Talk:Donetsk People's Republic/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Events changing fast, the map need to be continuously updated or removed

The map in the lede of the article is not updated. The area under the control of the separatist has shrunk significantly. I do not want to look rude but I am going to remove it not because I do not like it, but just because it is old. From a general perspective I think it was a mistake to write an article so prone to the issue of recentism such as this one. But if really some people insist to have it, than they have to keep it continuously updated. Feel free to reinstate the map as soon you have an updated version. --Silvio1973 (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Now this war has really started. My very best wishes (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

WP is not a forum. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, this map is outdated and doesn’t show the area controlled by the DPR. However, I think that it could be leave in the article – of course not in a infobox, but in text (with clear information that it shows state for certain time). Also series of maps (for example with states week by week) will be useful. Aotearoa (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Do what you want but follow WP guidelines and source your edits. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added a map showing the territory claimed by the DPR. If you can find a more accurate map that shows their actual territorial control then present it and we can consider it. Lunch for Two (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have nothing to find. It is your edit and WP:BURDEN is to you.

With the situation changing every day there you cannot push such edit. You need a recent map. This is a common issue proper to article subject to WP:RECENTISM. Indeed it is already borderline to have an article like the present one. When and if the Ukrainian Government has control again on the region what do you do? You continue to keep the map because the territory continues to be claimed? Silvio1973 (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've provided an accurate map of territory claimed by this entity. If you have an issue with that then fine, I've presented the information, it is your burden to voice any issues with it. When and if Ukraine can assert de facto control over this entity then presumably the DPR will have come to an end. There is no point crystal-balling. If Ukraine resumes full control over its Eastern provinces then it would probably be appropriate, as with most maps of similar entities, to have a map of the claimed territory with shaded parts superimposed on the map demonstrating the maximum territorial extent of the said entity. Lunch for Two (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that you need to present an updated map with sources. So please present hereafter your sources and we will discuss about the sources. It might appear bureaucratic but when an edit is disputed this is the way to handle it. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to an "updated map" of the territory de facto controlled by the DPR. The uploaded map is not a map associated with de facto control of the territory, nor does it purport to be so. The uploaded map is accompanied by an unambiguous caption. If you want an uploaded map of de facto control, feel free to place one in the article. The two are not mutually exclusive and can both be featured in the article. Lunch for Two (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Lunch42 I don't buy it and perhaps I am wrong. Can other users give their advise on this matter? Silvio1973 (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to read the caption under the image. Furthermore, you will find that I am in fact the user who created and was updating the not-so-updated map you proceeded to remove. I have stopped updating it given the fluid nature of the conflict and the somewhat unreliable, and often contradictory, accounts about who is actually exercising de facto control on the ground. A map of "claimed" territory does not suffer from this defect as the claimed areas are static. Lunch for Two (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

For God's sake what does it mean claimed...If they were claiming a third of Ukraine what would you put on the map? If in two months everything is over and they continue to claim what do you do? You keep the article there because they claim? Silvio1973 (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What would happen has been described above (which you have conveniently chosen to disregard). There is nothing wrong with having this article and your objections are obviously nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Lunch for TwoI am actually fine with the map, because now it is not the mao of an area claimed or controlled but the map of Donetsk area. Can you please put a clear caption to be more clear so that no-one confuse between Donetsk area / Area claimed / Area controlled ? Silvio1973 (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This project doesn't work on people removing sections then demanding that other users re-write them in a manner more palatable to the former. Either remove or edit, it is hardly fair to remove then demand other do the editing for you. Lunch for Two (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• To put it simple, Donetsk Region and Donetsk People's Republic are different territories. There are no any stable boundaries (per sources) for the territory currently occupied by separatists. No misleading maps, please.My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It would appear that you fail to understand the difference between something claimed and something occupied (WP:IDONTLIKEIT?). As per above, the accompanying caption was clear that it did not purport to show what territory the DPR physically occupied. Lunch for Two (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

if we need a map, i propose we use the recent election results map. It breaks down results by county and allows us to clearly see which districts were recently under DPR control and people could not vote. I think that's the most accurate source we have right now.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 21:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Insurgents do not control even cities (where they battle with governmental forces), much less the territory [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

correct, but if elections weren't carried out it would indicate their presence was strong enough that governmental functions have ceased (at least in part). If elections took place, thats definitely indicative of no control over a district. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 02:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the elections map is one of the best sources we have at this stage. It is however from 25th May and even if that map was adopted for use, the same group of users would be complaining that it is not accurate, it is outdated, it needs updating, etc. It is interesting that these users are quick to remove such images without actually providing any alternatives of their own. Lunch for Two (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I too agree that providing the map, where elections were successfully disrupted by pro-Russian forces, would be informative. Please do. However, make correct legend that this just an area of disrupted elections, rather than territory of "Republic". My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

If that is what you feel the map should reflect then you are clearly missing the point of having the map at all. Lunch for Two (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

pov edits

9 times out of 10 when somebody spams the word "allegedly" into an article, that's a pretty straight forward attempt to push a POV. And that is in fact the issue with this edit [2].Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

POV-pushing

The editors are supposed to adopt a “neutral point of view” (WP:NPOV). I'm having problem with the following additions:

• WP:UNDUE -- [3], [4], [5] - Anti-Semitic leaflets have been declared a hoax
• WP:RS -- [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]
• WP:COPYVIO -- [11] http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-crisis-deepens-rift-between-orthodox-churches-044052410.html
• WP:OWN -- [12]
• Blatant attempt to POV the article & double standard -- [13], [14], [15], [16]

-- Tobby72 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"The People's Republic still expects Kiev to pay all our salaries and our pensions - it hasn't got its own budget."

I found this BBC article in which an old coal-miner claims "The People's Republic still expects Kiev to pay all our salaries and our pensions - it hasn't got its own budget." Should this be mentioned or is this men not a wp:RS? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A random guy interviewed by a reporter has nothing to do with being a RS. A random guy is not a newspaper. The reliable source here is the BBC, which published the article you're referring to. You certainly can't use the quote of that coal miner to put into the article that the DPR republic expects the Ukrainian central government to pay for salaries and pensions of residents/citizens of the DPR. Given that DPR officials have said that DPR is not part of Ukraine, such a claim would make no sense. (Please don't say that I'm doing original research!) If you can find an official of the DPR or some academic expert making the same claim/observation as the coal miner, then that would be more suitable for inclusion in the article.

As a matter of general information, I ran across a Russian language article quoting DPR officials saying that they are having difficulties creating government structures because of the ongoing hostilities. So—again excuse me, if putting 2 2 together is original research—I think it's fair to say that officials of the DPR have no idea of how they are going to pay the coal miner. – Herzen (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Why no mention of American mercenaries?

There are several news sources that report (along with video evidences) where people have went up to "Ukrainian" soldiers and they understood neither Ukrainian or Russian, but spoke amongst each other in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.50 (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Find reliable sources (if there are any), post them here and that will be mentioned. Feon {^t/_c} 15:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

emphasis on reliable, this sounds like tabloid/conspiracy junk. I've heard nothing of the sort and I've had my ear very close to the ground the entire time. The last mercenary rumor was total junk from LifeNews tabloid. --Львівське (говорити) 19:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess that news don't really reach America very much, here in Eastern Europe it is a well known fact that American mercenaries are involved in these operations:

http://www.baltinfo.ru/2014/04/22/SShA-vlozhili-pyat-milliardov-dollarov-v-podderzhku-demokratii-na-Ukraine-420974 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.50 (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

all that says is that Russia made a claim and now they 'disappeared'. --Львівське (говорити) 15:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, but the source, the St. Petersburg-based newspaper BaltInfo, only publishes information approved by the Russian government's agency Roskomnadzor, which has been censoring news about Russian involvement in Ukraine. Having a second source, and one that is not under Roskomnadzor control, would be necessary for this information to be verifiable. --Saukkomies ^talk 12:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine, here is a Hungarian article about it: 400 Blackwater mercenaries in Eastern Ukraine killing civilians. The information is verified by the BND, which is kind of like the American CIA, but a German version of it. Also verified by the Bild am Sonntag German Newspaper. Hopefully this is clear enough even for the total of zero people that do not know that the whole thing was started by America. http://kuruc.info/r/4/127701/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Additionally Saukkomies's comment just seems like he pulled it out of the back of his cereal box. There is no censored news about Ukraine in Russian Media. Claims that there is Russian involvement in Donetsk is fairytale at best, or perhaps wishful thinking on behalf of some people. Either way, such claims are groundless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The Russian foreign minister disagrees with you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-acknowledges-sending-aid-to-eastern-ukraine-separatist-leader-visits-moscow/2014/06/11/11dad9e3-2d08-4169-9aca-510c53bfca02_story.html

You've had a month to prove it. No proof. Russell Teapot Theory. You need to prove that U.S. mercenaries are there, not the other way around. Quoting newspapers which quote gossip is the same thing as quoting gossip.Hilltrot (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Tanks used by resistance 12.06

They actually come from storage near Artemovsk most likely(rebels previously tried to take it over a month ago in the initial stage of the uprising).The resistance actually declared 2 days ago that they captured them, and were looking for T-64 drivers for recruitment.They are definitely not from Russia, and this in time after propaganda claims will tone done, hopefully will be clarified. Btw-resistance in Donetsk was also(besides T-64 drivers) recruiting for combat pilots. So perhaps we will see those soon as well. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

need reliable sources, not "i heard on twitter that terrorists stole a few tanks". Doesn't help that they are flying Russian and not DPR flags.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 20:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't hear anything on twitter about "terrorists". In any case the same thing happened in Slaviansk when APC were captured. They had Russian flags too and media for two days were in frenzy about "Russian APC's invading Ukraine". Anyway I am sure this will be corrected in due time.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I dont think the media ever said those BMDs were from Russia, the capture was widely publicized. They are Ukrainian T-64Bs, but Russia would still have old stock of these to use anyway so thats not a legit out. Until we have sources proving they were captured, we can only go by what reliable sources say. The Vostok Battalion APCs are all from Russia along with the Russian-made trucks, so it shouldnt be too surprising if these tanks in the convoy were as well. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 00:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Article split

I am just seeking some comments from fellow contributors. It would appear that this article has ballooned in size since it was first created. Rather than having the article structured in a way that is similar to other separatist and/or breakaway entities, this article has simply absorbed any, if not all, information relating to the topic. It would appear that anything reported in the media is simply being added to the article, many contentious issues are mentioned here and there is a swathe of unreliable sources and nearly every person living in Donetsk is quoted in some form or another. I feel that a more conventional approach to the article should be taken and that the less relevant matters should be either removed or moved to other articles. Comments? Lunch for Two (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Note my earlier proposal, which was rejected. It would need to be updated. Pasting it below:

As I mentioned above, this article's title doesn't fully reflect its contents. There are two separate articles contained within this one, and I think it makes sense to split them up. Usually, with regard to Wikipedia, articles that have the name of a state (or proposed/declared/unrecognised state) detail the state entity itself, such as governmental structures/leadership and so on. Separately, of course, we also have the conflict ongoing between pro-Russian forces and the Ukrainian government. It is also true that not all pro-Russian forces are aligned under the 'Donetsk People's Republic' banner. Given that this is the case, I've drafted a new article split off from this one to detail the conflict. These drafts are as follows:

• Draft:Donetsk crisis - A new article split off from here to detail with the military/civil conflict itself.
• Draft:Donetsk People's Republic - The current article, with content detailing the conflict itself split off, and instead focusing on the history of the state entity.

