Talk:Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas

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

Supposed mass graves - debunked[edit]

That has been totally debunked. See this article here. No connection to the OSCE at all, and even the DPR said that these media reports were totally wrong. RGloucester — ☎ 01:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This too. RGloucester — ☎ 01:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: Why should you not to include that sentence in this article that was debunked through the process? --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 01:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er, perhaps because the OSCE said it had nothing to do with it, meaning that it is unverifiable and hence not a valid record of a so-called "war crime"? RGloucester — ☎ 01:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making false claims. See this SMM release:
The ‘military police’ of ‘Donetsk People’s Republic’ (‘DPR’) told the SMM that three unmarked graves allegedly containing multiple bodies had been found; two of them were located in a coal mine Komunar near the village Nyzhnia Krynka (35km north-east of Donetsk) and one inside the village. The SMM proceeded to the scene and saw in the coal mine two areas located fifty metres apart, each containing two human bodies. All four corpses were in the process of decomposition. The SMM also saw eight 9mm Makarov pistol cartridges approximately five meters away from the bodies. Near the road on the edge of the village, the SMM observed a pile of earth resembling a grave which had a stick with a plaque, written in Russian and containing the names (or in one case – initials) of five individuals. The plaque indicated that the individuals died on 27.08.2014. On top of the plaque there was another inscription saying: ‘Died for Putin’s lies’. Neither in the coal mine nor in the village did the SMM see any forensic experts. COMMENT: The SMM cannot provide a forensic assessment of the sites.
So yes, the OSCE does have something to do with it. (The Telegraph story turns out to be wrong by the way: the OSCE said it saw four bodies, whereas the Telegraph reported that the OSCE only saw two bodies.) In the future, it would save editors' time if you stopped assuming that everything the rebels say must be a lie. – Herzen (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even bother to look at the Telegraph story from 1 October which I cited? It discusses what was debunked and what wasn't. Nothing I added to the article has been debunked. And why do use an official propaganda outlet of the US government to justify your edit? Two years ago, it wasn't even legal for Radio Free Liberty to make its propaganda available to Americans. – Herzen (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should've provided the OSCE source. Put it back in with that source, and it will check out. RGloucester — ☎ 01:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for self-reverting (all this Wiki jargon!). I didn't put in the OSCE report because I didn't bother searching for it, because the Telegraph is considered to be a reliable secondary source, and it is not WP policy to require citation of primary sources to support attributions to them made by reliable secondary sources.
Would you mind if I change my edit to say that the SMM saw four bodies, instead of two, thus going with the OSCE rather than with the Telegraph story? – Herzen (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just rewrote it based on the OSCE report. In this case, it is best to go straight to the source, given the OSCE's neutrality and mission. I'll look for other sources too. RGloucester — ☎ 01:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my hastiness in this regard. There is just too much propaganda flying around at the moment. RGloucester — ☎ 01:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NP. Pardon my saying that you assume that "everything the rebels say must be a lie". I wouldn't have said that if you hadn't observed once that some of the rebel leaders are "crazy". I have great admiration for all the rebels I have seen videos of. And since your user page says that you are a Marxist, I think you should have some sympathy for them too, since some of their leaders are socialists, or have socialist leanings. Pavel Gubarev is a good example. (The Ukrainians, in contrast, are strongly anti-socialist, are implementing a neoliberal program, and have gone so far as to ban the communist party. I don't see how a Marxist can be on the side of Kiev instead of the rebels. But then, the NLR is pro-Maidan.) – Herzen (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic. Would you object to my mentioning this: Ukrainian soldier admits killing civilians in Luhansk — Investigative Committee. I think the report should be taken to be reliable, in that it describes a criminal proceeding being started by the RF against a Ukrainian soldier. The only issue I see is that some might claim that this is not notable, since Western media have not picked it up AFAIK.

