Talk:Donetsk People's Republic/Archive 3

POV tag re-removed
Since I had seen no discussion on this talk page since March 21st, I have removed the POV tag in the 'Human rights' section. I also feel that this is a DONTLIKEIT issue, as the tag was just thwacked back onto the page without any discussion on this page. You cannot just stick the tag on there because you feel like it. Overall, this behavior is one that at least Toddy1 cannot tolerate anymore. It might be time for an AN/I report if this resumes.  McDonald of Kindness    (talk • contributions)  15:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It has been repeatedly discussed on the talk page again and again here & here & here & here & here & here & here & here, and clearly no consensus was reached.. - "The neutrality of the article is clearly disputed. An involved editor should not remove the tag without consensus.". "Human rights" section is a massive violation of WP:GEVAL. My suggested solution: "A split and leaving information covering briefly abuses by both sides." (Here is my failed attempt) --- Tobby72 (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, but you could have discussed even more before just thwacking the POV tag back on the page. By the way, did you read other editors' comments in the 'Continuing POV-pushing' section? This shows us that you have a lack of understanding of WP:DONTLIKEIT.  McDonald of Kindness    (talk • contributions)  03:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You can add me to the long list of editors who are fed up with Tobby72's WP:POINTy editing pattern on all articles surrounding recent events in Ukraine. This disruptive behaviour has been going on, and on, and on, and on... In all seriousness: next stop, WP:ARBEE. I've just reverted the his/her slapping on the tag yet again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have started an AN/I discussion about Tobby72. This is stuff that we cannot tolerate anymore. My guess is that he will be topic banned from this topic area when the discussion ends.  McDonald of Kindness    (talk • contributions)  21:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You obviously lack a true understanding of WP:GEVAL & WP:UNDUE & WP:NPOV. This article is an unencyclopedic mess. And WP:DONTLIKEIT is just an Essay, one person's feelings on the matter.

By the way, did you read other editors' comments?


 * User:MyMoloboaccount —  The claim that there was a discussion is a weak one, there doesn't seem to be any consensus there and besides, consensus might change. At the moment the section was undue because it didn't represent a neutral view, which points to abuses and violations by both sides. ... I agree with Tobby72. The current attempts to erase all information by one side, leaving just abuses by another are POV pushing and seem to go against WP:NPOV policy.A split and leaving information covering briefly abuses by both sides seems to be the best course of action.


 * User:KoolerStill —  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.


 * User:Tosha — Toddyl, it seems that you did not read the article. Look at the Anti-semitism section, it cites some media, no proofs are given, all the statements are based on someone's opinion, and it is given as "facts". The other sections are not better. Don't you want to improve it? ... P.S. In any case the article in present form is outrages, it is shame for wikipedia. Please do not remove the tags again.


 * User:HCPUNXKID — 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... 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.


 * User:Herzen — 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. ... 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.


 * User:Lunch for Two — If this entity has some longevity, then yes the amount of information attributed to the pamphlets should be decreased. If not, then there is a high chance that was not able about the entity was this scandal with the pamphlets. In my opinion 6 paragraphs is excessive for this issue, feel free to condense the section if you take issue with it, it is a public encyclopedia after all. ... Condensing is good as it now appears that the DPR did not actually issue these pamphlets. Whilst a good media story a few weeks ago its significance will fade with time, more so if this entity has greater longevity.


 * 71.209.225.107 — 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.


 * User:Herzen — 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.


 * User:Tosha — 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.)


 * -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The format of the above is confusing. All the comments above were posted by Tobby72.--  Toddy1 (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The format isn't confusing.Tobby72 simply quoted other users who disagreed with the current state of the article(which is incredibly POV and one sided).Looking at the above it seems that there are more users disagreeing with current POV, than those who support it, but the minority is more determined to keep things they are.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If they all disagree with neutral POV the article currently has, maybe they could all boycott editing Wikipedia and edit somewhere that shares their POV, such as the talk pages of RT.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What 'minority' might that be, MyMoloboaccount? Tobby72 has demonstrated that s/he has been able to find some comments presented (out of context) dating back over various points in time throughout 2014. What does that demonstrate other than the fact that there have been questions raised and discussed? Should I post a 10mb list of comments and rebuttals made over the same period of time by multiple NPOV editors in response? If I were to assess this 'evidence' of violation of NPOV by going through the archives and treating it as though it were an article, I would slam it straight away as being WP:GEVAL and WP:CHERRY. As an aside, could you possibly have made your 'comment' more obtrusive by adding a few more spaces, Tobby72? Enough of this disruptive nonsense, please. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * On that list, at least two users are single purpose accounts created just to skew results of discussion, and at least one person is topic banned from Ukraine-related articles, for a very good reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh and Herzen's comment is irrelevant, while the other two comments just express particular editor's WP:IDONTLIKEIT and make reference what so ever to policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that recently Tobby72 was reported to AN/I for exactly this kind of tendentious behavior. He then quit editing for a few days until the heat died down, only to pop right back and resume where he left off. This is disruptive and it's gaming the system.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't make false accusations! ("He then quit editing for a few days until the heat died down") No personal attacks, please. This discussion should really be about the content, not the users.