These drafts are by no means finished, and the present Donetsk People's Republic draft has POV issues to the extreme, and I'd appreciate help on them. However, I think that this is the best path forward. To have these two separate articles, so that content is in appropriate locations, and so that each piece of information gets due weight. Please comment. RGloucester — ☎ 17:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the split, but IMHO as the article is now it is like when in a company bad assets are spinned off in a new company from good ones. I am concerned to have this article existing in its current form, because there is an issue of recentism amplified by the relative reliability of the sources. IMO we shuld first reduce the size of thr article itself. Concerning the updates to the article I think a grace period of 2 days is appropriate. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Is anyone opposed to the implementation of this split? RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like, we can rework this. RGloucester — ☎ 16:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your above comments, however I do understand why at the time contributors may have been hesitant in conducting the split. It is now apparent that a split is needed. The DPR page should be limited to matters concerning its history, demographics, geography, international relations, etc. (as is the case with most "states), it would appear that you have a similar opinion on this matter.

Regarding the unrest/conflict/insurgency etc. I think that any article should cover the entire Donbas region (ie. Donetsk and Lugansk should be treated together) as there is one insurgency and not two concurrent ones in different regions. I think the title of the article should be "East Ukraine uprising/rebellion/insurgency" and am happy to debate the merits whether it should be called an uprising/rebellion/insurgency etc. A description of the militants should be left on the page, albeit the entire chapter should be heavily condensed and most of it moved to a separate civil/military conflict article.

Regarding the "Ethnic and Religious Prejudice" section, it is too POVish, lengthy, heavily based on unreliable sources and full of quotations rather than analysis. I'm not sure whether it belongs in a separate article titled Human Rights in the Donetsk People's Republic (because as it stands there are probably too many articles in general) or whether it should just be condensed here. I'd be more in favour of the latter option, but would not stand in the way of a separate article.

In general I feel that this article and other related ones have too many hearsay-ish and unverifiable claims. I personally think a 2 day stay on information might be a good thing. If the media is still reporting on the matter 2-3 days after it occurs then maybe it is somewhat notable and should be included, but not every single minor issue hinted at by a journalist necessarily needs to be put here. Maybe users would be better off first including relatively minor occurrences on the topic timeline. Regardless, I'm happy to assist. Lunch for Two (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree about the "hearsay", and in my reorganisation, I was merely splitting existing content, not checking it all out. As far as the insurgency, I would opt for "2014 insurgency in eastern Ukraine" at this point. Let's see what others say, but I do think that a split is quite important. RGloucester — ☎ 14:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the split is a good idea. And it's also a great idea to add the map back in, which has been removed from this article due to recentism (it's not accurate now, but so what? It was accurate and notable in April) Esn (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as there was no opposition to a split, I think it might be time to start working on one. Lunch for Two (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lunch for Two: Let us use the existing drafts. We can change the titles later. Once the content is divided between the drafts, we can implement the split. I will start working on it later. Please assist me. RGloucester — ☎ 16:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The Draft:Donetsk crisis is the best place for it. I'm not sure if we need a draft dealing with the human rights issues, however it would help in reducing the size of this article. Lunch for Two (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Citation on CIA, FBI agents in Kiev not found

Citation of CIA, FBI agents in Kiev in Governement counteroffensive section

 ref "CIA, FBI agents 'advising Ukraine government': report" Yahoo News. May 4, 2014.</ref> 

not found. 88.212.37.213 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed it. It most likely was someone trying to insert their own opinion and giving a fake source to make it seem credible. I'm surprised no one else removed it. Ergzay (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Size of the article

For an article sourced only from news this article is getting excessively big. The idea of Wikipedia is to rely on secondary sources and not newspapers or (worse) doubtful websites. Am I the only one having this concern? --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Does the DNR still exist?

Gubarev seems to be fully behind the New Russia thing and the only DNR flags I see are in relation to the Donbass People's Militia. What's Pushilin and Borodai's position at the moment? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 20:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It would appear that it coexists with New Russia. Are there any RS suggesting that it has been completely replaced by New Russia? Lunch for Two (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that the two countries have merged their constitutions, I think we can say it is official that the Donetsk's People's Republic has been replace by New Russia. 205.232.106.254 (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What do the flag colors represent?

They didn't just make it up on the spot. What do the colors represent, and why are they ordered the way they are?

look like it emphasize their schizophrenia. 193.239.254.247 (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC) dead

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.100.130 (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

repeated attempts to remove well sourced info

Re [17] [18] [19]

Herzen, you are trying to remove well sourced and relevant text based on nothing except your own WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's in violation of WP:NPOV. Additionally, since you are the one who is removing well sourced text, your edit summary is also inappropriate. It's actually up to you to initiate talk page discussion (otherwise your edits might get mistaken for straight up vandalism).

There's also no UNDUE issue here (which is what, the second excuse you came up with, after the first one didn't work?). The material is well sourced, directly relevant to the subject of the article, based on well known sources and has been covered in depth. Leave it alone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The UNDUE was raised two sections above in "POV-pushing". I now see that Tobby72 didn't bring into question the text I deleted when he made the observation that "Anti-Semitic leaflets have been declared a hoax", but I assume that to have been an oversight.

These antisemitic leaflets were obviously a hoax from the very start. As a rabbi observes in one of the references cited (I added the quotation but it was removed, of course), antisemitism is a problem in Western Ukraine, but not in Eastern Ukraine. That is why anyone with any familiarity with the Ukraine could instantly tell that this was a hoax.

Please explain why you think this text is relevant. Once something has been shown to be a hoax, why should Wikipedia continue to devote paragraphs to it, when the fact that someone perpetrated this hoax is completely trivial, when seen in the context of what the article is about?

You say I violate NPOV by deleting this text. I disagree. I would say that trying to keep a discredited story alive is a violation of NPOV. – Herzen (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Because, whether or not it was a hoax, the event was notable and widely covered. Actually "hoax" is not the right term here - the event happened - what is disputed is who was behind it. The criteria for inclusion is not whether it was "true" or not but whether it was notable. The section is written in a neutral manner and covers all the relevant aspects of the question. You are removing it simply based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And you are violating NPOV by removing relevant and well sourced info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And btw, that same rabbi you quote also said "the press secretary of the self-proclaimed republic, Aleksander Kriakov, is "the most famous anti-Semite in the region,". That sort of disagrees with your original research above about in which part of Ukraine anti-Semitism is a bigger problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You write, "what is disputed is who was behind it." Are you suggesting that the idea that that the DPR (the subject of the article) was behind it is still something that can be taken seriously?

The material that I removed treats the accusation that the DPR was behind the antisemitic leaflet as something that should be taken seriously, even though that leaflet is now known to have been a crude hoax. Therefore, the text I deleted is a clear case of POV pushing. If editors want to keep a reference to the antisemitic leaflet in the article, then the material should be rewritten along the lines of, "Unknown parties circulated an obviously fake leaflet with antisemitic content in a transparent attempt to discredit the fledgling DPR government." That would be acceptable. I actually don't think that the whole affair deserves any more treatment than that single sentence; all the references that were used can be kept. But the text I removed is written to leave the reader with an impression that the leaflet was very possibly real, if for no other reason than that it devotes so many words to the subject. – Herzen (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The leaflet was real, get over it. Also, your talk about western Ukraine being anti-semitic is pretty inflammatory, given that its the east where the issues are. This is a group that is attacking Christians and Gypsies and you're trying to whitewash their actions because...it's impossible for them to hate Jews even when they are made up of neo-Nazis and the chief Rabbi has even outed one as a major anti-Semite? What? You're getting out of control in your POV pushing --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 06:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, I support you. What we see here is yet an other attempt to use wikipedia as a propaganda tool. It should be a civilized way to stop it. Any suggestions? (I suggest to leave only basic facts and NOT to include new material before agreement on the talk-page.) --Tosha (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The statement "Unknown parties circulated an obviously fake leaflet with antisemitic content in a transparent attempt to discredit the fledgling DPR government." is propaganda.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

At the moment 90% of the article is propaganda. (My attempt to make it a bit more neutral failed.) Let us define here what is "reliable" information and clean it. One possibility is to use ONLY the info which appears in both Russian AND European media. What do you think? --Tosha (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the media in Russia are more-or-less controlled by the Russian state, your proposal equates to a demand that the Russian state controls the content of this article. This is unacceptable.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Before we can even continue on this "anti-semitism in Donetsk doesn't exist" trip, let's get some facts traight

• Gubarev ('governor') is a neo-Nazi
• Borodai ('prime minister') associated with known (convicted) anti-Semites
• Kriakov, press secretary, well known anti-semite
• The radio tower incident against "Zionist zombie broadcasting" and other anti-semitic crap
• Mozhaev's stating their goal was to destroy “the Jew-Masons"
• Barkashov/ Russian National Unity, a Nazi group, is active in the area supporting the Donetsk Republic
• Valeri Korovin ranting about "Jews running Kyiv" today in Moscow during the New Russia / Donetsk rally
• various other members of the far-right and neo Nazi groups involved

...and we're talking about an obvious hoax meant to discredit them? They're doing that on their own --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 06:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black... extremists among anti-government rebels are exactly like ultra-nationalists in the Ukrainian government.

• Andriy Parubiy, Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine, is founder of the neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine
• Oleksandr Sych, Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine, is member of the far-right, anti-Semitic, anti-Russian and anti-Polish Svoboda party[20]
• Oleh Makhnitskyi, General Prosecutor of Ukraine, member of the anti-Semitic Svoboda party
• Ihor Shvaika, Ukraine's Minister of Agriculture, member of the anti-Semitic Svoboda party
• Andriy Mokhnyk, Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine, member of the anti-Semitic Svoboda party
• Oleh Tyahnybok, well known anti-Semite, leader of Svoboda party, urged his party to fight "the Moscow-Jewish mafia ruling Ukraine."

...Svoboda party has often staged commemorations honoring anti-Semitic Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), criminal organization that massacred Jews and Poles (all cities in today's western Ukraine were mostly inhabited by Poles and Jews). Svoboda party members are also admirers of Nazi collaborators in the Ukraine, the WWII-era Waffen-SS Galicia Division. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Main claim to fame

It is a terrorist organization operating in eastern Ukraine. It is not a state recognized by anyone. If I proclaimed myself a "state" and embarked on a killing/airplane terrorism spree, it wouldn't make me a state worthy of a Wikipedia article describing me as a state instead of a terrorist killing airline passengers. The organization's main claim to fame is shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, killing nearly 300 people in one of the worst terrorist incidents involving airplanes. Alana Caz (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it has articles on terrorist organizations. See IRA, PLO, and so on. It has articles about mass murderers, too. See Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. An article in wikipedia is a report on verifiable information. It is not an endorsement or a recommendation. Ground Zero | t 22:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Iran commemorates victims of US attack on passenger plane

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter – Stepan Bandera is seen as a "freedom fighter" and "national hero" in Ukraine.[21] However, in Poland, Russia and Israel, many people see Bandera as a "terrorist" and "nazi collaborator".[22] While fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, CIA-funded Osama bin Laden was a "freedom fighter". – See Definitions of terrorism. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

DNR Poll

I've started a poll at the talk page for List of sovereign states. You can find the poll here. We're discussing the inclusion of the Islamic State, the Donetsk People's Republic, and the Lugansk People's Republic. [Soffredo] 01:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

merge with article on current Ukraine issues

Shouldn't this just be merged with 2014_pro-Russian_conflict_in_Ukraine? Obviously it's an ongoing issue that lacks resolution, so the existence of the article seems premature. That alone may not be a good enough reason, but I'm also bothered by the possibility that the declaration of this state is primarily a tactic by Russia to legitimize its annexation of part of Ukraine. I realize that view isn't shared by all contributors (at least not openly), but on a theoretical level we have to consider that if one's goal is false equivalence, the mere existence of a Wikipedia article can serve to further that propagandistic aim. Perhaps there is no solution to that, but it is still a problem. Proxyma (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The article that this week is called 2014 insurgency in Donbass was originally part of the article on Donetsk People's Republic - I did not agree with the split. After the split it became 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk, it was renamed 2014 insurgency in Donbass, and the editor who lobbied for the split, is currently lobbying for another rename.

I cannot see the need for all these forks and renamings.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes exactly, so stop forking and just merge it back into the main article. Proxyma (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Support. Granted I'm supporting my own proposal. But the solution to all the forkings, renamings, etc is to avoid creating a separate article in the first place. Just describe this entity (the self-proclaimed republic) as part of the overall insurgency effort as described in 2014_pro-Russian_conflict_in_Ukraine. Proxyma (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – 2014 insurgency in Donbass, first of all, is not a "fork". Its content is unique, and it was expanded significantly after the split. That article has nothing to do with the DPR or LPR. It is about the fighting itself. This article is not about the fighting. It is about the structure of the Republic itself, mimicking Lugansk People's Republic. By this logic, we should merge Ukrainian People's Republic into Ukrainian-Soviet War. The state entity itself is not the same as the events that take place involving the state entity. RGloucester — ☎ 15:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – This article is far too large to be merged, and it wouldn't serve to benefit anyone. Dustin (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – Declaring that is it not a state has political ramifications as well. There's no way out of Wikipedia articles being used for the interests of various organizations. The goal here should be to describe the situation as it is, not as one thinks it ought to be. The disconnect between the legal existence of the State of Palestine and the reality of an actually existing State of Palestine comes to mind. I think stating that Donetsk is a self-described state is appropriate. They are exercising state-like power and are more in control of the territory than the Ukrainian government is.Masebrock (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support, this article is excessively long for an entity that has no reference in any secondary source. I wander what we do if things settle down and Ukraine will have again full control of their territory. We change the article and state that the DPR existed only during a period of time referencing this claim exclusively with old newspapers and outdated websites? Silvio1973 (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles in periodicals are secondary sources. Obviously there are currently no published books about it - it is too recent for that.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Toddy1, Obviously (to use your words) this article is affected by a serious issue of WP:RECENTISM and relies only on periodicals of doubtful neutrality. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – This article is way too large, and a merge is unnecessary. Dustin (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - What we really need is someone with Russian language knowledge to go and do a bit of research about the "state entity" itself. This article is supposed to be about the state entity, but that information is hidden behind language walls. We need to know more about the system of governance, the ministers, and so on. A lot of this is probably on the DPR website, but it is really hard to get a feel for that with Google Translate. I especially want to know what's happened since the resignation of Pushilin. RGloucester — ☎ 20:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Outdated / Incorrect map ?

I have found this morning this map showing that the area under the control of the rebel is by far smaller than one showed in the article.[[23]]. Should we replace? --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC) An unlogged IP user insists in posting a map in the article claiming it is updated daily. Fine, but from which sources? And why I could find a map significantly different (see the link above)? --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

New Moscow appointed leader

There are reports that Borodai and Girkin have been replaced by Vladimir Antyufeyev.[24], [25]. --Nug (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wrong link to a translation

The French translation of the article point to this:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Khryakov

instead of the République populaire de Donetsk:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/République_populaire_de_Donetsk

I don't know why, but the proper French version does point to the right place (here), but not the other way around. Please delete my comment once fixed. Thx.

18:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.125.101 (talk)

Politically loaded interpretation of the poster

Russian poster from 1921 after the communist elimination of Nestor Makhno Free Territory in 1921— "Donbass is the heart of Russia".

Please, don't do this, it's laughable. You [willingly?] got the message all wrong, it's not about being 'the heart of Russia' as opposed to 'part of Ukraine', it's about importance of Donbass as an industrial region and the only developed coal bassin in Russia at that time for Soviet Union ('Soviet Russia'). 46.56.104.97 (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"Institute of Social Research and Policy Analysis"

Does anyone know what is "Institute of Social Research and Policy Analysis"? Is it reputable? How does it conduct its polls? It is apparently headed by one Vladimir Kipen' who happens to take a very unequivocal political stance. Can we really take it as a reputable source? 46.56.104.97 (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The "defense minister" of the Donetsk People's Republic seems to be a racist....

Vice News reported today: Speaking at a press conference in Donetsk today, the so-called defense minister of the Donetsk People's Republic accused Ukraine of hiring mercenaries to fire at civilians near the crash site, and claimed that the rebels had killed Kiev-hired soldiers of the "negroid race" during the fighting. Seems to me this "defense minister" is a racist... Should we do anything with that info? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Not surprising, most Russian ultra-nationalist are. --Nug (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• He may be, but you are going to need a more solid evidence than his wording of "negroid race". "Negro" (негр) is still an accepted way to say "black" in Russian language, it does not carry racist connotations. Compare to Spanish "negro". Conversely, the word "black" (черный) is used as an ethnic slur against people coming from Russian North Caucasus. 46.56.104.97 (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Foreign

" British Foreign Secretary William Hague " is now form Foreign Secretary and has been for a while now. --92.232.49.38 (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

But at the time he made the statements he was British Foreign Secretary. --Toddy1 (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Active Controlled Territory Map

Can we please get an Active Controlled Territory map as is done with Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant? Jtf2014 (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Jtf2014

Is the neutrality of this article disputed?

• The article has a neutrality disputed tag on it, yet there is no discussion on it here. Is there consensus for removing the tag? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. This article should even not exist. It does not comply to WP:NPOV and WP:RECENTISM just to quote some of the issues. Possibly in a few weeks it won't exist anymore. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• • So when will this happen? Most of this article is outright propaganda. 46.56.104.97 (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• • • Yes most of this is unsubstantiated claims made by sketchy sources. There is a very strong POV here, especially in the Human Rights Section. This is not an encyclopedia article. Almost all of the sources cited come from the Kyiv Post, which you can see has very strong editorial opinions right on their front page. Sorry, I have no real solutions other than to make this mostly a stub until independent sources on the ground have more of a grasp of this subject, or as Silvio said -- it no longer exists. 71.209.225.107 (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

What a load of nonsense.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

DPR flag

I added the flag of DPR freedom fighters (the one that looks like American Rebel flag) because people are googling for it and come to DPR and it will be visible--184.161.146.100 (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The crown on the eagle has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

So-called "Prejudice against Ukrainians"

The "hunt against Ukrainians" claim by UNIAN is not based on any evidence. They quote Ponomarev as saying that suspicious activity including people speaking Ukrainian should be reported, which in itself does not mean "hunt against Ukrainian", because virtually all ethnic Ukrainians in Donbass speak Russian and speaking Ukrainian is regarded by some as a signal of Ukrainian nationalist sympathies rather than Ukrainian ethnicity. To my knowledge there hasn't been any reports that people actually get prosecuted in DNR for being Ukrainian. I have removed this section. 46.56.100.44 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable published sources, not the opinions of editors.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If only Kyiv Post and Unian were reliable. 217.76.2.162 (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Section totally un-encyclopedic, as its based on unreliable sources, but sadly some ultranationalist hooligans want to turn WP into some type of political biased forum...--HCPUNXKID 23:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's based on reliable sources. Don't insult other editors or call them names. Volunteer Marek  18:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources? Are you serious? You really claim that Kiev Post is a reliable source on this issue but RT isnt? That is bias on its highest level, you seemingly want to turn an encyclopaedia into a political website because of your evident political views...--HCPUNXKID 21:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Let general RS or specific RS determine usage re Alleged attack on gay club

Regarding revert of section title reverter reinserted archaic usage of term "homosexual" when virtually all mainstream media and scholarly sources use the term gay or LGBT. If he reverts my compromise re-edit I suggest that we stick with the RS. The article in question, at Kyviv Post, uses the term attack on "gay club". The reverter complained that the attack was on "people" not a "nebulous community" so I did not restore but rather tried out "LGBT attack". That is consistent with the usage of the preceding section "Sectarian attacks". If not hapy with that the default seems to be the term used by Kyviv Post itself. Have a good day. Wikidgood (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Another POV-pushing section, based only on an unreliable source, wich doesnt gives any proof of the alleged attack. Seems that lately WP is only used by some users for promoting their political views...--HCPUNXKID 23:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

LGBT attack is better. It's a reliable source. Volunteer Marek  18:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, please be fair & serious, using a pro-ukrainian & anti-russian source in order to claim things against pro-russians is clearly unreliable, would you accept for example RT, Pravda, Life news, etc... as sources for claims against Ukraine? And dont tell me its different, its the same, using a source from one of the sides of the conflict to make the other side look worst.--HCPUNXKID 21:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

False analogy. It is different. One source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, the other one a reputation for lying and misinformation. It absolutely does not matter what the "ethnicity" of the source is or even if it's government owned or not. Volunteer Marek  05:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I watched the video that is the sole source for this claim, and it is preposterous. This "news report" claims that twenty rebels went into the gay club shooting and held people at gunpoint for two hours, yet says that no one was hurt. Why is there only one source for this incident? If this really happened, it would have been the main story on Western cable news channels for days. I would say that EXCEPTIONAL clearly applies here. Is anyone other than Volunteer Marek willing to sanguinely assert that this is a reliable source? And even if it were a reliable source, which it obviously isn't, EXCEPTIONAL would still apply, so this must go.
Note that a gay club was attacked in the Ukraine this summer, but that happened in Kiev, not Donetsk:
Gay Club in Kiev Attacked By Mob of Neo-Nazis: Video

Violence against the LGBT community in Eastern Europe continued this week with an attack by a group of 15 to 20 neo-nazis against the gay club "Pomada" (Lipstick) in the Ukrainian capital city, Kiev. The melee was captured on video by a surveillance camera. …

Pink News reports far-right homophobic groups were influential in Ukraine’s recent coup, prior to which the parliament attempted to pass an anti-discrimination bill.

This is just the usual ploy of right wingers to accuse the other side of doing what they themselves are doing. – Herzen (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"This is just the usual ploy of right wingers to accuse the other side of doing what they themselves are doing." - what the hell is that even supposed to mean? There's no point in having a discussion if you're gonna say stuff like that. Volunteer Marek  01:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

My point is very simple: it is the people in power in Kiev and their goons who are homophobic, not the people of Donbas. You can disagree with that point, but why do you claim that you can't understand it? The other point I made was that attacks by rebels on gay clubs are fictional, whereas attacks on gay clubs by the people behind the regime in Kiev are real. Is this also something you can't comprehend, as opposed to disagreeing with it? Note that in the case of attacks on gays in Kiev there are Western sources, but for this alleged attack on a gay club in Donetsk there is only a Ukrainian source.

And in case you don't think that homophobia is a problem with the current regime, I guess you haven't heard that the oldest movie theater in Ukraine was burned down last month by a veteran of the so-called Anti-Terror Operation, by throwing smoke grenades into it, in order to protest a film with a LGBT theme being shown. See The arsonist of Zovten has turned out to be a radical from the paramilitary group "Revenge" (in Russian). – Herzen (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Um, when did Vesti become an RS? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: As far as I can tell, Vesti is the only Ukrainian news site which can be considered to be a RS. In any case, are you suggesting that Vesti made all that up, in the way that I claim that the source Volunteer Marek is defending made up the attack on the gay club in Donbas?