By the way, that 500 bodies in mass graves claim was a rare screw up by Lavrov. As the Telegraph story suggests, apparently he got swayed by how the Russian media were reporting this. – Herzen (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not going to get into debates about Marxist thought. Keep in mind that there are many strains of Marxism, and only very few actually derive from Marx. However, I digress. As far as that report is concerned, it seems like a criminal matter as opposed to one related to the broader humanitarian situation in Donbass. If it were to be picked-up by monitors or Amnesty International or something, then maybe I'd support inclusion. At present, however, it seems like WP:UNDUE. RGloucester — ☎ 02:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. (Your position on the Ukrainian soldier I mean, not your suggestion that some strains of Marxism approve of fascism.) – Herzen (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I said anything about "fascism", but I'll ignore that remark. RGloucester — ☎ 03:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned it implicitly. See The Return of Fascism in Contemporary Capitalism:
In Les Ukrainiens face à leur passé, Ostriitchouk provides everything necessary to establish irrefutably the collusion between the objectives of U.S. policy (and behind it of Europe) and those of the local fascists of Eastern Europe (specifically, Ukraine). …
The clever way in which the “moderate” media (which cannot openly acknowledge that they support avowed fascists) hide their support for these fascists is simple: they substitute the term “nationalist” for fascist.
This is relevant by the way, since summarily and covertly executing people en masse is something that fascists do, which is why the Western media are ignoring this story, except to try to discredit it. – Herzen (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ukrainian conflict report occurred last time? Is that what you mean, because it suggested between Ukraine and Russia only! --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 03:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian media "spin"[edit]

If you're going to do anything with that, do it at Media portrayal of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. It doesn't belong here. RGloucester — ☎ 12:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is fine to briefly mention most important/notable stories reported (as reported by media) in relation to humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass, even if they are described in more detail on another page. This is one of such most important media stories. We are not telling this is the truth. My very best wishes (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are telling the truth, at present. This article is about the situation as it happened actually, which is what our article currently says. It cites the OSCE reports about what actually happened. Russian media spin does not concern actual war crimes, or the actual humanitarian situation in Donbass. It is merely representative of the information war going on, and stuff pertaining to that information war belongs at Media portrayal of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 18:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, we never tell "the truth". We only briefly summarize what sources tell. This is reference work. Yes, we should focus on factual info, but any notable controversies in media related to the subject should also be described. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They should be described, merely not here, where they don't belong. They belong in the appropriate article. There is a reason we have a particular article for media problems. It is so that media problems can be dealt as appropriate. This article is not about media problems. RGloucester — ☎ 18:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, speaking about your edit summary here, any information about mass graves in Donbass obviously belongs to humanitarian situation. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "information". It is made-up nonsense from crap sources. No "information" is involved. In other words, it has nothing to do with the actual humanitarian situation, because the story is false. That means it is a matter of media making crap up, not a matter of humanitarian concern. RGloucester — ☎ 18:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if the story was true or false. It only matter if it was highly notable and widely covered. Yes, it was. By the same reason we have pages about alchemy and other things like that. And "alchemy" must be mentioned in a lot of other pages, not only in the page about alchemy itself.My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing the notability of the content. I'm disputing that it is within the scope of this article. It isn't. This article is about the humanitarian situation, whereas this content is not about the humanitarian situation. RGloucester — ☎ 19:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was only widely covered by Russian and non-mainstream media. If you do a Google News search for "Ukraine mass graves", the only mainstream non-Russian Anglophone articles that come out on top are the Telegraph and VoA ones. Thus, as far as the English speaking world goes, this is not notable at all.
I have deleted this. Please, do not restore it before obtaining consensus here first. There are enough edit wars as it is. – Herzen (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is notable. Take it to the media portrayal article. There needs to be some coverage of it. RGloucester — ☎ 20:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. if someone thinks it's notable, they can put it in the media portrayal article. The fact remains that the Anglophone media devoted more coverage to Russian media coverage of common graves than it did to the actual existence of common graves (which, uncharacteristically, Kyiv has not yet blamed the rebels or the Russians for). – Herzen (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the phrase that "the claim was refuted by OCSE.". My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the "claim" has been removed entirely from this article, and moved to Media portrayal of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Everything that remains here comes directly from the OSCE report, as cited. If you're not aware, the OSCE did observe graves. They just didn't observe mass graves of 400 people. RGloucester — ☎ 22:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the claim about " DPR forces found several unmarked graves in a coal mine" and so on (in the beginning of paragraph) has not been removed, as anyone can see from the diff. What was removed is an explanation clarifying that the entire "graves" story was probably a propaganda stunt. That's why this must be restored per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're being absolutely dense. DPR forces did find graves in a coal mine, and the OSCE verified it. The sources are there, perhaps you should read them? I'll put it here, too, so that you can have an easier go. RGloucester — ☎ 22:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are graves. However, these graves are mostly notable as a propaganda story (I said "the story"). You removed the most essential info. My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "propaganda story" can be dealt with at the "propaganda" article, as it is presently. The propaganda story is entirely separate from the reality of human rights violations in the combat zone. RGloucester — ☎ 22:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I can not agree about this, and not only here, but also in a large number of articles related to Russia-Ukrainian war. A lot of important and sourced information was removed from these articles under false pretense of keeping apples and oranges separately. For example, the coverage of events in sources and events themselves can not (and should not) be completely separated to achieve NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The OSCE source is only about the humanitarian situation. We have an orderly distribution of content here. RGloucester — ☎ 16:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian actor filmed firing machine gun[edit]