 * Further discussion here: Neutral point of view/Noticeboard - DPR – POV tag re-removed -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that you have been engaged in this behavior for awhile, and the fact that you were brought to ANI, and the fact that you then quit for a few days, and the fact that you immediately resumed this disruptive behavior once the ANI discussion was closed as "stale" (on account of your apparent inactivity), and the fact that the ANI closure stated "we'll see if he resumes this behavior when he comes back", are all relevant. They are also NOT personal attacks but simple descriptions of the situation and your behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I support Tobby72. All my attempts to make this article neutral were failed. IMHO this article is shame for wikipedia. Returning POV tag is the least we can do. --Tosha (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry,, but all I've established so far (on article talk pages such as Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation as demonstrated in this section) is that your comprehension of neutrality is not compatible with that of Wikipedia's understanding of WP:NPOV. We don't rejig articles to accommodate every POV in order to achieve 'neutrality': we represent what the majority of reliable sources say avoiding op-ed language, and carefully parsing the sources for what is considered to be WP:DUE or UNDUE. NPOV doesn't equal WP:GEVAL / Argument to moderation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Iryna Harpy Your behaviour is unacceptable --- this is not the topic we discuss here. I think you are trying to move discussion in a wrong way (by the way, the same way as you behave in talk-page of Annexation of Crimea). --Tosha (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how Iryna Harpy's behavior is "unacceptable", and your response to her smacks of using ad hominem criticism to deflect and distract from the policy arguments she is presenting. You really should review the WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:GEVAL guidelines, and take a gander at WP:CIVIL while you're at it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Kudzu1, I guess you did not read what I wrote. It is not acceptable to move discussion in wrong direction. In particular, it is not OK to discuss here my contribution to the other article --- we are discussing returning POV tag here and the discucssion above clearly shows that it is right thing to do. --Tosha (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If I hadn't read it, I wouldn't have responded to it. Maybe you should try explaining yourself better in the future. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right, sorry --- it was addressed to Iryna Harpy, and it was hard to get without reading her message.--Tosha (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Per Kudzu1, in what manner is my "behaviour unacceptable"? I'm making a statement of fact about what WP:NPOV means, while you keep pushing the 'in my opinion' line. The content of encyclopaedic articles has nothing to do with what your honest opinion or my honest opinion might be. Our objective is to follow mainstream opinion expressed by reliable sources while avoiding editorialising. All you've brought to the table in talk pages surrounding recent events in Ukraine has been based on an emotional argument, essentially saying that it isn't fair. Your comments on content aren't supported by any form of policy or guideline based rationale. All that means is that you don't like what RS are saying, and that you're just WP:NOTGETTINGIT when you have the NPOV policy explained to you. As regard "All my attempts to make this article neutral were failed.": where? I don't recall your ever being involved in the development of the article, and I can't see you anywhere in the edit history except back in mid-May of 2014 where you made a few WP:POV edits such as this, as well as posting a generic POV complaint in July of 2014 talking about neutrality here and here in precisely the same manner as you are now. Should we, perhaps, discuss where the prominent descriptor was of 'anti-Kiev' as opposed to 'pro-Russian' in the majority of sources, or is that what you believe 'neutral' means? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "mainstream opinion" is not for wikipedia --- we have to use facts here. Unfortunately 90% of this article is based on gossip, essentially it propaganda of war now. --Tosha (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * General platitudes are of no help. Please be specific.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Let us come back to the main topic of the discussion. As you see the neutrality of the article is clearly disputed (not only by me). I think it would be fair to mark article for "clean up" and leave this until we reach a consensus. --Tosha (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that some users JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient reason to shame-tag the article. One can make a lot of noise and make it seem like the article about the shape of the Earth is "disputed". The tag has to be justified with reference to policy and specific examples need to be given.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, and shame on you for even suggesting it. That is not what tags are for. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Kudzu1 a discussion assumes arguments, "shame on you" is not an argument, as well as the note of Volunteer Marek. Essentially you claim "I do not like it" and again this is not an argument. I suggest to look through the discussion above and tell why you disagree. So far I did not see ANY reasonable arguments opposing tag return. (We need to write based on facts, not base on what we want to believe. If this is not currently possible we have to return the tag so the reader will see that there is a problem with the article.)--Tosha (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There isn't a problem with the article, at least none that you have managed to articulate. It's not such deft jiujitsu from you; it's very clear you're the one whose argument is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, and that is not a valid reason to tag the page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Tosha, you misunderstand. What I said above is that OTHER users claim "I do not like it" and insist that that is enough of a reason to add the tag. It's not. What I'm asking for is a proper articulation, grounded in policy and referencing specific issues, for the tag.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek Note that about 10 useres do not agree with you :) It is hard to be neutral, but we have to. If you need specific problems here are two, but there are too many.
 * pro-Russian militants --- the term is used by Kiev to emphasize connection between of DPR and Russia, definitely not neutral term; for sure we can say "so called pro-Russian militants" if needed.
 * section on Allegations of anti-semitism --- has to be removed completely, it is 100% gossip. (Formally it says "The authenticity of the leaflet could not be independently verified" but then why it is mentioned?)
 * Again, this is NOT a complete list, but we can start here. --Tosha (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We can't and we won't. "Pro-Russian militants" is commonly used in reliable sources. The "anti-Semitism" section is well sourced and notable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Kudzu1, essentially you say it is OK to support anti-Russian propaganda. I think wikipedia should stay out of it. (The term "Pro-Russian militants" for army of DPR is just as accurate as using "Pro-American militants" for pro-Kiev forces.) --Tosha (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Setting aside the facts that 1) the United States isn't supplying the Ukrainian military with fresh troops, commanders, vehicles, arms, supplies, etc., across its common border ; 2) Ukraine doesn't want to become part of the United States; 3) Ukraine is an actual country and its army is an organized military, not a militancy; 4) an American special operative didn't start the war and then boast about it ; and 5) the American military isn't fighting in Russia alongside Ukrainian militiamen ...then sure. I am not saying it is "OK to support anti-Russian propaganda". I am saying I am anti-supporting Russian propaganda. Wikipedia should not be warped to give Putin a propaganda platform for his little war in Ukraine. The views of the Russian government are included in this article and others with due weight. Going further than that and according extra sympathy to the pro-Russian side is WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. Simple as that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that Russia supports DPR (you should not trust media unless a proof is given --- if in doubt, look at the media coverage of war in Iraq and Kosovo). On the other hand US is officially training the troops from Ukraine’s National Guard . --Tosha (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not how Wikipedia works, per WP:V and WP:OR. You are arguing to change Wikipedia policy, and this is totally not the venue for that discussion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Kudzu1 If the policy is to lie about Russia, then yes I am against this policy and it has to be changed. --Tosha (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The justification for the tag has to be grounded in Wikipedia policy. For example, to change "pro-Russian militants" to "so called pro-Russian militants" you'd need to show that the phrase "so called" actually appears in majority of reliable sources (it doesn't). In fact, that kind of change would directly contradict the Wikipedia MOS guideline WP:WEASEL.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek, we should use a netral term, say "rebels" and we can say "so called pro-Russian militants" at some places if necessary.
 * Yes, we should use a neutral term but a "neutral" term is the term is the one that is predominantly used by reliable sources. And that's "pro-Russian separatists", not "rebels". Sources also don't say "so-called". Hence, using "rebels" or putting "so-called" in there, which would NOT reflect reliable sources, would be non-neutral.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems no one against removing section on Allegations of anti-semitism; am I right?--Tosha (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As usual, no, you are not right. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Kudzu1, I think I gave a reason for removing section on Allegations of anti-semitism. Did you read this section? If yes why do you disagree? (BTW, I do not think that simply saying "NO" is OK.) --Tosha (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I read it. I disagree because it is reliably sourced. And too friggin' bad. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm against it. If you have specific proposals to modify it then that's a possibility. It could perhaps be shortened. However, again, this got lots of coverage in reliable sources which is why it's in here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is reliably sourced. It should not be removed.--  Toddy1 (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Toddy1, Volunteer Marek,Kudzu1. Read it once more. This section has two parts: #1 tells that there some unverifiable accusations in anti-semitism. Well I am sure there are unverifiable accusations in anti-semitism of ANY country why not to add it everywhere? So this part HAS to be removed. #2 tells about 17 April, "pro-Russian separatists aided by Russian military specialists seized a TV..." it is ridiculous and it quotes so called "Human Rights in Ukraine", a pro-Kiev website which is can not be called reliable by any standards. So what did you read after all? --Tosha (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tosha, as far as the allegations of anti-semitism goes, what matters whether something got widespread coverage in reliable sources. This certainly did which is why it should stay. As far as Human Rights in Ukraine goes, I think it's a reliable source. We can discuss that at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tosha here. We should take inspiration from Northern Cyprus#Human rights and law.