The movie theater was set afire, and two suspects have been apprehended. The question is, were they paid to commit arson by people with financial interests in the theater, or did they torch the theater because it was running a LGBT film festival? Do you know of any reports which deny what Vesti reports at the link I gave? Are you suggesting that the theater getting torched while it was showing a LGBT film was just a coincidence? Pink News doesn't seem to think so. – Herzen (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Look. You appear to be a well meaning, liberal minded kind of a person, yet you've chosen to support some jack booted neo-Nazis who go around attacking people based on their ethnicity or sexual preference (putting the murder of civilians and all that other stuff aside), simply because ... well, that's between you and your own thoughts. And now you're experiencing some cognitive dissonance, because the evidence says that maybe, just maybe, these guys aren't some kind of brave freedom fighters you've talked yourself into believing they are, but just your regular, run of the mill, mostly hired, thugs who are into doing bad things that neo-Nazi types usually do.

This cognitive dissonance of yours is not my problem (though I wish you well in curing it, constructively). Info is sourced, it's reliable, it's relevant.

What is NOT relevant is whether or not some other homophobic attacks occurred somewhere else, perpetrated by someone else. This article is on Donetsk People's Republic. Not Kiev. And - I'm not sure why obvious things have to be pointed out - there's a big difference between some idiot privately attacking a club (and getting arrested and persecuted by this evil "Kiev junta" for it) and the actual separatists militia doing the attacking. If a former veteran of the Allies from WWII goes and does something stupid, let's say, says something anti-semitic, that does not mean that the Allies in WWII were the anti-semitic side. This is pretty elementary, so again, I'm not sure why there's even a need to explain something so basic. Volunteer Marek  05:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one with the cognitive dissonance. And my main point still stands: Western sources report homophobic hate crimes in Kiev, but only Ukrainian sources report homophobic hate crimes committed by the rebels. (This is not to say that the rebels do not engage in what would be considered by Western liberals to be homophobic hate speech, calling the Ukrainians who are murdering people who are opposed to the regime "fags". But speech and physical assault are two different matters.)

To repeat, the problem here is EXCEPTIONAL. If you can't find Western sources reporting this, it has to go. A single Ukrainian source about a story which would have been the main story in Western news media for days if it were true is not enough. – Herzen (talk) 05:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Splitting off content on human rights into a sub-article

An editor has split off content to create a new article.

The split was not discussed on talk page first. As it is a major split I think it should have been.

Nor was this split done in accordance with Wikipedia policy, which says:

"The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This does not go on forever: very long articles would cause problems and should be split. A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it."

Given that the content that has been deleted from the main article is generally negative about the behaviour of the people running the Donetsk People's Republic, there are serious neutral POV concerns about the way this split was done. (Imagine if we took the article on Beria and put all or most of the bad things about Beria in a sub-article and left all the good things about him in the main article.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the split of content from Donetsk People's Republic should have been discussed first on the article talk page. This was done with other splits.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it should have been discussed. And yes, there should be a summary within this article assuming that the split-off remains. Volunteer Marek  09:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the split, as it was poorly carried out and totally crap. If we actually want to do a split, we should discuss it, decide what content to split, and what the name of the new article should be. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, we started a discussion on this page (I give this link for references). Let's wait for more opinions. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion should take place here, as the content was from this article. I should also note that that split was a copy-vio, as no attribution template was given by the splitter. RGloucester — ☎ 21:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

From a purely practical point of view, the discussion should take place here. Far more people have contributed to this article and therefore have it on their watch list.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely in agreement with the dissatisfaction with a split that was not even discussed. The section should be left here until it's established that there should even be a separate article on this. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Addition of demographics, territorial size to infobox

I've reverted AsharaDayne's addition of stats to the infobox (including territory, population estimate, etc.) as WP:POV pushing, WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. In view of the fact that it is an unrecognised state, has no infrastructure or economy and nothing to even suggest a stable population, it is inappropriate to treat it as if it were anything other than the military state (with their own militia policing the streets to maintain order) with no prospects unless it is recognised and economically aided by the RF that it actually is. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

its control areaes are stable relatively since September.AsharaDayne (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Not much to add to what Iryna said. it's POV pushing, OR, and CRYSTALballing. Sources don't support it either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Lack of diplomatic recognition is irrelevant to its de facto existence. As it exists it can and should be described on Wikipedia. There are plenty of non-recognized entities that nevertheless do exist and have both their entries and statistics.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the population estimate should be retained because it had a citation to a proper source. The figures for area and density were uncited, so I agree with deleting those. Unless a proper source gave the population density it should not be in, even if you found a source for area controlled by the Russian Army and their puppets. The currency plans were correctly deleted under WP:CRYSTAL.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree as to its use in the infobox per WP:RECENTISM and WP:OR. The sources are reflecting estimates of the number of people still living in the region and not approximating it to a realistic figure for the population of a recognised state. Facts on the ground are pointing to a hefty percentage who would leave if they had the means or weren't debilitated by age or health-related factors. I have no problem with the sources being used in the content, but not as a realistic representation of an entity acknowledged as being a "Republic" (and the WP:TITLE, after all, is "Donetsk People's Republic"). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove all of the words "Pro-Russian separatist"

Remove all of the words "Pro-Russian separatist" -- 37.215.177.7 (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I also saw your comment on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. It shows what kind of person you are.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that if I support the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republic, Russia, though I live in Belarus, I - the pro-Russian separatist? For you, the separatists are killing each other, shelled themselves, shoot down planes, support terrorist acts and still manage to create their own republic.About the downed Boeing (I admit, I think it was shot down by Ukrainians. But my opinion plays no role) There is no evidence that he was shot down Ukrainians, there is no evidence that it did Russian troops (who can not find in the Ukraine, but they know that they are there), or the inhabitants of Donetsk and Lugansk regions (Google translator now calls them all militants, I checked) Why, then, in the "free Wikipedia are pushing the blame Russia or New Russia? Why? --Pro-Russian separatist living in Belarus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.215.67.128 (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's the proof. Once there was a person, who is closer to Ukraine than (possibly) all located here, as western citizen disappeared in an unknown direction. --Pro-Russian separatist living in Belarus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.215.51.190 (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Lede

The lede is currently filled with too much POV. I suggest the following:

The Donetsk People's Republic (DPR or DNR) is a Russian nationalist rebel group based in the Donetsk oblast of Ukraine, where it controls territory. It is a self-proclaimed country, a title which is widely rejected by the international community. It receives humanitarian and military support from Russia.

--BoguSlav 23:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic POV-pushing

Since no one responded, so once again. The "Human rights" section is a mess. Pure war propaganda. (see WP:NPOV). I'm having problem with the following additions:

• WP:UNDUE -- [26], [27], [28], [29] - Anti-Semitic leaflets have been declared a hoax
• WP:RS -- [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]
• WP:COPYVIO -- [36] https://sg.news.yahoo.com/ukraine-crisis-deepens-rift-between-orthodox-churches-044052286.html
• WP:OWN -- [37]
• WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- [38], [39], [40] (blatant attempt to POV the article & double standard)

-- Tobby72 (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC) (modified 11:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC))

So... when you make an edit, that's NPOV. When someone else makes an edit, that's OWN. Nope, not how it works. This *was* discussed previously, here and there and everywhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

More generally, please be specific not just list a bunch of diffs and say "I don't like it" and tack on some Wikipedia policy which may or may not be relevant. For the copyvio, if it is a copyvio, then go ahead and remove it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I just checked the edit you claim was a "COPYVIO". It's not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• "So... when you make an edit, that's NPOV."

I don't revert good faith edits, saying "you can" or "you can't".[41]

• "More generally, please be specific..."

WP:UNDUE - Taking a few isolated incidents (alleged anti-Semitic leaflets, etc.). Using biased sources from one side of the conflict (UNIAN, Ukrinform, Kyiv Post ... All sides in the conflict are using propaganda). Creating the impression that pro-separatist eastern Ukrainians are mad brutes & anti-Semitic, homophobic sectarians.

Your recent edit removed POV dispute tag. Please see WP:TAGGING -- In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the tag because a POV tag has to be substantiated. You have not done that, just listed a bunch of edits you don't like and claimed they were violating some policy or other. They were not. A straight forward, non-disputable example is the fact that you claimed a certain edit violated COPYVIO wheras in fact it did no such thing. For the POV tag to be placed into the article you have to substantiate it and explain how the article specifically violates Wikipedia policies on neutrality. WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't cut it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And WP:TAGGING is just an essay, one person's feelings on the matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

As to the "few isolated incidents", they weren't that isolated (the fact that there was a number of them itself contradicts the claim that they were "isolated"), they weren't that few, and they received widespread coverage in reliable sources, which is why they're in the article - in fact, that's exactly what WP:NPOV requires.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tobby72 here. The current state of the article is extremely one-sided towards one POV and a lots of balancing well sourced info has been removed under often flimsy pretext.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Vague WP:IDONTLIKEIT claims don't count.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Geopolitical Organization Infobox

I am the one that implemented the Geopolitical Organization infobox which shares a documentation page with onfobox country, on the ISIL article. While the two templates are quite similar, there are some significant differences. Geopolitical Org has a lot more flexibility built in that country lacks, flexibility that works really well for a disputed entity. I believe the template was designed for supra-national entities (the sample is the EU) which is why its so flexible. Template Country basically only works well for undisputedly real countries because it requires so many things that only normal states have and uses headings that don't work in special situations. I was able to work in all the features of the of the old war faction box and the country box into a single Geopolitical org box and it has cut down on the edit warring in the box significantly. There's my two cents from an editor that's not been involved here. Legacypac (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

What differences? Where is there a different documentation page? Template:Infobox geopolitical organization just redirects to Template:Infobox country. Dustin (talk)

The documentation for both versions of the template is on the same page; if you study the documentation page, you will see that the templates are not the same. Both templates have commonality of source code.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"Geopolitical" implies some kind of supra-national entity, whereas the DPR is more a local phenomenon. --Nug (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The template is indeed used for Supra-national entities like African Union but it is very flexible because such entities are not countries but act like countries in various ways yet are very diverse in structure and purpose. Most importantly it is not as constricting as the country template. There is no specific template for a rebel group/breakaway region/country wannabe/wanta join another country/who knows what to call it. So geopolitical organization is a pretty good fit. Legacypac (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

After sifting through a number of articles dealing with parallel localised and unrecognised states, I'm finding myself leaning towards the geopolitical organization template. Yes, it does differ as to parameters: for example, 'Capital' is substituted by 'Administrative centre'. They're not groundbreaking in their differences, but feature enough qualifications to change the complexion of the overall presentation of unrecognised breakaway regions in an 'in this world' manner.