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/russian-actor-filmed-firing-machine-gun-at-donetsk-airport--eJSy_p4xvx The video has proven especially controversial because the 45-year-old is wearing protective clothing clearly labelled 'press' while firing the machine gun. OSCE condemned it. https://twitter.com/OSCE_RFoM/status/528107913965862912 Tlsandy (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's not worth copying here, because mentioning it would be undue? The Independent is owned by the oligarch Alexander Lebedev, so it regularly engages in anti-Russian propaganda. No need for Wikipedia to follow its lead. – Herzen (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and who owns gazeta.ru and hundreds of other Russian and international media who essentially report the same thing? This incident is recorded on video by Porechenkov's team and widely published, so building conspiracy theories around it is really pointless. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Tlsandy (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis in Ukraine entering its first winter[edit]

"With the crisis in Ukraine entering its first winter, UNHCR is racing to help some of the most vulnerable displaced people cope with expected harsh winter conditions," http://news.yahoo.com/least-824-000-displaced-ukraine-conflict-un-093007575.html Tlsandy (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty International:Pro-Kiev militia blocking humanitarian aid[edit]

Amnesty International stated that pro-Kiev forces are blocking delivery of aid to the region: Pro-Kyiv volunteer battalions are increasingly blocking humanitarian aid into eastern Ukraine in a move which will exacerbate a pending humanitarian crisis in the run up to Christmas and New Year, said Amnesty International. More in the link. Source is reliable, and information important.This should be in the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page not found. RGloucester — ☎ 21:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page link should work now.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've filled out the reference and added the information. RGloucester — ☎ 22:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Pro-Ukrainian", "pro-Kiev", or "pro-government"?[edit]

There were recently some edits switching between the terms "pro-Ukrainian" and "pro-Kiev" to describe "volunteer territorial defense battalions". I wanted the article to follow the source cited, which uses "pro-Kiev". RGloucester came up with the term "pro-government", indicating in his edit summary that it is more neutral than "pro-Kiev".
I started this Talk section to indicate for the record that "pro-government" is a satisfactory term, and to see if anyone finds that anything here needs debating.
The reason I find "pro-Ukrainian" unsatisfactory is that if a Ukrainian didn't like the illegal overthrow in a violent coup of the democratically elected government of Ukraine last February, that does not mean that he is not "pro-Ukrainian". In fact, being against violent overthrows of the Ukrainian government might make him more pro-Ukrainian than supporters of the present post-coup government. – Herzen (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we have a wikipedia page about someone or something, it is sufficient to simply provide a link to the page. There is no need in additional qualifiers. For example, there is no need to tell something like "left-wing historian Petrov". It is enough to simply tell "Petrov". For that reason, we do not need any "qualifiers", like pro-Kiev, pro-government or whatever, if we can simply tell/link "Aidar" My very best wishes (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:My very best wishes. I would also note that while using the capital is a common metonymic convention to refer to a government, Russian media has repeatedly used it in the case of Ukraine as a means of reductionism -- using "Kiev" as a means of falsely implying that the European-oriented city isn't the legal and democratic representative of almost all Ukraine. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tit-for-tat game[edit]