 * This illustrates a hypocritical double standard:


 * Kudzu1: I disagree because it is reliably sourced. Volunteer Marek: However, again, this got lots of coverage in reliable sources which is why it's in here.


 * Kudzu1 – Removal of reliably sourced material – Removed, Removed, Removed,


 * Removed – rv - then find another source. RT is not reliable in this field.,


 * Restored – Rv - Kyiv Post is a reliable source.


 * Volunteer Marek – Removal of reliably sourced material (May 2015) – Removed, Removed, Removed, Removed, Removed, Removed, Removed, Removed, Removed, Removed, Removed, Removed, Removed, Removed, reworded, Removed.


 * This issue has been discussed here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard – Continued POV-pushing – May 2015


 * -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop spamming the same damn thing everywhere and WP:FORUMSHOPPING. You've wasted enough of editors' time already.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And I'm sorry but the diffs you provide above are bullshit. They show nothing of the kind that you're claiming they show.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Volunteer Marek +1. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sick to death of wasting my time on this crap. How much effort did you put into digging up those completely irrelevant and not-at-all-incriminating diffs? Why are you still trying to peddle your BS here? -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Aleksandr Biednov
Aleksandr Biednov was put on trial for his crimes by rebels themselves, which is quite important. Why was this information removed by Volunteer Marek? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As usual, you appear to be reading reports from a parallel universe to the one the rest of the editors have access to. Where on earth does it say ? We're talking about an 'alleged' trial, and with no reference to his death. You've read 'sentenced to death by ambush' into it due to his being reportedly killed in an ambush a few days later with the perpetrators of the ambush still unknown. In fact, if we're going to speculate on who killed him, given that there are growing numbers of reports about power struggles and schisms between factions of the pro-Russian separatists, there has been more in the way of 'speculation' about his death as being an assassination by another of the 'Warlords'.


 * In the next instance, you've virtually moved into the territory of WP:COPYVIO in order to introduce this, yet have conveniently omitted the middle of the paragraph, "On 2 January, videos were released showing members of Biednov's group who confessed to running a facility in the basement of a university library in Luhansk and taking part in the ill-treatment of captives." Compare the renditions. You replaced a well formed summary with the first and last sentence of the paragraph, and provided an edit summary of "The report actually says something else, that significantly gives it a different meaning. It clearly states that rebels themselves accused and sentenced this guy for his crimes." Really? Where does it mention any outcome? Where's the 'sentencing' part of the report? I've outlined scenarios above which I can pull up both reliable and biased sources for, but I'm not going to speculate on the matter and make up trash according to what I've read into the text according to what I may or may not wish to believe. Now we have a nicely assembled instance of how you edit. I'm happy to assemble numerous other instances from other articles, so get with the programme or I'll see you at the ANI.