Alternatively, I found one that actually featured "Unrecognised state" directly underneath the name of the state/region. I wish I'd bookmarked it as I can't seem to find it again. It would satisfy the qualification of its status using either infobox template, and would simply require a link to List of states with limited recognition. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I have no objections to either of your helpful suggestions. I appreciate your having taken the time to explore this issue, but I still think quarreling about this is a waste of time. Incidentally, yesterday I ran across some very interesting material about why Russia has not recognized the DPR and LPR. I may give you links to that later on your Talk page. That material has probably swayed me to be less insistent about using the "country" template here. – Herzen (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Lucian Kim quote

How Lucian Kim from Slate relates to the article? How exactly Maidan is being copied in the Eastern Ukraine? I do not see any similarities. Who is Mr.Kim to make such analogies? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Lucian Kim is some corporate journalist who publishes with what the wikipedia would consider "reliable" sources, such as the nytimes, newsweek, etc. And in fact he did not make any such analogy; it would be nearly inconceivable for him to depart from the party line in such a way. Others have made that analogy, including Pat Buchanan, and certainly people living in the DPR. However all Kim did was, in a moment of weakness i guess, quote that analogy. And while it would be impermissible ("primary" research) for a wikipedia editor to directly pose the question, surely it is permissible to report on a "reliable" source making the quote. After all, it is a sort of obvious question. Son of eugene (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, the "Background" section is poorly written using WP:UNDUE sourcing and needs a more succinct, 'in this world' summary. As it currently stands, it reads as "well, the Maidan guys started it, so this was all about doing the same from the pro-Russian side" which is simplistic WP:SYNTH. It needs a complete overhaul in terms of actually presenting the background per reliable sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Donetsk People's Republic be merged into Novorossiya (confederation). I think that the content in this article can easily be explained in the context of Novorossiya (confederation). The DPR is a subentity of the Novorossiyan "confederation". Fakirbakir (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – We don't know that either the LPR or DPR are "sub-entities" of New Russia. They are still described as being independent entities. If anything, the New Russia article should be merged. Personally, I'd support blowing up the LPR, DPR, and New Russia articles, as they are not serving any real purpose other than as coatracks. RGloucester — ☎ 16:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

We do know. The separatists declared it. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can declare anything, but that has no affect on reality unless it is put into practice. What's more, "the separatists" do not agree as to whether they've declared it or not, and even proponents of the Novorossiya idea say that it does not exist in practice. RGloucester — ☎ 01:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – Donetsk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic do seem to at least look like states; "Novorossiya" looks like an idea that never was put into practise... Besides international media do not thread Donetsk People's Republic as a part of "Novorossiya" and Texas also has its own Wikipedia article while in fact it is a subentity of the USA (unlike "Novorossiya" the USA actually functions and (on paper) Texas has less autonomy from the USA then Donetsk People's Republic from "Novorossiya"...) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – per the last two opposers reasons. Novorossiya (confederation) needs to be renamed, not have more OR inserted. Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The DPR is notable enough for a stand alone article here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The Novorossiya confederation appears to be a fairy tale. Unfortunately the Donetsk People's Republic exists on the ground.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Why do we need three separate articles on the same topic? Fakirbakir (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Donetsk and Lugansk are different places, with different terrorists in charge. However I do not mind if you propose the deletion of the Novorossiya (confederation) article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Please stop the childish, pugnacious, and disruptive name calling. It does not help build an encyclopedia. – Herzen (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Yulia Romero and the points I've raised regarding such a merger on the Novorossiya talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Legal successor" of Donetsk-Krivoy Rog republic

Not sure where this would fit in the article, but pro-separatist media is reporting that the DPR apparently proclaimed itself the legal successor to the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Republic earlier today. (See here) Might be worth a note somewhere? (Note, I am aware that this does not make it the legal successor.) --Nizolan (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Please can we wait until third-party sources cover it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Already has been. --Nizolan (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC) — Being reported in English as well now. --Nizolan (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

How many infoboxes the article should have, and which one should it be

There are currently two rival infoboxes.

• Антон патріот's addition of a second infobox

Why do we need two? I do not mind which one the article has, but please can we have only one. Opinions please.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't need any opinions. Per WP:BRD, the stable version should be maintained unless consensus develops otherwise. That stable version has one infobox, and that infobox has much more information than the one used by this editor, which is inappropriate anyway. We certainly cannot have two. RGloucester — ☎ 20:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The editor who was making an issue out of this has been transiently blocked. I take it that there is a consensus that there should only be one infobox, and that it should be the "infobox country" one. – Herzen (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with being only one infobox - but in my opinion the so-called war faction infobox is more appropriate than the country infobox.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The "war faction" box is used for brigades and the like. An example of the appropriate use of that box is for Donbass People's Militia. This article is about a self-proclaimed state that has nothing to do with the war, directly. In fact, it was proclaimed before the war began. RGloucester — ☎ 17:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the example in Template:Infobox war faction it would seem an analogous case.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a "war faction". It is a self-proclaimed state. It existed prior to the war, and claims a state structure including a legislature, executive, and judiciary. "War factions" are military formations, and this isn't one. Such "war factions" would be the Donbass People's Militia, and the like. RGloucester — ☎ 19:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the template documentation for Infobox war faction? The example it gives is the Islamic Courts Union, a faction in Somalia - this is not a military formation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

DPR is not a "faction". It is a self-proclaimed state. Whatever that is, it isn't as self-proclaimed state. RGloucester — ☎ 21:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

DPR is NOT a country

The only thing DPR has in common with a country, is its name. The current infobox is complete WP:POV. In the beginnings of the conflict, there were more than 3 organizations calling themselves DPR. The original leaders of DPR were Russian citizens, whose sole purpose was to break the oblast away from Ukraine. This only changed in the past few months following criticism from the UNSC, and elections were staged by Russia. A military faction is a much better description of this organization.--BoguSlav 18:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't a state. However, it claims to be a state, and has established features of the state, including a legislature, council of ministers, &c. "War faction" makes absolutely no sense. "War faction" refers to the militant groups fighting in a war. This is a self-proclaimed state entity, with a "government" &c. Whether we view those structures as legitimate or not is another question, but that doesn't change the fact that the infobox for states is more appropriate, given that this is a state structure, not a military structure. RGloucester — ☎ 20:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester - You have not read the template documentation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, this article isn't about a "faction participating in a war", but about a self-proclaimed state structure that was proclaimed prior to the start of the war. RGloucester — ☎ 20:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was different under Strelkov. He actually said that since the DPR is a war zone, the military should serve the functions of both the police and the criminal justice system. It's fairly clear that one of the reasons he was removed was to start the process of giving the trappings of a state to the DPR. Nevertheless Strelkov himself complained that nothing was done in that direction while he was in Slaviansk due to the intrigues of Rinat Akhmetov. (Sorry for the OR. Just giving a little background.) – Herzen (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Well done Renat!.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester, DPR does not have a government. Their "governing" started when they physically took over the local administration building and declared themselves city councilmen/women, and continued to fight each other for these positions. They have no practical control or governance over the territory, other than armed gunmen who keep the local population under submission. Their "ministers" have no practical role in the lives of "their" population (other than perhaps the "defence minister", even though I doubt he does anything practical, other than take commands from Moscow). After the "referendum", multiple groups claimed to be the actual DPR and proceeded to fight each other. The original leaders were all Russian citizens, including Strelkov (a KGB agent [42]), so this "government" did not represent the people in any way. DPR has a government in name only.--BoguSlav 22:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of all that. However, they do have a "government". Whether it functions or not, or is legitimate or not, is another story, but the point is that this is a claimed state structure. Any infobox other than the "state" infobox will not provide the appropriate links, such as those to the various government positions. RGloucester — ☎ 22:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIS also has "a claimed state structure", but I don't see anyone using the "country" infobox there, because that would be POV. The country infobox is unacceptable for this article too. Many other organizations have ministers and other governing bodies and are not countries. Additionally, this "government" is of no practical consequence, and therefore, it does not warrant special attention, like have an infobox dedicated to it. It has no way of enforcing its official language, nor does it have a currency. Additionally, who cares what side of the street they drive on? There is no tragedy if this "vital information" doesn't get promoted in an infobox by Wikipedia. If you don't like the idea of a "war faction" infobox, we can compromise on Template:Infobox criminal organization, which is much more suitable.--BoguSlav 22:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A "criminal organisation" box is not suitable. Our article on ISIL does use the country infobox, though it is coded via a redirect: Template:Infobox geopolitical organization. RGloucester — ☎ 23:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox geopolitical organization is certainly better than infobox country.--BoguSlav 02:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It is the exact same template. Template:Infobox geopolitical organization redirects to infobox country. RGloucester — ☎ 02:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case, there should be no objections if the infobox is changed to this one.--BoguSlav 02:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a change. The "geopolitical organisation" one is just a redirect to the country infobox. RGloucester — ☎ 02:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds a lot more NPOV. "Infobox country" is a tacit admission that DPR is, in fact, a country.--BoguSlav 02:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It is a god-damned template code, nothing more. Readers don't even see it. This is pure madness. RGloucester — ☎ 03:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You just said "It is the exact same template". Other users see this a tacit admission that DPR is a country, and they DO see the code. Why would you object to a minor, aesthetic change (in your view), unless you had other reasons for this?--BoguSlav 03:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That's because it is always preferential to use a direct link, rather than a redirect. Whether you see it as a "tacit admission" of anything is absolutely irrelevant (and it clearly isn't). RGloucester — ☎ 03:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop wasting editors' time by bringing the Ukrainian civil war into Wikipedia. This is some of the most sustained stubborn silliness I have ever seen here. – Herzen (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, you are exhibiting "stubborn silliness" to remove POV from the infobox. There are many alternatives, and, by RGloucester's own admission, he doesn't have a problem with it on the grounds of practicality (he says its the same thing). Yet, this "stubborn silliness" persists.--BoguSlav 18:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the body in the political sense, and it makes more sense than the other infoboxes. War faction is most certainly not a suitable alternative. Dustin (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Summary of consensus

Please feel free to amend the following table: to add your name, or to move your name if I have misinterpreted your preference.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

For having two infoboxes	For having one infobox	For using Infobox country	For using Infobox geopolitical organization	For using Infobox war faction	For using Infobox Criminal organization
User:Антон патріот	User:Herzen User:RGloucester User:Toddy1 User:Boguslavmandzyuk User:Dustin V. S. User:Volunteer Marek User:Nug User:Iryna Harpy User:Aleksandr Grigoryev	User:Herzen User:RGloucester User:Dustin V. S. User:Iryna Harpy User:Fakirbakir	User:Boguslavmandzyuk User:Toddy1 User:Aleksandr Grigoryev	User:Антон патріот User:Toddy1 User:Boguslavmandzyuk User:Volunteer Marek User:Nug User:Aleksandr Grigoryev	User:Boguslavmandzyuk

@Toddy1: Thank you for putting the work into creating that table. But I am going to be blunt and suggest that the reason that this has been turned into an issue is that there is a civil war going on in Ukraine (this is just common sense, and I can say this in Talk even though the consensus is not to say this in articles), not that the editors who keep on arguing with RGloucester about this are trying to build an encyclopedia. RGloucester usually takes reasonable positions – the main exception being his highly emotional, dogmatic, and uninformed anti-Russia stance – so I am willing to trust him on this template issue without even looking at the templates myself. I have followed the argumentation here, and I believe his arguments are sound. I agree with everyone that the DPR is not a real state: that is plain to everyone. But that does not mean that the "country" template/infobox is not the natural one to use here.