That paragraph is only a summary of the allegations against pro-Ukrainian government forces. Separatist crimes are mentioned elsewhere. Each instance of a Ukrainian or separatist crime does not need to be followed immediately by a mention of a crime by the opposing side. That's WP:GEVAL. Please follow the structure of the article. Don't make a mess. As far as "non-governmental organisations", these are mentioned in the body, and per WP:LEADCITE, they needn't be referenced in the lead if they appear elsewhere. RGloucester — ☎ 19:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

but you are misrepresenting Amnesty in the lead - Reading the lead one would believe Amnesty International had criticized only one side - when the sources, sources you are citing and have provided, paint a very different picture. - So , I repeat, you are misrepresenting - badly - the position of Amnesty in the lead - spouting acronyms like wp:geval or whatever does not absolve you of the need for the scrupulous use of sources, at each point in the article, it is irrelevant imo if you say, 'oh later on we err for the other side. ' why err? use sources scrupulously at all times. Amnesty in the sources you provide is more critical of the Russian side in fact deploring its exaggerations and machiavellian fanning the flames. you mis-use the sources in that section of the lead for the position of Amnesty, imoSayerslle (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is "misused". Amnesty's position on the separatists is made clear throughout the article. This is only a summary paragraph for pro-Ukrainian government alleged crimes. The text does not say that "Amnesty only criticised one side". That is neither implied nor stated. Amnesty's position on the pro-government battalions is also clear. RGloucester — ☎ 20:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amnesty only criticizes one side in the lead. full stop. that is grotesque. also it's detestation of Russian propagandist exaggerations and the role of Russia is ignored. so Amnesty is grossly misrepresented in the lead. sod the rest of the article for the moment. you are misrepresenting in the lead and arbitrarily saying 'in this paragraph we just gut sources to present this aspect' - that's arbitrary misrepresentation of the position Amnesty set forth in the sources. Sayerslle (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, nothing is "gutted". The sections and paragraphs of the article are distributed as they would be at any article. You're playing a tit-for-tat game. Nothing says "Amnesty is only concerned about the pro-Ukrainian government battalions". RGloucester — ☎ 20:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Watch issues a very critical statement about current Kiev government and its willingness to address war crimes and abuses by Ukrainian forces[edit]

[1] In short, the Kiev government doesn't seem to be willing to cooperate on dealing with abuses committed by Ukrainian forces(indiscriminate shelling of population centres), told HRW to investigate Crimea instead.More extensive information in the link.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what your source actually tells. It explains: "Typically what happened is that Russia-backed forces, would fire at Ukrainian forces from populated areas. That often unnecessarily endangered the civilian population—itself a violation of the laws of war. But Ukrainian forces also violated those laws when they fired back using weapons that could not be directed at particular military targets, but rained indiscriminately over a populated area. The Ukrainian military prosecutor made some effort to investigate this, but incompletely." and so on. This is something different: using the civilian population like "human shields" by rebels and Russian army. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, MyMoloboaccount, you would do well not to use WP:POINTy headers for new sections. It comes across as being hysteria and is not a constructive method by which to develop the content in any given article. As an article talk page, you know the difference between how talk pages are to be used and how they're not to be used per WP:TALKNEW and WP:NOTADVOCATE.
I have to agree that My very best wishes' reading of the HRW piece is correct. Yes, Kenneth Roth is suggesting that they'd like to see more serious attempts to analyse incidents that have taken place and feel that the Ukrainian government is still being defensive about examining their own culpability by engaging in a 'they started it' mentality, whereas HRW would like to see a more mature attitude in order to demonstrate that the Ukrainian government are seriously trying to comply with HRW principles (in an ideal world). If this is DUE for the content of this article, it must be in context: balanced by HRW's pieces on separatist and Russia's breaches of international law and warfare strategies such as this, this, this, this, this, etc.
Cherry picking articles and the use of synth are unwarranted, tendentious attempts at POV-pushing. The TITLE of the article is "Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass", not finger-pointing at one side or another as being the culprits. As the expression goes (in the American vernacular), "It's complicated." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV, cherry picking, UNDUE[edit]

I'm sorry but this edit [2] (and related) do not even make a pretense of trying to follow WP:NPOV. It cherry picks what is actually a small portion of the report (not even discussed in the executive summary), goes into way too much detail to blow it out of proportion, and completely omits the extensive discussion of the crimes committed by the pro-Russian insurgents, which has a lot more coverage in the report.