 * The report doesn't even mention his death, so stop the OR WP:BOLLOCKS and stick to what the sources say, and stop POV-pushing your narrative line. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC) [EDIT - ADDED MIDDLE PARAGRAPH] --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with Iryna. The sources actually state that it's unclear how he was killed. Maybe he was killed by the pro-Russian rebels because his running of a torture chamber became a PR embarrassment. Or he was killed by Ukrainian special services because he was... a very ugly individual. The source is explicit about the fact that it's unknown.
 * Now. That's what the source says. What YOU actually tried to do is to remove ANY MENTION of WHY he was killed and the kinds of things he and his unit were responsible for. Specifically:
 * The source-based text in the article stated
 * The report (discusses) videos of members of one particular pro-Russian unit talking about running a torture facility in the basement of a Luhansk library. The head of the unit in question was the pro-Russian separatist commander Aleksandr Biednov, known as "Batman" (who was later killed)
 * You changed this to:
 * The report also mentions that "on 30 December, according to the ‘prosecutor  general’s  office’ of the ‘Luhansk people’s republic’, a ‘criminal case’ was initiated against armed group commander Aleksandr Biednov(call sign ‘Batman’) and his subordinates for illegal detention and torture resulting in the death of a detainee"
 * See the difference? This, like all the other edits you've made to this article, are a textbook example of POV pushing. You're doing your best to white wash these people, which is frankly, disgusting. And of course, in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, . I just came back to this in order to physically log the differences so that it's easier to follow Molobo's cherry and synth across so many articles that it's difficult to keep a log elsewhere. Just updating the time of the edit so that it doesn't look as if you added an identical interpretation after the fact! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate a less emotional tone in discussion.The part about him being put on trial by the rebels is in the UN report, if needed it can be quoted.Also this concerns Luhansk, so the content should be moved probably.There are numerous reliable sources about him being execute by the rebeks, including pro-Ukrainian ones and official statement by LPR.Apologies for not icluding them. I propose to move the information to LPR and include the full information.Kind RegardsMyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you be talking about these kinds of mixed reports? Who killed Batman? Pro-Russian separatist's death blamed on Ukraine and other separatists Batman killed in the Ukraine, allegedly on orders from The Carpenter Batman Battalion Members Say in Interview that Bednov and Guards Were Killed in Ambush 19:28 (GMT) Lugansk Republic Press-Conference re. NAF Commander Alexander Bednov, aka "Batman" Rebel’s killing spurs war between Luhansk insurgent groups Nemtsov murder: Pro-Russian separatists video claiming killing dismissed by Ukraine militia chief Milchakov Cossacks in east Ukraine fight government -- and other rebels...


 * The last two appear to be the latest info available. All the reports were close to the event. Ultimately, it's as clear as mud as to whether the LPR 'trial' was a cover-up for a war between Warlords, actually some form of martial law trial, or some other form of scenario. No one knows as this point. I could draw conclusions that, according to his bodyguard's version, no one new there'd been any form of trial (even in absentia). If you want to draw your own conclusions, take them to a forum or blog spot, not to any of Wikipedia's articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Since both you and your sources say these events took place in LPR, I take there would be no opposition from removing then from DPR article?MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that these articles are subject to a lot of traffic, could you please qualify where this content, in the DPR article, is in question? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have remove the content now, since it wasn't in Donetsk.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The page is not about Donetsk, but about Donetsk Republic. This info is relevant. Restored. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure Luhansk is not in Donetsk Republic. Also why have you removed information about UN reports reports of Ukrainian side abuses?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Both "republics" are essentially the same territory known as Novorossiya (confederation), and the same rebel groups operate in the both "republics" (hence restored). As about two other minor changes you made, I am not sure they properly summarize the report - this looks like a cherry-picked quotation to me. My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question, but simply went ahead with twisting my observation as to Biednov in order to follow your own agenda.


 * To further emphasise My very best wishes' understanding of the report in question, it treats both 'republics' as a single entity, just as any potential criminal activities to be investigated on behalf of Ukrainian forces are lumped under 'Ukrainian'. Until it is established who was responsible for what, whether there is veracity in potential charges, etc. will not be known until anyone is prosecuted. There is nothing established as to who gave orders at what level. You are cherry picking reported incidents and, by trying to dissipate them between other articles, are engaging in OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Recognition
I just added the recogniton of DPR by South Ossetia, what is the WP:NPOV about it? kazekagetr 11:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is certainly not a simple matter of 'adding' a state of extremely limited recognition. You removed the template directing readers to the main entry regarding the international recognition of Novorossiya in order to POV push recognition. Please read Talk:List of states with limited recognition. A) It doesn't meet with declarative theory; B) Details of recognition by states of highly limited recognition are to be found in the hatnote link. It would also be appreciated if you could follow WP:BRD instead of engaging in BRRRRR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

United Nations (Human Rights), OSCE, Bloomberg and Daily Telegraph
Particularly to though to other editors as well: In which way are the informations based on these sources, not reliable ones, or if you consider they are, why are not they relevant in an encyclopedia? I don't really know how things work here, but in the Spanish WP, they'd be considered relevant and the sources would be considered reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viet-hoian1 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 13 August 2015‎
 * Please could you give examples of what you mean.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, though I'll edit it here: "The report also states that the UN mission "continued to receive reports of torture and ill-treatment by the Ukrainian law enforcement agencies and volunteer battalions and by the (pro-Russian separatist) armed groups, including beating, death threats, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and lack of access to medical assistance." "  and "The United Nations report also accused the Ukrainian Army and Ukrainian (volunteer) territorial defense battalions, including the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion,  of human rights abuses such as illegal detention, torture and ill-treatment of DPR and LPR supporters, noting official denials. ". Well, the only stuff that I'd might consider that would be adequate to correct, would be to call a whole batallion as Neo-Nazi (It might be as well just be a description by only one newspaper, but I think it's a quite good one - Daily Telegraph). Taking that into consideration, I don't see any other (if any) reason for this content (or part) to be removed. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you comment about this, please? Thanks! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm well acquainted with the sources you've raised, and the relevance of these sources has been discussed on various surrounding articles (such as Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass and others) although, off-hand, I can't remember which and where. It's difficult to stay on top of where centralised discussions have taken place, particularly where the are multiple high traffic articles. I'd need to put aside a little time in order to find these discussions as they've also been taken to the WP:RSN and the WP:NPOVN, etc. As I'm stuck in discussions and content changes on unrelated articles, please allow me some time to get back to your query. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, but I wish this discussion drives to a conclusion soon. Well, I may not like ISIS, e.g., but whatever abuses are commited by the Syrian govt, Iraqi govt, Iraqi and Syrian Kurds or the other Syrian rebels shall not be given a white card (that's the expression in my language, I don't know if it's in English, but I hope you get the idea) about their abuses too. If that eventually is also happening in the ISIS related related articles, I regret it, in the same way that I regret that any Ukrainian abuses may be censored (in practice) because of "I just don't like it" - I just don't like it. (Another example, in WW2: Was the whole destruction of some German cities or the nuclear bombs in Japan, justified?... Whatever how we perceive the other side to be, I think that any criticism, since it is well-sourced, is valid. Greetings! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Viet-hoian1, removing crimes and abuses by one side and leaving only one side is extremely POV, turning Wikipedia into little more than war propaganda tool. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you, please, also comment about this? Thanks! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Section about "Prejudice against Ukrainian speakers"
Given that there is this section in this article, I'd expect that there would also be such sections in Estonia and Latvia, since these 2 countries have the same laws concerning to Russian-speakers (many of them haven't even been able to get citizen rights in those countries because they speak Russian rather than Estonian or Latvian). And I'd suggest that the use of the Kurdish language in Turkey (and, eventually, in Iran, Iraq and Syria) would also be subject of analysis. Along with many other countries in the world (Burma, a.k.a. Myanmar pops to my mind). Viet-hoian1 (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this is WP:OFFTOPIC for the purposes of this article, so please take these suggestions to the relevant articles. Secondly, you are conflating articles about sovereign states with an unrecognised state (or, should I say, state of war). Content relevant to the DPR is not, by the very nature of ongoing conflicts, instability, questions about the nature of the 'state', in any shape or form parallel to that of sovereign states. Please note that the article's infobox serves as a clue as to its nature: geopolitical organization. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPLIT — Human rights
The subject is already covered elsewhere. See the ongoing discussion taking place here — Talk:War in Donbass. As I said before, the best solution is WP:SPLIT and leaving information covering briefly abuses by both sides. This could be moved to Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass or Human rights in the Donetsk People's Republic. We had a human right page: here.