But the main point I want to make is that this discussion is a huge waste of time. Constant bickering among editors gives them less time to add well written and well sourced content to articles. The editing of Wikipedia should not be politicized. – Herzen (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason the discussion was started was to be consistent with Wikipedia policy: "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page". By following policy, good editors can avoid being blocked, unlike editors who refuse to edit collaboratively.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Get rid of that table. Anyway, I'll state again that "Template:Infobox geopolitical organization" does not exist. It is just a REDIRECT to the country template. RGloucester — ☎ 14:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I will say that the table is quite unnecessary as !votes make it seem like majority rule dominates, when the rule of Wikipedia is actually to establish a consensus where those who provide reasonable justification for !votes are given additional consideration. Dustin (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it summarizes information. For example, it's clear from the table that consensus is for one infobox only.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

User:RGloucester and Herzen, the infobox "country" is NOT APPROPRIATE. You are not WP:OWNers of this article, and no it is not up to you to decide who is WP:HERE and who "usually takes reasonable positions" OR who is to be "trusted". At this point, all you have is WP:ILIKEIT. Everyone has agreed that that DPR is NOT a country. Yet, you insist to continue using "infobox country". There is NO WP:Consensus here to use "infobox country". Consensus means you DISCUSS the specific reasons why something works better than something else. Yet, you have objected with blanket statements of "not suitable", with no explanations or reasoning why, when I presented alternatives of Template:Infobox criminal organization, which works better than infobox country because DPR matches a criminal organization structure much more than a country. "Ukrainian Civil War" is a WP:POV, as we all know that Russia is supplies both the weapons and the manpower to fight the Ukrainian war (doesn't sound very intra-Ukrainian to me). "Infobox country" WILL NOT WORK because DPR is NOT a country. Plain and simple.--BoguSlav 17:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you even care if the template just did not have the word "country" in the name? Dustin (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You have clearly not kept up with the discussion. Why would you care if the word "country" is NOT in the name?--BoguSlav 18:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You are clearly the one who doesn't understand. My very point is that I do not care, and there is no reason for other people to care either. Dustin (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If you don't care, you are more than welcome to subtract yourself from the conversation.--BoguSlav 22:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I would quite willingly switch to {{Infobox geopolitical organization}}, which is quite obviously just a redirect to {{Infobox country}}, if it would just help to quell this pointless argument. Dustin (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Because DPR is NOT a country. An entity must satisfy certain requirements to be considered a "country". The only one of these that DPR satisfies is its name. It is a WAR FACTION. The sole purpose of DPR is to fight the Ukrainian government. Alternatively, it is a CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION {{Infobox Criminal Organization}}, as there have been countless reports of looting and human rights abuses by them. The most accurate description would be "rebel group", but unfortunately, there is no such infobox available.--BoguSlav 17:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine is every bit as much a "WAR FACTION" as the DPR is. Ukraine is the war faction that came into existence as part of the United States project to dismantle Russia. Evidently, the word "geopolitics" doesn't mean anything to you. – Herzen (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

"War faction" and "Country" are not mutually exclusive. Ukraine is both. DPR is only the former.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's an obvious compromise. This silliness has gotten totally out of hand. – Herzen (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Editing becomes difficult when some editors do not make a minimal effort to grasp what other editors write. I never said that DPR is not a country. What I wrote was that DPR is not a "real state". DPR is part of Novorossiya, which is just as much, if not more, a country as Ukraine is. The state called Ukraine is an utterly artificial construct which produces instability and tension in Europe so grave it may lead to the obliteration of the planet, whereas Novorossiya is a region with a long history as part of Russia. – Herzen (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

"The state called Ukraine is an utterly artificial construct" - I'm sorry but you're being ridiculous and your POV is showing. A link to some dude's blog is not even close, not even remotely close, (and I've asked you before to stop doing that - you know these are not RS, who knows what kinds of websites these are, so why link to them?) to establishing that "Ukraine is an utterly remotely construct". United Nations, the international community, WTO, WHO, scores of other international organizations, as well as every damn country which has an embassy in Kyiv would beg to disagree.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at this, I can see only one reasonable alternative to "Infobox Country", and that is Template:Infobox organization. I personally would argue to exclude all infoboxes from this page, because the subject is highly controversial, and all boxes tend to oversimplify things. For example, DRN was not recognized as a country by international community; it has no permanent borders, etc., so using Infobox Country is indeed disputable My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Lots of countries don't have permanent borders. I'm not going to give any examples, because this discussion is very silly. The subject of Ukraine is "highly controversial", yet Ukraine gets to have a country infobox. By your logic, it shouldn't have one. Being vehemently for the "territorial integrity" of Ukraine but vehemently against the independence of the DPR and the LPR is incoherent, because Ukraine's breaking away from the USSR is exactly equivalent to the DPR and LPR's breaking away from Ukraine. This is one reason why this discussion is silly. – Herzen (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

" Ukraine's breaking away from the USSR is exactly equivalent to the DPR and LPR's breaking away from Ukraine" - no, no it's not. First, this is more unsubstantiated original research. Second, this is too absurd original research. USSR/Russia recognized Ukrainian independence. So did United Nations and the international community. So did all the countries that established diplomatic ties with Ukraine. Oh, and Russia/USSR did not fight a war over Ukrainian independence. Ukraine does not recognize DPR/LPR. Neither does the United Nations and neither does the international community. No country has established diplomatic ties with Ukraine. Nobody recognizes DPR/LPR except Dugin's dog. Etc. Why does this need to be spelled out? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Note to Herzen. Ukraine is one of founders of the United Nations. The modern Ukraine existed in 1917-1920 before was overran by the Russia. People who live in the East Ukraine as well as the southern Russia predominantly spoke Ukrainian language which was depicted by the 1897 Russian Census. The Russian traveler Miklukha-Maklay in his interview to one of newspapers (The Argus) stated that he is of Ukrainian origin and that Ukraine was annexed by Russia in the 18th century. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ignore the fact that the infobox is a template at all, and please tell me what actual problem there is. People seem to be getting onto this just because the word "country" is in the name of the template. Dustin (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Dustin (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That the word "country" is in the template is particularly objectionable. The template also has some features that are not applicable here - but we deleted responses to the inappropriate features of the template by consensus.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Using infobox "Country" supports an assertion that DPR is indeed a country. However, this is something disputable, at best. Therefore, using such infobox goes against WP:NPOV by enforcing certain questionable POV for this entire page. This infobox must be removed per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop the IDONTHEAR. As I pointed out in so many words, it is disputable whether Ukraine is a country. Advocating double standards as you do violate NPOV by definition. – Herzen (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:consensus, DPR was not included even in the List of states with limited recognition. Ukraine is a fully recognized state. My very best wishes (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Being recognized by other states is only one trait of a state. Ukraine will default unless it gets massive economic assistance from the IMF, the US, the EU, and/or Russia. The IMF shows signs of having given up on Ukraine. Also, Ukraine is in the midst of a civil war, with the areas it controls changing from day to day. The central government is in danger of being toppled by a new Maidan. Schools are temporarily shut down and temporary power blackouts are imposed because Ukraine cannot meet its energy needs. (There was recently a demonstration in front of the Rada demanding that power to the Rada gets shut off when power to other parts of Kiev gets shut off. The central government is making savage cuts to social spending and public sector employment while trying to build up a massive army and build a ridiculously expensive wall between Ukraine and Russia. The Ukrainian public is evidently beginning to doubt that the Maidan coup was a good thing, which has prompted the regime to create a ministry of propaganda information policy, the only one in Europe, Thus, Ukraine shows every sign of being a failed state, which means it is no more a country than Novorossiya is. If it would constitute engage in crystal balling, I would suggest that Novorossiya has more potential than the rump Ukraine does. – Herzen (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Defaulting on debt does not make a country cease to be a country (it happens quite a lot actually). Likewise, experiencing a civil war or social unrest does not make a country cease to be a country. To state that "it is disputable whether Ukraine is a country" is ... to put it politely, "absurd".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

And oh yeah, it's also original research. Very very absurd original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If a former ambassador to the USSR writes, "The fact is, Ukraine is a state but not yet a nation", then the idea that Ukraine "is no more a country then Novorossiya is" is not "very absurd". To continue that quote:

In the 22-plus years of its independence, [Ukraine] has not yet found a leader who can unite its citizens in a shared concept of Ukrainian identity. Yes, Russia has interfered, but it is not Russian interference that has created Ukrainian disunity but rather the haphazard way the country was assembled from parts that were not always mutually compatible.

Ukraine's leaders were not able to create a national identity for it; that's why the country broke apart. (This does not mean that Russia is not engaging in a futile effort to keep it together.) That, together with what I wrote in my previous comment, means that it is carrying on as if Ukraine is a normal country that is absurd. And all of this quibbling about what infobox the DNR should have is just a symptom of denial of that fact. With the February coup, Ukraine as a state became a failed project (which was started by the Polish Empire, incidentally). The civil war is just one aspect of that. – Herzen (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

What you said is "Ukraine is no more a country then Novorossiya" (sic). That *is* absurd. "Nation" and "country" are not synonymous. Please stop making ridiculous statements (never mind the nonsense about the "Polish Empire").Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, not only is your "unable to create a national identity" an absurd WP:OR argument (pray tell, what is the "Russian national identity" and how does it apply to the majority of the Eurasian 'country' called Russia), it is equally WP:OR to promote Ukraine as a 'failed state' (aside from its being WP:CRYSTAL). The Solomon Islands are, to all intents and purposes, a genuinely failed state which has been taken over by the Australian government. Without going into the geopolitical and economic details regarding why various nation-states, such as Australia, are rubbing their front legs gleefully over the 'failed state' declaration, the region is still understood to be a sovereign state. For all of your wishful thinking about what 'failed state' actually means in legal terms, this would be a fine opportunity for multinationals to well and truly entrench themselves as the new economic backbone of Ukraine: and it would still be internationally recognised as a sovereign state known as "Ukraine" (see VM's comment "Defaulting on debt does not make a country cease to be a country (it happens quite a lot actually)." I suspect you need to brush up a little on your knowledge of international law and the global economic system rather than dwell on your personal interpretations. Please stick to commenting on what goes on 'in the real world'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: My remark that Ukraine has been "unable to create a national identity" was not based on OR but on a blog post I linked to by a US ambassador to the Soviet Union. If the US government saw him fit to be an ambassador to the rival superpower, I think we can take him to be a reliable primary source. And please note that I do not try to put observations like that into articles about Ukraine, whereas the Ukrainian nationalists here (what can putting a Ukrainian flag on your user page signify other than that you are a nationalist?) constantly smear the people of Donbass in the Novorossiya articles, and get away with that. – Herzen (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: In which case, knowing as you do that we're dealing with highly contentious subject matter, you should have indicated the blog and made it clear exactly what you were 'quoting' or 'paraphrasing', not presenting it as fact from your own POV. Nevertheless, a blog by a single US ambassador does not make for a reliable primary source but an op-ed. It is also the reason that WP:PRIMARY is avoided like the plague unless there are too few secondary sources providing scholarly interpretations for us to draw on (such as the Primary Chronicle).

Added to that, you are assuming bad faith by commenting on users rather than the content they are trying to develop for articles. You know that to be bad practice and that casting WP:ASPERSIONS regarding other users works against you. Everyone involved in this discussion is a good editor who works with integrity in not allowing their POV to impinge on their contribution to the project... and we all have a POV. Trying to resolve issues pertaining to the presentation of content is where we work extremely hard to do the right thing, even if it is despite our own inclinations.