Even comparing to the portion of the article which uses this report to discuss pro-Russian crimes, which is much much much much shorter, and actually summarizes and paraphrases the report, this completely violates [[WP:WEIGHT] and WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. This was a clear copyright violation, and a massive PoV push. There is plenty in here about Ukrainian violations already. Parroting and cherry-picking reports to suit one's PoV is idiocy and has no chance of succeeding. RGloucester — ☎ 01:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations report mentions violations by the Ukrainian battalions, so why was this removed and changed to non-governmental organizations? United Nations is a governmental organization. It also mention abductions by Ukrainian government, while the article completely lacks information of any kind on this subject. If Volunteer Marek believes extensive description is too much for this article, that's fine, but we can't act pretend UN doesn't mention them and leave this article empty of such information that is actually quite long and detailed in UN reports. Also the report hardy is focused on rebels alone, and this seems a bit POV statement, the coverage of abuses by Ukrainian side is quite extensive.Comparing the structure of UN report and this article as a model, it is clear that we need to trim down the accussations against the rebels and expend info about Ukrainian violations mentioned. But for now let's focus on two relatively simple things-1.Not only NGO's are reporting violations as mentioned above, 2.Info about abductions by Ukrainian government needs to be included as it is currently missing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UN agencies are not "governmental organisations". Regardless, that particular sentence is about non-governmental organisations. There is a sentence about a UN agency just below. The article does not lack any information about pro-Ukrainian battalions abducting people. There is plenty in there. RGloucester — ☎ 02:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
UN agencies are treated as governmental organizations in terminology.NGO's like AI are a different thing. And forced abductions and disspearances involving torture are by Ukrainian SBU not by battalions.Please read the report.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MyMoloboaccount, stop POV pushing as many extravagant details (available in the reports for any reader interested in following up) surrounding Ukrainian abuses. You seem bent on the idea of turning this into a tit for tat venture into "if you put these details in, I'll put these details in about pro-Russian and Russian-backed abuses". This is not a WP:COATRACK for your predilections but an encyclopaedic article. Enough of your tendentious "the POV editors are trying to hide 'the truth'" BATTLEGROUND behaviour. It's wearing very, very thin. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. One cannot just copy details left and right from the reports. That's a copyright violation, for one thing, and for another, it is contrary to the point of the encylopaedia. This is not a WP:COATRACK, it is an article. The sources are linked. The details are there for all to see if they wish to read the reports. We cannot include every instance of separatist or Ukrainian "crimes". RGloucester — ☎ 13:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... And it continues months after submitting to the RSN and NPOVN has failed, Tobby72 and MyMoloboaccount are working as a WP:TAGTEAM in attempts to reintroduce cherry picked, COATRACK content as if the same sources have suddenly changed in their relevance. Would either of you care to clarify how the relevance of UNDUE content has changed to being DUE outside of POV pushing? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian humanitarian aid[edit]

I so so write in English, so a few facts that should be contained in this article, I will quote here, so that anyone able to make the correct text and paste it in the article:

Since August 2014 EMERCOM of Russia sent 29 road convoys, and in the Donbass delivered more than 37,000 tons of humanitarian aid [3].

To date, it has been 28 so-called escorts. Planned next. Carry different things. In recent times, mainly food products. Never the fact of transportation of arms and ammunition in the us convoys were recorded," - said Chairman of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine Viktor Nazarenko [4].

The last two weeks on the Russian border are dozens of tons of humanitarian aid collected by private efforts. Don't know what happened to the Russian customs, but it is these goods will not let me. Private help is needed, as there is a blockage on the part of Ukraine, but with the help of related problems. As they say, "to war, and a mother who", and many people are trying to cash in. Decided that the whole of the goods have passed customs registration.

Targeted assistance should be recorded by the special bodies authorized to distribute and deliver, to avoid fraudulent schemes. For someone it's not just the war, — told "Izvestia" Pushilin. — Developed a mechanism to verify the Ministry of emergency situations of all hungryso. Have the opportunity to go to the emergency of his city, where private aid check and fix, so as not checked at customs, where to search harder and longer. We try to streamline this process.

Also, according to Pushilin, monitoring the situation on the border, the OSCE also speeds up the process.[5]

Shipping columns of EMERCOM of Russia with humanitarian cargo to the South-East of Ukraine are absolutely open for the public and for the Ukrainian authorities, said Thursday the Deputy head EMERCOM of Russia Vladimir Stepanov on the Committee of public support for residents of the South-East of Ukraine in the Federation Council of the Russian Federation.