We should also take inspiration from Northern Cyprus or Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with an approach similar to what there is about Northen Cyprus. The Human Rights section occupies almost one half of this article and it's too much in my opinion. There should be a NPOV introduction about it in this article, but a separate article about the Human Rights issues would be useful, with a more comprehensive content about the these issues. Greeting! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about separate article about abuses committed by Ukrainian forces based on sources like this:


 * http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/9thOHCHRreportUkraine.pdf


 * http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/ENACARegion/Pages/UAReports.aspx


 * http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis


 * http://europe.newsweek.com/evidence-war-crimes-committed-ukrainian-nationalist-volunteers-grows-269604


 * http://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/EUR50/040/2014/en/


 * https://www.amnesty.org/en/articles/news/2014/09/ukraine-must-stop-ongoing-abuses-and-war-crimes-pro-ukrainian-volunteer-forces/

What do you guys think about the idea? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits ...
or actually repeated attempts to make changes with no consensus. Again. By Tobby72. Again. . Tobby72, why are you removing information about Gubarev? Why are you including a picture of the bus shelling in a way which suggests that the Ukrainian military was responsible when in fact it was the pro-Russian rebels which claimed responsibility? Why are you selectively quoting the Human Rights Watch report by mentioning only the anti-Ukrainian parts - which form a minority of the content of the report - and fail to mention the extensive criticism of the human rights abuses by the rebels?

You know: WP:NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * NPOV requires that we also cover atrocities and violations of human rights by Kiev forces. There is no reasonable argument for removal of this section and leaving only violations by another side.Especially since it is covered by reliable sources. If the article is getting too detailed, I would propose summarizing crimes and violations committed by Ukrainian and rebel forces, while moving the more detailed descriptions into seperate articles detailing such abuses, in fact I have been thinking about creating a separate article on Ukrainian forces abuses a while ago--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In answer to this query (also in the above section), try WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and the fact that you have been continuously editing all articles surrounding events in Ukraine in order to make a WP:POINT. In all seriousness, editors who are WP:HERE have had enough of trashy journalism. There are more than enough WP:POV (from both sides) articles surrounding the subject matter needing to be cleaned up, merged or plain deleted without more tit-for-tat WP:GEVAL. Let's see, if we create the article you're suggesting (because you've been prevented from WP:UNDUE expansions on the Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass article), we'll need to create a matching article for your proposed "Abuses by Ukrainian Forces during Donbass Conflict" in the form of "Abuses by Pro-Russian (DPR/LPR/Novorossiyan?) separatists during Donbass Conflict". So, "What do you guys think about the idea?" I think it's a load of pointy bollocks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) Violations by the Ukrainian forces are already covered. Tobby72, and you, are just putting in the same info more than once so as to skew the presentation in the article in a non-neutral way. In fact, the skewness you two are attempting to cram into the article is exactly the opposite of that found in the HRW report, which yes, does cover Ukrainian violations, but spends a lot more time talking about those of the pro-Russian rebels. Probably because these are more numerous. Hence the removal.
 * Also, the obvious reason why you haven't started the article you propose but instead have kept it in your userspace is because it's such an obvious non-neutral, biased hack job that you know that would never survive in that state for very long, and putting it out there would probably squander any credibility you might have left.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , rather than edit warring the inclusion of content that has been rejected here and here, please self-revert and continue the discussion here per WP:BRD. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I won't self revert as long as I don't know why should I do it. What I may do is to go back in full scale to the Spanish wikipedia, since by what I've seen, the editions here have become too much ideological, something that I never experienced in the Spanish wikipedia (not even concerning to the Malvinas/Falkland Islands or Gibraltar. e.g.). It's a pity that this wp works on an ideoligical rather than on a NPOV basis. I'll go back to the Spanish wp concerning to every political issue. I wish you the best here. All I have to say is that I'm very disappointed about this one and I think it's really unfair that edits based on what you call "I just don't like it" prevail. And that so many edits are just done or undone by ppl who are playing poker here with the rules here. On wp-español we may be more straight and not literally take strict rules about editing or to control other ppl's edits. But at least we're honest and we don't play such games. From a disappointed guy, greetings! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Starting right now in Spanish, free of censorship. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually took a look at the Spanish Wikipedia and in the section on states with limited recognition, there was a discussion where they decided that they weren't going to include what is called Novorossiya or Nueva Rusia on the Spanish Wikipedia and they removed it from the article but just recently you came in and added them despite previous discussion. I don't think that we censor or that the Spanish wikipedia is somehow more free, I just think that more users are paying attention to these DPR and LPR related edits here. - SantiLak  (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether they had such discussion or not is quite secondary to me, though I'll ask the removal of Somaliland given the arguments I've presented. Concerning to what was presented about the article of Donetsk People's Republic I'm adding them now in the Spanish wp. I've made several quite useful contributions to the Spanish wp that have been aknowledged. I've been corrected concerning to grammar, but not censored. Now, I really wonder what was there to be disliked about the report of the RED CROSS. The argument of "I just don't like it" may pass in the English wikipedia, but not in Spanish. Talk freely about that issue with my friends XanaG, Alelapenya (both administrators) or Gastón-Cuello. Bye! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The first few paragraphs of the article
"hat receives illegally military and humanitarian support from Russia" 1. Proof of military aid from Russia? 2. So, now you can not help the poor and homeless humanitarian support? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.215.121.84 (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a talk page, not a WP:SOAPBOX. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia as such is designed to present facts, not personal opinions". So where are the facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.215.27.37 (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Uhh... they're right there in the article, like the one you quoted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The lead is too long
Xx236 (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only too long, but too WP:POINTy. Thanks to for the quick clean-up of the main sensationalism of the lead. I'll take a look at where it could do with being cut down, but it does need to carry a fair amount of detail in order to do the subject matter justice without compromising the salient points. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, it is definitely too long. Three paragraphs (starting from "On 15 April 2014...", "On 11 May..." and "In an effort to stabilize...") can be moved to the body of the article. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk territories with special regime of local self-government
This is a bad translation, the title is bad, and I'm not sure it should be a separate article. Doug Weller (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