Furthermore, as a parallel, George Dubya made many statements on public record such as his observation about Hussein having, "... tried to kill my daddy." Does that count as a reliable primary source, or merely an indicator that he had other people 'join the dots' and then used them as pictures to colour in (except that he couldn't even colour inside the lines). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• 'Infobox war faction' is most applicable, 'Infobox country' is really intended for countries as defined by international law and I don't think DPR is there yet, and Wikipedia isn't a WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Nug (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• I do have a strong opinion as to the use of two infoboxes: it's UNDUE and devised to be leading the reader into pushing a POV. Given that we are an encyclopaedic resource, I would understand it to be an attempt at having your cake and eating it, too. I wouldn't have any strong opinion regarding regarding the use of the 'country' or 'political organization' template per se, considering the 'PO' is merely a derivative of the 'country' documentation, except for the intent behind it. The only option would be to create a separate template for unrecognised/partially recognised states per List of states with limited recognition. Not only would this be WP:OR, but would set a precedent for chaotic POV changes across the political spectrum of articles on contemporary nation-states. Be careful of what you wish for because it will come back to bite you. More to the point, it will compromise the entire project.
  P.S. this is not a !vote and, most importantly, is outside of the realm of local consensus for this article = WP:PGLIST. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This is NOT the only other option. We could use a variety of other infoboxes. I thank that {{Infobox Criminal organization}} works best. Another great option is {{Infobox War Faction}}. Way to misrepresent the other options!
As for "this is not a !vote". Consensus means "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned" [43]. How else to determine what "most of those concerned" without a survey? This seems to me, like a way to argue for your voice to considered more than someone else's.--BoguSlav 00:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Something like infobox on page Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant would be appropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• There is also {{Infobox militant organization}}, perhaps that would be more suitable. The DPR doesn't really aspire to be an independent country, the "DPR" is just a fig leaf for an organisation of Russian nationalist militants who have the goal of unifying the region with Russia. --Nug (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

For everyone who thinks that the DPR is not a terrorist organization suggest to travel to Donetsk with American or British flag. Then be tortured in the basement. Can even stay alive. Although unlikely. --Антон патріот (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this section actually still relevant any more? I'm happy for anyone to correct me but, as the discussion developed, it became fairly evident that the issue at the heart of this is being discussed in the section below. The particular infobox template is less the issue than that of the representation of recognition of the region. Expanding on the qualifiers at issue below would be greatly appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as our friend keeps edit-warring, this section retains its relevance. It is a pity really, since he could make useful contributions to Wikipedia if only he would stop edit warring to have 2 infoboxes. (See WP:AN3R report of 16 Jan)-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've noted that he's started again, Toddy1. Well, he did leave a message on his talk page that he'd be back after his block had expired with no suggestion of an intent to stop the BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Personally, I feel that it's a pity that he's opted to remain emotionally entrenched in the content (although I do comprehend that he has good reason to do so). He isn't doing anyone any favours, least of all himself. Consensus is with one infobox. The only remaining issue is the choice of infobox and presentation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

DPR is a de facto independent state. It is self-proclaimed, unrecognised by other countries, however has control over territories. Ukraine is only the de jure authority. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:I noticed that you have undone several times the deletion of the "rejected by the international community" phrase that seems redundant to me, especially in the context of the whole sentence, which clearly says that DNR is a self-proclaimed state, i.e. no other state or entity (except for South Ossetia) recognizes it as such. Can we agree on the definition of "self-proclaimed"?Randomiopl (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Randomiopl: I don't know where consensus stands at the moment, although I'm still fairly certain that it remains as "rejected by the international community". There's so much traffic coming through all of the surrounding articles that more time is being spent on the WP:RSN, the WP:ANI and on edit warring. I can't speak on behalf of the Wikipedia community when this has been the consensus version for some time. Please feel free to ping me again in a couple of days when I've gotten out from under problems with content on other articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There are American and British nationals fighting in DPR. Surely their flags wouldn't be well received there, but they wouldn't in a lot of places, anyway. And I bet waving DPR's or even Russian flag wouldn't end well in Kiev, whose army is now allowed to shoot deserters, who are fleeing to Russia anyway. Not defending DPR though, just saying both sides violate Geneva Conventions and human rights. The illegitimacy of DPR lies on other grounds, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.5.65.217 (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This article, how its described

That is not a country at all, and the article attempts to paint a picture like it is legitimate. It is a puppet state at best. What a travesty. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 03:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have specific problems with the article, feel free to either edit them or flag them up explicitly for discussion. Otherwise, this is just a meaningless assertion. —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sidelight12. A quick - and not only - example is the "History" section. History of what? Is there a single reliable source written on the "History of the Donetsk People's Republic"? No. The whole section is WP:SYNGTHESIS and ORIGINAL RESEARCH constructed to mimic articles on actual countries.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Nizolan, in your first sentence, you made a good point. I'm in over my head. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 05:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Sorry if I came off as brusque. —Nizolan ^(talk) 06:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You didn't. It was also valid. I'm the one who came across as brusque, and looking back, I didn't want to do that. The article doesn't seem to have the proper title, and I don't believe it to be a country. It's more of a movement and/or an incursion for an attempted puppet state. My original criticism which I didn't fully explain, was how the article was painted, as if it were a real republic; describing it as a movement seems more accurate. For now, I don't have any ideas. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 07:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The idea that merely having a section titled "History" is an example of legitimation, per the original comment, is obvious nonsense—the ISIL article having a "History" section does not make it a legitimate country any more than fascism having a "History" section grants it legitimacy as an ideology.

If the claim is, instead, that we cannot write about the "history of the Donetsk People's Republic" without there being sources specifically titled as such, then that seems very wrong-headed to me as well. By definition, the past development of the organisation constitutes its history. That is, by any reasonable standard, a common-sense claim that does not require a source to prove. There are plenty of reliable sources that deal with the history of the DPR—there is at least one published book, in fact, that deals in part with it (Richard Sakwa's very recent Frontline Ukraine).

I would also add that the History section of this article is in fact rather different from most countries' history sections. It begins with the foundation of the DPR organisation in 2014, and does not conduct a narrative of the entire history of the Donetsk region with the DPR as its teleological end point, like most articles on countries—something which would have given legitimacy to the DPR as a country. The History section would rather seem to be a counterexample to what you're claiming, if anything.

My response stands, then. WP:SYNTHESIS is the "combin[ation of] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". What is the conclusion you are claiming is being reached? OR, more generally, refers to "facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". What are the facts, allegations and ideas for which you claim no source exists? —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You're pushing the boundaries of playing at semantics in order to give credibility to an unrecognised state as being recognised, Nizolan. Using rhetorical devices to argue a very WP:POINTy point is gaming the system. Make no mistake that trying to bluff your way around the reality of its lack of statehood is WP:TE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC) [EDIT] Repeating my apologies to Nizolan per New Russia Party apology here. Bad form on my behalf. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, where exactly have I done any of those things? If you have a problem with what I said then demonstrate why it's wrong instead of automatically assuming bad faith. —Nizolan ^(talk) 08:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think there are two problems with your suggestions: (a) this is not a country and should not be described as such (mostly agree about this with Molobo below), and (b) Sakwa is a highly biased source about this. My very best wishes (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not a country at all, and the article attempts to paint a picture like it is legitimate. Sources, even politically engaged ones, do name it as unrecognized state.A state doesn't need international recognition to exist de facto, even if de jure it is not treated as full fledged entity in international relations.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Name change suggestion

Proposing name change to "Donetsk separatist movement" or something similar. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 16:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The current title is unacceptable. Does anyone have any input on a name change? In order to make this accurate, it needs a name change to anchor the article. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 19:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There is even far less consensus for the title to stay with the name "People's Republic". The title is a fundamental problem for this article. Even more absurd is the current title "Donetsk People's Republic". Directly above, there are 4 editors apart from myself, who say it is NOT a country. Even further up, there is at least one other editor who writes the same. So this is 5 or more recent editors who agree that it is not a country. The current title is a misnomer, absurd, the inappropriate title, and a title only used by very few sources who falsely try to legitimize it as a country by calling it a republic. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 20:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what a "country" is. That's irrelevant to the question of the title of the article, anyway, as article titles are determined by our article titles policy, which dictates that we use common names. The present title is the common name, and in no way grants the thing described legitimacy. RGloucester — ☎ 20:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"Donetsk People's Republic" is not a common name. It is a name agreed only held by Russian sources, not by numerous more and reliable sources. "Donetsk People's Republic" doesn't even fit in those guidelines. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 21:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense and rubbish. The Daily Mail is a "Russian source"? The Guardian? The BBC? The New York Times? This is the only name this organisation has, and is the only name used to refer to it. We don't invent names out of thin air, we use the names that are commonly found in RS. Likewise, we describe the organisation in the prose in the manner done by RS. RGloucester — ☎ 21:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict]. "Donetsk People's Republic" is the name the terrorist organisation is commonly known by in the English language. You can find the name used by the BBC, the Financial Times, the Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, and the Daily Mail. It is also used in non-English publications that are written in the English language such as the Washington Times, and Kyiv Post. The name passes WP:Common Name.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Toddy1. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 22:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV -- there isn't any

I see arguments above about neutrality. I can't see any. And I can tell you why -- all the sources are exclusively western media, chiefly USA ans UK, and some Ukrainian. All these are openly anti-Russia and therefore anti-separatist. There are plenty of Russian sources available in English, if you truly intend to create a balanced article.

To say "Russian news is all propaganda" is not valid -- so is the western news to an identical extent. There are two (or more) sides in a civil war and neither side is totally truthful, for obvious reasons. But anyone claiming to be writing a NEUTRAL article is taking sides if they just use sources from one side only.

Also there are numerous references sourced to KyivPost which is subscription only and otherwise shows only 1 paragraph. This is a phony sourcing, looks like a source but not verifiable. Other sources are in Ukrainian or Russian, again not verifiable to an English speaking reader...and this IS the English Wikipedia.

The entire article seems to be trading on Wikipedia's good name as a reliable source, to provide seriously anti-separatist propaganda, eg a whole section of alleged human rights violations performed by unidentified groups with no clear links to the DPR as an entity. At last count there were more than 50 armed groups in the area, many of them privately funded nationalist militants fighting on the government side eg Donbass, Azov, Right Sector, Aidar etc.

Clean up this article to be neutral or remove it altogether. KoolerStill (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there a WP:YAWN? Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be available for free for their claims to be verifiable. Apart from that, gather your sources and make the changes you want to see. Rhoark (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be "neutral" in order to be used. For example, Russian sources are probably perfectly reliable for what the Russian view is. Wikipedia shouldn't take a side in a controversial issue, rather we should describe the arguments and identify who makes them. Here the situation does seem to be that Russia has one view and almost everyone else has another view. That's what we should say, and describe both views. That way, readers will be on the map as to who thinks what and what views are most widely held. Views should also be presented in proportion to their prevalence in sources. In this case, that means not giving Russia's views as much space as everyone else's views. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

"almost everyone else has another view" .... In fact this statement is not entirely true:

China shows understanding for Russia -- "For an observer of Russian politics, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish the Chinese narrative of the events in Ukraine from the official Russian narrative. The similarities are striking."

India's Reaction to the Situation in Ukraine: Looking Beyond a Phrase -- "When official Indian reaction emerged, analysis focused almost entirely on the comments of India’s national security advisor, specifically his observation that “legitimate Russian interests” were involved."

BRICS neutrality on Ukraine a diplomatic win for Putin -- "The summit statement will make only a passing reference to Ukraine and will echo the neutral stance adopted by Russia's fellow BRICS countries - China, India, Brazil and South Africa - at the United Nations, according to Brazilian diplomats organizing Tuesday's meeting in Fortaleza."

Turkey waiting for Russia, West on Ukraine problem -- "Turkey’s policy vis-à-vis the crisis in Ukraine is a balancing act that has enabled the country to avoid taking sides, according to an expert."

Ukraine crisis could strengthen Russia-Iran-China ties - Tobby72 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Israel’s silence on Ukraine puts country at odds with US -- "Some Israeli commentators have gone so far as to speculate that deeper, atavistic memories of some Ukrainians’ collaboration with the Nazis in the second world war might be animating Israeli policy in Russia’s favour." -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Those citations are a bit out of scope here, but might be found helpful at War in Donbass Rhoark (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have restored a citation to [44] which was inappropriately removed for the sake of "neutrality". Neutrality should be pursued by adding reliable sources, not removing them. However, edit-warring over the claim this piece was cited for had caused the claim to diverge from what was in the source. I have attached it to a more conservative claim in the "Military" section. Rhoark (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@KoolerStill: @Rhoark: @Libertarianism8: Please read the WP:NPOV policy carefully and don't confuse 'neutrality' with WP:GEVAL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The policy you cite is entirely valid in itself, but in dealing with an unfolding situation in the fog of war, and emotionally involved editors, we should be supremely cautious in making a determination that a certain point of view is not due any coverage. Rhoark (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

From the above, I have no idea what is supposed to be "not neutral" about the article, except apparently that "western sources" are used in the article and that this constitutes "propaganda". Like I said above: yawn. We use reliable sources, according to the criteria laid out at WP:RS. If you don't like the criteria, then Wikipedia isn't a place for you. There's plenty of forums on the internet where you'll be welcome. But you cannot add a neutrality tag to an article because you think that reliable sources are "propaganda".

