Talk:Timeline of the war in Donbas (2021)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Isn’t this a recreation of a previously deleted article? Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the deleted articles you're thinking about were removed in late December 2019, hardly under the scope of this timeline----Darius (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view[edit]

This article seems biased towards Ukraine and has recently only been reporting pro-Russian ceasefire violations, and sourcing heavily from Ukrainian sources related to the government, such as unian.info (a heavily opinionated source which is part of a media group owned by a member of Ukrainian government). Why not use pro-Russian sources as well? Niqlo (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I promise to add pro-Russian reports from Anna-News as soon as possible. The problem here is that most news outlets reporting DNR and LNR info are deemed unreliable by WP standards (Anna-News is one of the few exceptions).----Darius (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look in the WP:RSP archives, I believe Anna News was considered to be unreliable. The article ANNA News has a referenced statement that “the agency is engaged in influence operations and considered a propaganda tool.” It was also banned from YouTube along with a couple of other Russian propaganda channels, although it is not clear exactly why. —Michael Z. 17:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ANNA News is not listed in WP:RSPSS, and the only discussion I found on whether it's an RS or not dates back to 2012. There was no clear consensus. Regarding the Donbas War, its daily coverage of the conflict includes only bare reports from the warring parties, without taking sides. A cited statement is relevant to WP contents, but had nothing to do with WP policies, lest to say having been banned from YouTube.--Darius (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This encyclopedia should not cite sources that are shown to be “engaged in influence operations and considered a propaganda tool.” That is not a WP:reliable source. If you are citing only “bare reports,” then use the primary source and annotate them with {{bcn}} indicating that a reliable secondary source is needed. Bare reports can be subject to selection bias, can have dubious or unsupported mis/disinformation repeated without question, can have misleading mis/disinformation introduced, or have biased interpretations added.
I imagine it can be used as a primary source, for example for the content of an Anna News interview with Girkin or something, but only with caution. —Michael Z. 21:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As long as attribution is provided, even if you consider ANNA pro-Russian media, it should be allowed to stand as per WP:PARTISAN, just as, for example, IRA statements, that can be cited with the proper caveat lector. Wikipedia is not censored, so we must find a way to present the pro-Russian point of view of this war in order to counterbalance the Ukrainian bias.--Darius (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So if a Russian “propaganda tool” repeats assertions of pro-Russian “rebels,” then both should be cited in-text. On first occurrence maybe the nature of the outlet should be noted, in-text. At bare minimum. Not just stated as fact, as in several cases in this article. But at least one incident here regarding a killing by drone sounds like one that I recall was disputed by the sides, so I doubt this is sufficient. Really, it shouldn’t be used for uncorroborated factual information, only to relay “rebels’” statements. —Michael Z. 23:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Something like "According to Russian news agency ANNA...", with a link to Anna News' article and,if you want, a footnote with a sourced statement about the "propaganda tool" issue on first occurrence would be fine. Regarding the drone incident, you're right, I will remove it immediately.--Darius (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mzajac please see ANNA_News#Controversy. This type of source should not be used in Wikipedia. It is not just a biased source. It is a source that has a long history of fabricating information. As I said below - if there is a two-sided conflict, it doesn't mean we have to counterbalance each side of the conflict. It will inevitably create false balance. Renat 19:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same thought at the same time. See below. —Michael Z. 19:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ANNA News is not just WP:BIASED source. It should be deprecated just like RT (TV Network) or Sputnik (news agency). See ANNA_News#Controversy. ANNA News has a substantial history of fabrication and all high-quality reliable sources (RS) that analysed ANNA News provide negative evidence for ANNA's reliability and reputation. The assessment is consistent and widespread, including non-English RS. ANNA News is responsible for spreading fake information about Jen Psaki, responsible for creating fake PMC Turan, spreading disinformation about White Helmets, radioactive leak in Ukraine, fake photos of dead bodies and so on.
"Wikipedia is not censored, so we must find a way to present the pro-Russian point of view of this war in order to counterbalance the Ukrainian bias." - this situation has nothing to do with Wikipedia being censored or not. Just because there are too sides of a conflict, does not mean that we have to counterbalance them. We have a policy, that says: "other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". And ANNA News is not one of them. Renat 18:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Be cautious about “counterbalance” arguments, that try to convince us that there are two sides and the truth is somewhere in the middle. The “middle” between truth and a lie is usually not the truth. Professional journalists have been caught up by this, and non-journalistic propaganda organizations intentionally use the principle to cast doubt on facts. See argument to moderation in logic, or false balance in journalism. —Michael Z. 19:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not "truth", but "verifiability". There are plenty of articles here exposing different theories that are mutually contradictory, so one of them is certainly false. Furthermore, even debunked theories can be included, with the proper clarification on the matter. ANNA_News#Controversy is irrelevant to prove whether ANNA is reliable or not, since Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, and even the header says that there is a "controversy", not a general consensus. By the way, the user who reopened this thread is the same that added the contents of that section to the article, and the reliability of the sources he cites to "attack" ANNA-News is disputed by other editors.
Therefore, as long as ANNA News is not listed in WP:RSPSS, it should be considered a partizan source, reliable in certain contexts, and cited with the required caveat lector.----Darius (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A claim here is not verifiable if the source is ANNA News, as it is a generally unreliable (or worse). The only reason to cite it would be if it was specifically noteworthy that this propaganda source had said something, but that would be pretty exceptional. Let's avoid false balance and poor sources and just use reliable ones. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ANNA News is a disinformation outlet that should not be used in this article under any circumstances, as it fails the verifiability policy for any possible use case on this article. WP:RSP is a "non-exhaustive list of sources" and "A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present." — Newslinger talk 15:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with Ukrainian sources to know which are reliable. This article uses Unian (Ukrainian Independent Information Agency) very heavily. If this is unreliable, then there are major issues with the page. If it isn't, then I don't see a problem. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: ANNA News may interest those who argued above about it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Administration Role[edit]

What role did the Obama Administration have in developing the current political structure in Ukraine? 173.16.221.15 (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very little, since the current Ukrainian government was elected in 2019, and the governing party did not even exist when Obama was president. In any case, such matters are of little relevance to this article. Toadchavay (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An inaccurate and unsuitable map was removed from this article[edit]

I have edited the article to remove a map which showed the approximate current military situation. The map itself claimed to show the war in Donbas as of 2022, but in fact was closer to the Spring 2023 situation. In any case it was not appropriate for an article on the events of 2021, and would give readers a misleading picture of the ground controlled by DNR/LNR. It is also inaccurate to describe territory seized by Russia since February 2022 as "controlled by DNR/LNR", as the map did. Toadchavay (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_war_in_Donbas_(2021)&oldid=1215033636"