LGBT vs Constitution
The Constitution of the DPR does not mention the prohibition of homosexual relations. Paragraph 31.3 has no relation to this matter. Article 31 is devoted to the parenting. There is the true paragraph 31.3: "Трудоспособные дети, достигшие 18 лет, должны заботиться о нетрудоспособных родителях", that translate like: "Children who have reached 18 years of age and able to work must take care of their disabled parents". Where is the something about homosexuality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.165.67.87 (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please have the courtesy to read the talk page before posting. This has already been discussed only recently (aside from more discussions to be found in the archives). How is a word doc established to be the one and only definitive version of the constitution? It's hardly written in stone. Please refer to today's capture of an English language version on one of their blog sites:"Article 31 1. Parenthood rights roditeleyi childhood and family, as reported in accordance with the law and the union of a man zhenschinynahodyatsya under state protection. 2 . Caring for children and their upbringing - equal right and duty of parents both men and women. 3. No form of perverse unions between people of the same sex in Donetsk People's Republic does not recognize, are not allowed and will be prosecuted.""


 * --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, Iryna. You've said some words that I can't understand. Could you say them in their own alphabet (Russian or Ukrainian, I presume), please? Thank you! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It was actually a direct copy and paste from the DPR's constitution which has been translated into English (extremely badly). Translated accurately, Article 31 reads as: Original (Russian language) 1. Отцовство, материнство, права родителей детство, а также семья как зарегистрированный в установленном законом порядке союз мужчины и женщины находятся под защитой государства. 2. Забота о детях, их воспитание – равное право и обязанность обоих родителей: мужчины и женщины. 3. Никакие формы извращенных союзов между людьми одного пола в Донецкой Народной Республике не признаются, не разрешены и преследуются по закону. Translation- 1. Fatherhood, motherhood, parental rights over children, and that of the family, in accordance with the established law of the union of man and woman are under state protection. 2. Care for children, their education - the equal right and duty of both parents: man and woman. 3. No form of perverted unions between people of the same sex are recognised by the Donetsk People's Republic, are not permitted, and are prosecutable by law.


 * I hope that is clearer for everyone. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, ! Well, I wonder myself what can be understood as a "perverted union", though I'm aware about what it probably means in their minds. Though, yet, I don't have knowledge that any kind of union like that has taken place in any part of Ukraine or neighbouring countries. Greetings! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure of what you're driving at. Point 3 is a little difficult to translate off the cuff. A better rendition of its meaning is "The Donetsk People's Republic does not recognise any perverted unions between people of the same sex. Such unions are not allowed/are illegal, and being a party to such a union will be prosecuted under the law." There's nothing ambiguous about the way it is written in Russian.


 * There are numerous countries in the world that don't recognise same sex marriage, but it isn't written into their constitution that same sex unions of any shape or form are perverse, illegal, and will be prosecuted under the law. If you're interested in playing at semantics here, Portugal only recognised same sex marriage in 2010; Australians (under the reactionary Abbott government) are struggling to legalise it; Russians are still fighting the regressive law banning homosexual propaganda; Ukraine rejected the same law banning homosexual propaganda after it was insidiously passed under Yanukovych's administration while parliament was out. Trying to creating analogies between a major international power (i.e., Russia) and surrounding nation-states is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.