"Despite the fact that there are constant reproaches to us that are not involved in this (the delivery of Russian humanitarian cargo) social organization, we continue to inform and the Red Cross, and other voluntary organizations, and directly to Ukraine. When crossing the border to work directly participate and customs officers, and border guards and OSCE," — said the Deputy Minister. He noted that when crossing the border, all the structures are given the opportunity to check the cargo[6]. --УмныйПёс (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One Sided Article[edit]

This article is clearly one sided and only focuses on the western media coverage with practially no information from credible international up to date sources such as Amnesty. https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/europe-and-central-asia/ukraine/report-ukraine/ It would also help to show both sides of the story anyway and at least state what the Russian Media is saying, considering this article takes any news report published by clearly bias western sources as fact. Basically if it was published by news agencies such as RT, Fox News or the BBC then it is going to be 75%-100% made up propaganda. This is the same BBC who still claims that Putin = Hitler and that the Odessa massacre was an accident. —  comment added by Generic User (talk • contribs) 16:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so where's Amnesty International's report on the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic in order to fill out the entire picture? Also, how are reports from the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, UNHRC and UNICEF biased sources? Wikipedia's articles are written according to reliable secondary sources, not from personal points of view. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never said they were bias. I am just saying this article takes sources from news agencies such as 'Kyiv Post' to be absolute fact. At least acknowlage what the other side is saying and not just focus on the wests views. Kyiv Post is clearly just going to just as bias as any Russian or Novorossyan news articles. Amnesty's report on Donetsk and Luhansk are already in the article so I don't see why you are critising me for not quoting them in my comment. I am not pretending that the Russian backed people are some glorious freedom fighters. But by the same token I am not pretending the same thing about the Ukrainian millitary. Both are as bad as eachother and this article only focuses on rebel war crimes, hence why I stated it is one sided. Also why are you claming this convesation is 'irrelivent' and threatening to block me from posting just because I spoke out against the use of one sided sources? Generic User (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked through the article, there are ~63 sources from western news agencies that could be considered bias. There are ~11 sources from Russian news agencies (including western newspapers in Russia such as the Moscow Guardian) that could be considered bias. There are currently 130 sources, the rest are most likely international sources like the UN and UNICEF as you said. Generic User (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Western bias isn't coordintaed the way the Russian one is, The Guardian, NYT, Le Monde present very different opinions. What you mean Western bias may be at least partially based on Western ideas, not Western centralised propaganda. This Wikipedia is based on Western ideas, even the Russian one should be.
There are no Western soldiers there, there are the Russian ones.Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's factually and simply not true. All major Western outlets show an editorial line completely in tone with NATO's POV, whether it be The Guardian, The Telegraph, Washington Post, NYT, Wall Street Journal, The Times, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, DW, El País; you name it. Mainly because the companies who own these outlets are in close corporative ties with their respective home States' apparatuses. Scott Trust, The Guardian's owner company, is presided by Alex Graham, Fellow of the Royal Television Society and Royal Society of Arts with a huge run in the British State-controlled media and entertainment circuit. Telegraph Media Group is owned by Frederick Barclay (up until 2021, by the Barclay Twins, but the other brother died in 2021), which has a well-known long relationship with the Crown to the point of being financially tied with Crown Agents, a government loan agency. Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, whose government ties include a 600M $ cloud computing contract with the CIA, a 10B $ defense infrastructure contract with the Pentagon, an undisclosed contract of facial recognition software with ICE, supporting a myriad of Congressional campaigns and a 100M $ donation to the Obama Foundation. New York Times is controlled by the Sulzberger family, with a long history of control over the New York City Council (Arthur Sulzberger Jr. was the chairman of the NY City Council's Times Square Business Improvement District committee) and meddling in politics (being advisors to Clinton, Bush, Obama and even tried to be of Trump). Both Wall Street Journal and The Times are ultimately owned by the Murdoch family via News Corp, whose close ties with the US State apparatus are enormous and well-known: millions donated to the Republican Governors Association, endorsement of a myriad of presidental candidates, serving at the board of directors of libertarian government-advising think-tank Cato Institute, cofounder of the de facto governmental foundation New American Economy, continued support of Trump's government during his mandate... Le Monde is controlled by Matthieu Pigasse (Socialist Party of France member, informal advisor to this state party apparatus), Daniel Kretinsky (owner of EPH, the most important central European energy conglomerate, that holds contracts with a lot of European States) and Xavier Niel (owner of Illiad, one of the most important telecommunication companies of western Europe, also holding contracts with France and Italy). El País is owned by Joseph Oughourlian via Prisa Group (that also owns 20% of Le Monde), who is also an important shareholder of Indra Sistemas, the State-owned arms industry Spanish company. DW is simply a State-owned outlet.
So, after all these connections and the established, semi-formal links between all the most important western media outlets with the NATO's States apparatus, how can one say the "Western bias isn't as coordinated as the Russian bias" because "they present different opinions"? That's just over 9000 naivété and a complete lack of understanding of how modern economies works. Corporations cannot subsist without objective, established links with the State, and vice-versa. This huge text is just the supreme evidence of it. The thing is, Russian bias in media outlets is extreme, and Western bias is extreme too. The only difference is that Russian bias is cruder and rougher, since most important media outlets are State-owned; being the Western bias smoother because the outlets' connections with the State are more refined and informal, the classic private-public corporatism instead of blatant State-owned business model. 5.159.135.23 (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. but the place to take that up is WP:RSN.  —Michael Z. 11:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be useful to compare the Russian and Ukrainian articles. ru:Убийство пятидесятников в СлавянскеXx236 (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 42 - please correct[edit]

Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The checkpoints that allow civilians to cross between separatist held territory in Donbas and areas controlled by the Ukrainian government[edit]

I wanted today to add today (to this Wikipedia article) a small subsection about the checkpoints that allow civilians to cross between separatist held territory in Donbas and areas controlled by the Ukrainian government. But could not find very useful sources.... (For possible future use) here are 2 sources I did found:

— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of information about checkpoints can be found in this piece by Human Rights Watch. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article📝description[edit]

Hi! Please don't repeat the article title in the description, which needs be short.⚘ ToniTurunen (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More recent OHCHR report[edit]

The article references several old OHCHR reports and could benefit from the more recent one, Arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment in the context of armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine 2014-2021 (released in July 2021). Some select quotes from the executive summary:

  • OHCHR estimates the total number of conflict-related detentions in Ukraine from 14 April 2014 to 30 April 2021 as between 7,900 and 8,700 (with men comprising approximately 85 per cent and women 15 per cent of detainees): 3,600- 4,000 by Government actors and 4,300-4,700 by armed groups and other actors in territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’. ... OHCHR estimates that some 60 per cent of conflict-related detentions occurred during the first two years of the conflict, in 2014 and 2015 ... From 2016 to 2021, annual numbers of conflict-related detentions substantially decreased both in Government-controlled territory and in territory controlled by self-proclaimed ‘republics’, averaging several hundred per year.
  • OHCHR estimates that about 60 per cent of all conflict-related detentions by Government actors from 2014 to 2021 (approximately 2,300) were arbitrary, and the majority of them occurred during the initial period of the conflict (2014-2015) ... From 2016, the prevalence of conflict-related arbitrary detention by Government actors substantially decreased. Since late 2016, OHCHR has not observed a continuation of the practice of holding conflict-related detainees long-term in unofficial places of detention. ... As of April 2021, arbitrary detention remained a daily occurrence in territory controlled by self-proclaimed ‘republics’.
  • ...OHCHR found a strong correlation between conflict-related arbitrary detention and torture and ill-treatment in both Government-controlled territory and territory controlled by self-proclaimed ‘republics’. In cases documented by OHCHR which occurred during the initial stages of the conflict, in 2014 and 2015, detainees were frequently subjected to torture and ill-treatment (74 per cent of individuals detained by Government actors, and 82.2 and 85.7 per cent in territory controlled by ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ and in territory controlled by the ‘Luhansk people’s republic’, respectively). ... After 2016, torture or ill-treatment in cases of arbitrary detention became less common on both sides of the contact line. OHCHR estimates the total number of conflict-related detainees subjected to torture and ill-treatment from 2014 to 2021 at around 4,000 (approx. 3,400 men and approx. 600 women), including an estimated 340 victims of sexual violence (190-230 men and 120-140 women): approximately 1,500 by Government actors and approximately 2,500 by armed groups and other actors in territory controlled by selfproclaimed ‘republics’.
  • Both in Government-controlled territory and in territory controlled by selfproclaimed ‘republics’, torture and ill-treatment, including conflict-related sexual violence, were used to extract confessions or information, or to otherwise force detainees to cooperate, as well as for punitive purposes, to humiliate and intimidate, and to extort money and property. Methods of torture and ill-treatment on both sides of the contact line included beatings, dry and wet asphyxiation, electrocution, sexual violence on men and women (such as rape, forced nudity and violence to the genitals), positional torture, water, 3 food, sleep or toilet deprivation, isolation, mock executions, prolonged use of handcuffs, hooding, and threats of death or further torture or sexual violence, or harm to family members. Tgr (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article obviously suffers from a severe problem of an initially enthusiastic editing involvement during the intense events and worldwide media coverage of late 2013 and 2014 that was not followed up with the "marathon" work of maintaining it during the following more or less eight years. There's close to nothing in the range 2016 to 2021, although there are a few items for 2015, 2016, 2017. The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine reports from 2016 to 2021 very likely have a lot of reliable info to integrate into this article. I assume that the OHCHR reports integrate a lot of the info from the HRMMU reports. Providing at least one chronological subdivision into any of the main sections would probably help the reader get an overall view, e.g. "2014", "2015–2021", would make sense, even if the content of the "2015–2021" subsection is initially short. The above quotes look like they could provide info at least 1-2 sentences for some of the "2015–2021" or "2016–2021" subsections. Boud (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2022‎ (UTC) (added my missing signature Boud (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Removal of who committed war crimes according to the UN[edit]