Also, half the discussion above is not even coherent. Anyway... Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Almost half of the Wikipedia 'Donetsk People's Republic' article is devoted to the "Human rights" and "excesses of the rebels". Apparently WP:UNDUE & WP:BITR.

Examples of human rights violations in DPR:

The excesses of the rebels .... Antisemitic flyer 'by Donetsk People's Republic' in Ukraine a hoax (whole section "Allegations of anti-semitism")

The excesses of the pro-Kiev Aidar, Donbass and Dnipro-1 battalions .... Eastern Ukraine: Humanitarian disaster looms as food aid blocked (not mentioned in the article)

For comparison, below are a few examples of Wikipedia articles about self-declared states with limited/no recognition:

Somaliland, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Transnistria, State of Palestine, Republic of Serbian Krajina, Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, Biafra, Confederate States of America, Republic of Kosovo

Rebel groups that control territory

Zapatista Army of National Liberation, Al-Shabaab, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Houthis, Moro National Liberation Front

Tobby72 (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well if they did not go around committing atrocities, there would not have been the media coverage of the atrocities.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Please point out which part is not supported by reliable sources or which part lacks coverage in these. Otherwise, this is just spurious WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Placing an unwarranted POV tag into an article because you don't like what reliable sources say is *itself* POV-pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The main problem here is WP:UNDUE (WP:BITR). Even WP:RS is questioned.

The contents of this type of coatrack article can be superficially true. However, undue attention to one particular topic within the scope of the article creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful. When confronted with a potential coatrack article, an editor ought to ask: what impression does a reader unfamiliar to the topic get from this article? -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

And the obvious difference between DPR and, say the Zapatista army is that the Zapatista's don't go around committing atrocities. Hence, the difference in coverage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Does this rubbish ever stop? The only thing this article really needs is for someone to remove the mention of "Ukrainian war crimes" in the "Donetsk People's Republic human rights" section. This article isn't about Ukraine. It is only about the DPR, and only DPR crimes should appear. It is a crap attempt at false balance. RGloucester — ☎ 20:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

"And the obvious difference between DPR and, say the Zapatista army is that the Zapatista's don't go around committing atrocities."Actually we have extensive reports by organizations like Human Rights Watch or OSCE confirming that Ukrainian forces committed atrocities on the territory of the DPR.There is no shortage of documented atrocities filmed by them themselves like torturing POW's or violating Geneva Convention by transporting weapons and armed soldiers with aimed machine guns and they were even shown on Ukrainian television reports.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if true, what does that have to do with the atrocities committed by the DPR? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"... Ukrainian forces committed atrocities on the territory of the DPR." -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no "territory of the DPR", only Ukraine. No one has recognised the DPR, not even Russia, for Pete's sake. If they committed "atrocities", that has nothing to do with the DPR. RGloucester — ☎ 22:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there is territory under control of DPR. Diplomatic recognition means only how a state is treated in international relations, not if it exists or not.We have plenty articles about unrecognized states that do exist. Again, de facto and de jure recognition are two different matters.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Its an easy trap to fall into of rehashing on this page topics that belong to the war but not so much to the DPR. Overall, the page isn't doing too badly on that, except in the section "War crimes on the territory of DPR". The only part that is specific to DPR as a polity or geographic location is "An 18 November 2014 United Nations report on eastern Ukraine stated that the Donetsk People's Republic was in a state of "total breakdown of law and order".[123] The report noted "cases of serious human rights abuses by the armed groups continued to be reported, including torture, arbitrary and incommunicado detention, summary executions, forced labour, sexual violence, as well as the destruction and illegal seizure of property may amount to crimes against humanity".[123]" The rest of that section belongs in an article with a broader scope.

The matter of the anti-semitic flyers is given undue weight, considering sources seem to agree it was of minor importance. It could be dealt with in just a sentence or two.

If these imbalances are addressed, the remaining concern would be the lack of representation for the Russian PoV. For that to change, interested parties will have to find specific sources and explain what claims they should be used to support. Rhoark (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

What sources "seem to agree it was of minor importance"? Sources do say that it's not clear who was responsible for the flyer, but that is already in the article.

What is "representation for the Russian POV"? Do you mean "representation of the Russian government POV"? Not sure what would go in here.

I agree on the first part though - only material specific to DPR as a polity should stay. However, I got a feeling some people are going to be adamant about including off topic stuff for sake of "false balance".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what the Russian POV is, just that some editors think its missing. That's why I said "interested parties will have to find specific sources and explain what claims they should be used to support." They need to do the legwork if they want to see change. Rhoark (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

only material specific to DPR as a polity should stay Plenty of material about abuses committed by Ukrainian forces on the territory of this unreckognized state, so there we will be sources.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no "state" and there is no "territory".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

there is no "state" and there is no "territory".

Your own personal opinion. Please see WP:Original Research.Numerous sources mention it as unrecognized state. If you claim that DPR controls no territory that is just bizarre, as it would imply this is some shadow game of Ukrainian forces between themselves.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Continuing POV-pushing

Blatantly obvious POV-pushing -- [45]. Try being more encyclopedic, please, since this is an encyclopedia.

Removing war crimes and atrocities committed by government troops and pro-Kiev battalions and leaving only separatist side is extremely POV, turning Wikipedia into little more than war propaganda machine.

My suggestion is WP:SPLIT -- [46] -- "... section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is often appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles. In some cases, refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central" -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• This could be moved to Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass. We had a human right page: here. There was discussion about merging... My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Some POV-editors would like to turn the article to a "cosmetics advertisement" for the Donetsk People's Republic. To do that they need to get rid of everything that is not positive. All this rubbish about "coat rack" and "split" is intended for this purpose.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There are actually a lot of bad guys on both sides of the conflict. Amnesty International says it has evidence both sides in the conflict have committed war crimes.[47]. User:MyMoloboaccount suggested the best solution: "A split and leaving information covering briefly abuses by both sides." -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I see absolutely no policy or guideline based arguments for the POV tag, therefore am removing it as part of rolling back to an earlier version prior a series of WP:POV removals of sourced content and refs being asked for by socks for the content immediately after fiddling the content. The same pattern has been followed 3 times now. Why have you not checked back to the removed content before slapping the POV tag on the article, Tobby72? This is the second time you've tagged the article and ignored blatant removals and refactoring just prior your addition. I know you're an experienced editor, so could I please ask that you check interim edits before you post it if you genuinely believe the article to be flouting the neutrality policy? Thank you. (Incidentally, you're welcome to reinstate the tag if you truly believe you can provide a case for violation of WP:NPOV, and given that you've brought up concerns which My very best wishes has addressed but, to repeat, please ensure that you've double-checked changes to the content prior reinstating the tag.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ultimately, I have serious objections to splits unless they're truly warranted - most particularly POV splits. We have huge number of articles split in this manner (whether intentionally or inadvertently) that have been wrested by one group of POV-ers or the other, therefore end up being neglected by regular editors who are focussed on the main articles. For me, being clear on consensus as to the main criterion for the split as being justifiable is of paramount importance. I'd certainly not be adverse to some input on 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine which has exceeded article size constraints and is desperately in need of some splits, but just what should be split off is a bone of contention. I'd be grateful for more input from regular editors on discussions here and here (both tackling the same question). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• A split could be done, but leftover information MUST cover BOTH sides not only one side, as it would violate NPOV policy. We have plenty reliable sources ranging from HRW to Amnesty International that can be used to cover abuses by both sides of the conflict.I agree that certain sections of this article are too long, and could be shortened. But removing ALL abuses by one side(documented by reliable sources), while leaving abuses by another is a very obvious and extreme POV pushing that isn't acceptable.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I made a compromise version [48] by moving one of the inserted paragraphs and removing two others. These two paragraphs are problematic because they are construed in a way to suggest that HRW blames primarily Ukrainian government for the abuses. No, it does not. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass is the best place for going into detail on these things, since it sidesteps the question of exactly whose territory an event took place in. We can't let the article become whitewashed though. There should still be a section in this article with Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass linked as a "see also" hatnote, and official actions of the DPR government or militia should remain here in full detail. It's less a matter of neutrality than of scoping what this article is actually about. We should be hard-nosed about it to keep people from trying to relitigate every aspect of the War in Donbass in this article. Rhoark (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Tag "The neutrality of this article is disputed" re-inserted.[49] "Human rights" section is a massive POV push attempt at WP:GEVAL. My suggested solution: "A split and leaving information covering briefly abuses by both sides." --- Tobby72 (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What are the policy or guideline-based arguments for the POV tag? You cannot just stick it in because you feel like it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article is clearly disputed. An involved editor should not remove the tag without consensus.[50]

Please see Template:POV --- Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies. & see also WP:TAGGING -- In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You are quoting the template, but you are not abiding by the instructions you quote. What are the policy or guideline-based arguments for the POV tag?-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is the fresh discussion as to why you've thwacked the POV tag back without any policy or guideline based arguments, Tobby72? Essentially, you're ES is sending us back to the talk page and depending on a pre-existing WP:REHASH already addressed when your 'badge of shame' was removed, and arguing about the principles behind the tagging policy... So what is your justification for attracting other editors unless it's in order to continue your WP:POINTy behaviour? I'm not seeing any realistic or justifiable rationale other than you own DONTLIKEIT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

quotation of the constitution in the "LGBT community" section

I have tried to remove the quotation of the constitution in the "LGBT community" section. The article Article 31.3. is quoted from the nihilist.li site. The nihilist.li site does not reference its quotations of the constitution. I found a full version of the constitution at a page that calls itself "the official page of the DNR": https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://dnr-online.ru/konstituciya-dnr/&edit-text= This version of the constitution contains entirely different Article 31.3 that is not homophobic at all. Does anyone agree that the sentence about the Article 31.3 should be removed as the source is not reliable? 93.89.133.222 (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Good catch.

dnr-online.ru Конституция Донецкой Народной Республики 14.05.2014г is a primary source. One can speculate as to why there are differences between what the nihilist.li site says and what dnr-online.ru says. However such speculation would be original research. I would tend to agree that the nihilist.li should be not be relied on without independent corroboration. Unless someone can find corroboration, I think we should remove the statements quoted from the nihilist.li site.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It's possible that the constitution has been altered. But yes, other sources would be helpful here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The thing is that nihilist.li isn't the only site that had that version. For example [51] (a pro DNR blog). So I'm guessing that they changed it after realizing that was bad PR.The actual DNR site is not accessible without password (and I'm not sure if you'd want to risk actually accessing it).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, all of these types of factors underline our problems with it from its inception. We're projecting constitutions onto an unrecognised state which isn't functioning under a constitution, but under martial law. Do we even have any information as to whether anyone has been executed for breaking curfews and other martial laws in place? The last I've read on the facts on the ground don't support the existence of any realistic form of infrastructure (or anything else that suggests the existence of a functioning system of governments). Some vague suggestion of schools being set up, a bank, plus whatever sporadic reports from biased sources with no follow up from RS doesn't constitute anything other than a load of old cobblers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)