 * My suggestion to you is that you stop focussing on WP:COATRACKs inferring that 'surrounding' nation-states are equally as culpable of regressive ideology (as opposed to 'niceness' and 'progressiveness') and, instead, focus on the actual subject at hand: being that of the DPR's constitution. Per Point 1, a more accurate translation would actually read as "the natural state of union being between a man and woman." Final word on the subject: there's nothing ambiguous about the gist or intent of the DPR's "constitution". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, that was not what I meant. For instance, South Africa allows same-sex marriages, while in most African countries homosexuality isn't even allowed (and that I consider the most serious thing to be fixed, but that's just my opinion). Anyway, probably this has just little to do with the content of the article, and is I guess it may be mentioned in it, though it's not its main purpose, I guess. I was mostly curious about the meaning of some words you had said. Greetings! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification, . I agree that the article doesn't pivot around this point, but it is DUE in context. The major problem with the article is that reportage has settled into tabloid/yellow press style sensationalism, and scholarly analysis is drawing on dated information. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain the coded rules you've been mentioning and then, if you think it's relevant, write on (...) the link to the norms. Because I've consulted some of those and they don't clarify some specific situations. In the Spanish WP the practice (including by administrators, with whom I have had some quite good relations (namely Usuaria:XanaG and Usuario:Alelapenya... both have good or intermediate levels of knowledge about English language too, though I guess they almost exclusively edit on the Spanish WP), we usually explain ourselves by using uncoded justifications (e.g., encyclopedic, not encyclopedic; well-sourced, not well-sourced, so on). Thanks for your attention. I guess that will make our discussions more clear, simple and more directed to the specific issues. Greetings! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My sincerest apologies, . Yes, I do go over the top with policy and guideline links on talk pages for controversial subjects. It's because I know you're familiar with wikis other than English Wikipedia that I've tried to direct you to the relevant information, whereas it's just coming out as being confusing and condescending towards you. I humbly accept your whack with a wet trout as being justified, and will do my best not to do it again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not a real Constitution of DNR. Real Constitution is available on DNR official website. There is no other constitutions. 188.235.12.175 (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. I can't find an actual version of the constitution that has the line condemning same-sex relationships. In fact, every source I find lists the same several chapters of the constitution, deriding them for their backwardness, with the article in general speaking poorly of the DNR. The only site for the DNR I could find labeled the upload date for their constitution word doc to be "14.05.2014", and it contains no mention of the same-sex relationships – one of the earlier articles bashing the constitution was published "16.05.2014"., your capture leads to a strange, poorly-made, mostly-Greek page that can't be trusted any more than the site I linked. I am willing to consider both of those pages frauds, but I think if you have to take one seriously over the other, I'd pick the one I linked. It's possible that the constitution was edited right after the people who wrote it figured out it was probably a bad thing to write, but there is no reason to trust obviously biased sources to make obviously unfounded claims. It's better to have no mention of the constitution at all. BasicDeer (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing your doubts to my attention. I was quite happy to do a little further research for you both in order to demonstrate that it was most definitely not fraudulent, and that I would not have accepted a reference that was dubious regarding a serious issue under any circumstances. What you are pointing to now is their most current URL which only dates back to mid year this year (2015). Remember that their site/s, the Novorossiya site, and the Lugansk People's Republic's sites have all shifted around regularly due to their use of pirate domains. Here is the archived page of their previous site - donetsk-gov.su - from which the original document can be found (please read article 31). You're welcome to confirm that this was their domain by checking their VK account here.


 * Now, as they appear to have changed this policy, it's up to you to find out why and when. I'm updating the archived link to the directly downloadable archive... and it stays because it was most definitely recorded as being in their constitution from its inception until what appears to be very, very recently. In order to make amendments, you'll need to do your share of research to explain the how and who involved in the amendment.


 * At the moment, the available constitution as represented reads as a lie as it is not the constitution as was actually adopted 14 May 2014 despite its claiming to be. How could it possibly be "Protocol No.1" as drafted by Denis Pushilin if simply isn't (as attested to by archived versions saved in real time)? Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPLIT – Human rights
The Human Rights section occupies almost one half of this article and the subject is already covered elsewhere. The best solution is WP:SPLIT and leaving information covering briefly abuses by both sides per WP:CRIT and WP:UNDUE. The content could be moved to Human rights in the Donetsk People's Republic - - or Human rights in the separatist controlled areas of Ukraine.

We should take inspiration from Northern Cyprus. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Human rights in the separatist controlled areas of Ukraine is a redirect, although to the wrong article (I'll fix that). Not sure why the Cyprus article is suppose to be a good guide here.  Volunteer Marek  14:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"Anti-Ukrainian sentiment"
What? Zaharchenko is an ethnic Ukrainian. 71.181.176.103 (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That does not necessarily means that he identifies himself as ethnic Ukranian. I was not the one who added Anti-Ukrainian sentiment, but I think it is quite possible to be born Ukrainian and at the same deny the existence of a Ukrainian culture, distinct from the Russian culture. The influential Russian fascist Alexander Dugin believes that Ukraine is an artificial nation, why would a person born in Eastern Ukraine not be able to think the same thing? /EriFr (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not think Anti-Ukrainian or Pro-Russian sentiments are official ideology of DPR; they should be removed from the infobox. And Zakharchenko is not an ideologist. These guys are simply paid and appointed by Putin. This is strictly business for them. My very best wishes (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Political bias
Yes some far right groups support donetsk, but so does also Kiev government have ties to far right and nazi groups. Donetsk has recruitment internationally and connections with communist and socialist parties throughout Europe. For example Donbassföreningen in Sweden, communist volunteers goes from Spain, Italy and Germany to support Donetsk, a bunch of female left wingers from Israel also has volunteered in the military groups in Donbass, there is a lot more far left groups supporting Donetsk than there is far right groups. This should be included. Donetsk is heavily influenced by soviet imagery and the far right in Europe supports more Ukrainian groups such as Azov and Aidar and Right Sektor than they support Donetsk. Please add that there is huge support from the left, because it is a fact and not my opinion here that the communist left groups and parties in Europe is with Donetsk and against nato and eu as they often are. Right now it only says dinetsk has ties to the right in europe, when they have equally or more ties to the left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotkivrot (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

DPR Poll Support
In a poll conducted in August 2015 in 19 cities of the Donetsk oblast with 6500 respondents, only 29% supported the DPR and 10% considered themselves to be "Russian patriots". -- it's fake.

