Talk:War in Donbas

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)

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.[1]  —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,[2] ¶ 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.’[3]
• 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)[4]
• 2022-07-05: the mixed armed conflict in eastern Ukraine (2014-2022)[5]

In its 2019 report,[6] 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[7] and 2018, ¶ 72,[8] 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)

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)

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[9] 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.”[10] 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.”[11]

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)

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)

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)