The original sentence was: "The UN reported growing lawlessness in the region, documenting cases of targeted killings, torture, and abduction, primarily carried out by the forces of the Ukraine paramilitary forces.", and now the last part about who is committing these acts has been removed. Why? If you rely on UN as a trusted source enough to quote them at all, why suddenly leave out the part about Ukrainians committing these acts? This looks like plain pro-Ukraine activism via Wikipedia.

What the UN report said was also confirmed by many other sources: Human Rights Watch, The Red Cross (whose employee was killed in a cluster munition bombing by Ukraine, which has never signed the treaty banning cluster munitions), OSCE and many others.

This is just ridiculous and devalues Wikipedia as a whole. People should be able to trust that what is said is true - even if it's not the trendiest thing to say at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tw1ger (talk • contribs) 07:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Help:Page history to learn about checking the editing history of a page. You will then find that this edit explained in its WP:EDITSUMMARY that its aim was: remove "primarily carried out by the forces of the Ukraine paramilitary forces", not actually present in the source. The removal appears correct to me. In the HRMMU 15 May 2014 report, I do not see where information equivalent to "primarily carried out by the forces of the Ukraine paramilitary forces" is described. The report has sections from I to VIII with detailed numbering of the paragraphs. In which parts of the report do you see the claim "primarily carried out by the forces of the Ukraine paramilitary forces"? Boud (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tgr correctly removed the misleading statement "primarily carried out by the forces of the Ukraine paramilitary forces" which was originally inserted in this edit by an IP editor on 28 July 2019, nearly three years ago. Paragraph 5.ii on page 4 of the source "HRMMU2014May15" does attribute most of the lawlessness and human rights abuses to armed groups that illegally seized administrative buildings in the "eastern regions"/"self-declared regions". So we could restore text such as "primarily carried out by the forces that illegally took over administrative control in eastern regions". It would be anachronistic to write DPR or LPR for the period before the names started to become de facto names of the groups. Boud (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to: "Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas (2014–2022)"?[edit]

Since the Donbas war has been largely supplanted by the the full-scale Russian invasion of 2022, should this article be renamed to indicate the timeframe of what it covers, for clarity? The crimes during the latter conflict, including in Donbas, are already covered in the War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, so it might make sense to indicate the scope of the article in the title. That would also match the main article: War in Donbas (2014–2022).

--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Combatants of the war in Donbas which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Humanitarian_situation_during_the_war_in_Donbas&oldid=1212646162"