Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:29, 7 February 2015

Prime Minister of the Donetsk People's Republic was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 29 January 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Donetsk People's Republic. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donetsk People's Republic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 35 days

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Donetsk People's Republic was copied or moved into 2014 insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 April 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ukraine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

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 ), 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

@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 Misplaced Pages should not be politicized. – Herzen (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason the discussion was started was to be consistent with Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, 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 Misplaced Pages 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" . 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages.

The entire article seems to be trading on Misplaced Pages'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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages '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 Misplaced Pages 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)

"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)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class Ukraine articles
• High-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles