joining the International Criminal Court (ICC). That Russia would "withdraw from joining" the ICC is using the terminology from the cited source. The meaning is also explained in the accompanying footnote in the proposal. In the light of the source cited (and my other reading), I do not see how ... Russia announced its intention to withdraw from joining the International Criminal Court (ICC) is inaccurate or misleading. On further reasoned discussion, my view might change, as might the wording of this sentence.

Cinderella157 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Not again, please

Cinderella157, we had a really exhaustive discussion, and after the text has been stable for weeks, you start again changing to what you proposed without having achieved consensus here. Please, if you think this is so important, you should start an RfC here. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Rsk6400, this has never been stable since it was added by Michael. That I have given you time to respond to my last post here does not imply consensus. I have recently edited the sentence by some 16 increments, which address the matters raised at each step. Incidentally, it is not identical to what I initially added. You have chosen only to retain that which takes the parenthetic reference to Russia withdrawing and makes it a sentence. The discussion has acknowledged several changes. Simply reverting (save that noted) does not address the acknowledged changes nor does it indicate why any particular change (increment) is not reasonable. It does not help to build consensus - for either version or some iteration between. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding more pages

I suggest we add 2 more pages that belong to this article: Donbas Insurgency (from April to August 2014), 2014 Russian invasion of Donbas from August 2014 to February 2015 and Ceasefire phase of the War in Donbas from February 2015 to February 2022. It would be more detailed. It’s just like the Russo-Ukrainian War page has: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, War in Donbas and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. TankDude2000 (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Changing title

This title “War in Donbas” just proves Russian trolls’ points about “Ukraine bombing Donbas”. I think it should be renamed to the “Insurgency in Donbas”. Then, Wikipedia would not have any Russian propaganda! TankDude2000 (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Non-extended-confirmed users (including User:TankDude2000) may not make edits in internal project discussions, including requested moves, in this topic area, per wp:GS/RUSUKR. —Michael Z. 15:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It was not an insurgency. Courts have found that in eastern Ukraine from mid-May 2014 there was an international conflict, and not a civil war, because Russian soldiers and illegal combatants were waging war and the militia organizations were under overall control of Russia.  —Michael Z. 18:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

No idea what you’re trying to get at. What exactly is your policy reasoning for changing the title? HappyWith (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of court definitions, the common name for the past eight years was "war" and that's what we are going with as per WP guidelines. Also, there was both a discussion and editor consensus reached at the start of the conflict regarding its name, as well as a more recent discussion/consensus (last year) when this phase of the overall Russo-Ukrainian War ended and the invasion phase started which basically reaffirmed the title, with the addition of the year span. Best regards! EkoGraf (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Change title

War in Donbas (2014-2022) -> War in Donbas The title would be shorter. Plus, if we are going to reffer to the current situation in Donbas, we would use the title Battle of Donbas (2022-present). TankDude2000 (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Non-extended-confirmed users (including User:TankDude2000) may not make edits in internal project discussions, including requested moves, in this topic area, per WP:GS/RUSUKR. —Michael Z. 15:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Why TankDude2000 (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The link is right there: WP:GS/RUSUKR HappyWith (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is becoming so undemocratic! TankDude2000 (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@TankDude2000: for “democracy,” see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.

For “censoring,” please reread provisions C and D at WP:GS/RUSUKR, and be aware that more stringent measures may be taken to enforce the community sanctions if you continue violating it.  —Michael Z. 18:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Please WP:BLPREMOVE the fully unsourced paragraph between

''[[Novaya Gazeta]]'' concluded in 2020 that, as long Russia doesn't prosecute these "poorly prepared hooligans turning a whole region into a bloodbath", it is morally and politically responsible for all casualties.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=Бесславные гибриды |url=https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2020/07/17/86300-besslavnye-gibridy |access-date=20 July 2020 |website=Новая газета – Novayagazeta.ru |language=ru}}</ref>

and

=== Expansion of separatist territorial control ===

89.206.112.12 (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It's not clear why you want this text removed. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

per WP:BLPREMOVE criterion 1

contentious material about living persons that is unsourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.

and there is not a single WP:BLPRS here. 89.206.112.12 (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The text is already supported by a reliable source, as you have linked to above. Why this might be "contentious", I don't know. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm refering to the paragraph after the citation linked above. How can it be already supported by a reliable source when it does not mention a single reference for its criminal accusations that I avoided repeating here as per the header at WP:BLPN? 89.206.112.12 (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Mandatory form "Please change X to Y" not used. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced and contentious BLP material. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 June 2023

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: Closed per WP:GS/RUSUKR. RM opened by non-ECP user. (non-admin closure) Cinderella157 (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

---

War in Donbas (2014–2022) → War in Donbas – People already know that the War in Donbas ended in 2022 with the Russian invasion. Also, it’s not the same name as the Battle of Donbas (2022-present. 109.166.133.175 (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2023 (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.

Refugees

Please add number of refugees - [38] [39] The report also said that Ukrainian government registered 1.6 million internally displaced persons, who fled their homes as a result of the conflict. From 800,000 to 1 million of them lived on Kyiv-controlled territory, the report said. Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Anybody? Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)