It was thickness of whom presented this poll on site. Question was why you support DPR? 29% of peoples support DPR cause they are against new autorities who came as the result of maidan. And before for same reason DPR was supported by 22%.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcM9i_EUYig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iuOPH8tCNU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazilio215 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a Wikipedia talk page, not a soapbox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i just gave links so you can look, why it's happened. Here is poll source, you can use google translate to check. And here is unredacted version of poll, which ukranian media used for propaganda, you can see the title: The results of the survey on the topic "Why do you support the DPR?"   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazilio215 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're citing ДАН as a reliable source? When? How? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a poll origin, you can look dates of publication, also i can't call unian reliable source either cause it's often produce propaganda and don't give links to the original material: "The findings were published on the website of Donetsk news agency". (ДАН) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazilio215 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ДАН is the direct outlet of the DPR government. This only makes it reliable for comments on itself. UNIAN is not a government outlet and, as with Kyiv Post, it has a track record of being neutral: i.e., it has also freely criticised the Ukrainian government. If you believe that ДАН is a reliable source, please take it to the WP:RSN and present your case there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So you are saying POLL from DPR government source is less reliable than reprint from it with mistakes on UNIAN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazilio215 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * UNIAN is not neutral, it's not even close to neutral, sharij.net is neutral, korrespondent is more less ok. UNIAN is not. I really hope you won't leave false information cause of some political bias, it's wikipedia. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazilio215 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Shariy is neutral!?! Oh, come on... what parallel RS universe are you living in? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, his news site is ok and neutral, not his personal page or youtube channel ofc, and i never saw any fakes on it. I live in normal universe and know both sides of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazilio215 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, well I live in a universe where I read up on various sides of any story, but that doesn't mean I can confidently tell you that I've never encountered 'fake' information on any of them. What may appeal to either of us, and make good sense within our personal realms of understanding does not equip us to know that the source is not 'fake'. He has an absolute bias, therefore his going to interpret information from his bias (just as you or I do). All that makes him is a biased source, not a reliable source, and we're not here to push our own biases: we're here to reflect what mainstream sources have to say on the matter. This doesn't mean that I'm gullible and have some form of absolute faith in mainstream sources, but if I don't like what they say, I just have to stay away from editing articles I don't like what the mainstream press presents the situation as being. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we agree on that this info on UNIAN is distorted and fake? I explained as much as i could and gave all proof links about that. I can only add that expecting to have on DPR government source (on which UNIAN didn't give proper link as source and only mentioned) other information would be quite strange. I hope truth prevails and you can fix it cause seems you are chief editor here, thanks. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazilio215 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Donetsk People's Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://rt.com/news/158436-donetsk-republic-ask-join-russia/
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/12/ukraine-crisis-donetsk-region-asks-join-russia
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160201133255/http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-crisis-election-rebels-idUKKCN0S01L220151006 to http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-crisis-election-rebels-idUKKCN0S01L220151006

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Something strange going on, Cyberbot II. None of those links were dead, so I've removed the archived captures until such a time as they're needed. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

South Ossetia declared in 2008.
(Moved from my talk page as I believe it should be discussed and resolved here) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC) In the section on the recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic, there was a line where South Ossetia is not only called "self-declared" (which to me sounds like Emperor Norton), but also shows that South Ossetia was declared in 2008 rather than 1991. This is factually incorrect, inconsistent with information stated in articles about South Ossetia, and unrelated to the Donetsk People's Republic. I have changed it to a claim that is consistent with the cited claims of the rest of Wikipdeia, stating that it is internationally recognized as a part of Georgia. However, you reverted this. I have reverted it to my own revision for the time being based on the fact it seems to be a mistake, given I did not insert "a dup of the same article used as the ref" as was stated in the reason for this reversion, although I did add a name for a reference in my revision, which may have led to confusion. I'd like to avoid an edit war, so please try to explain why my revision was reverted, since I don't get why you made this reversion. Thanks. Nuke (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In the context, your edit summary didn't make sense because you'd removed the information about the Russo-Georgian war, and I still think that it needs to be worked in in order to inform the reader of the fact that it was Russian military intervention and support that was responsible for the outcome of a breakaway state (just as it's the RF's role in Donbass that has allowed/is responsible for the creation of the DPR and LPR). It's salient information demonstrating that these frozen conflicts are serving the RF as methods of destabilising countries that used to be in the Soviet sphere of influence. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * They were declared in 1991, not 2008. Factually inaccurate information helps no one. However, I understand misunderstanding what I said. I apologize, but please try to look before you revert next time. South Ossetia seemingly did not receive Russian support, either, since the only claim I can find (based on a quick google search finding little but a RT link) is a [citation needed] on its Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is for truthful, non-biased information, not your point of view that Russia is destabilizing nearby countries out of self-interest; furthermore, the 2008 conflict has nothing to do with DPR other than the fact Russia was involved in both the former and the Donbass war. Nuke (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

DPR - terrorists
, the Donetsk People's Republic in Ukraine is considered to be a terrorist organization. That fact is stated in the article itself. How is that nothing to do with terrorism?? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. In Ukraine, this is a politically loaded language which is not supported by any other country. In any normal usage of English they are not terrorist. We had actually already this discussion when someone (before you) tried to add to the MH-17 article to the category "Terrorist attacks", I took it to the village pump, and this was unanimously rejected. I am not a fan of DNR, but let us be fair, this is a breakaway quasi-state, not a terrorist organization. It does not perform acts of terror.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have partially reverted an edit by Ipadm. Ipadm's view is that the Donetsk People's Republic is a terrorist organisation (see ).  I think that he/she has a good point.  However, I do not think that terrorism is an ideology, so I have partially reverted him/her, both in this article and in the sister article on the Luhansk People's Republic.--  Toddy1 (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I explained in edit revert and repeat it here: Terrorism is they prime ideology popularized on the media. Intimidation and public torture of women visiting bars and cafe, intimidation of LGBT or Ukrainian speakers, creating and populating of scared image of Ukrainian, EU and USA peoples. All of those facts not just a methods they used, it is clear ideology. Like killing slavic and jews people was ideology of nazy. They sow fear and terror to everything which is not Russian or supported by Russian President. They creates distorted reality in the media (including Wikipedia) to populate the fear of western civilisation. It is definitely name of this ideology: Terrorism --Ipadm (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What you describe is not ideology, it is current practice. It can or can not be related to terrorism, for example, if they exploded bombs in Ukrainian cities (which AFAIK is not the case), it would be related to terrorism and could have been added to the article if noted in neutral reliable sources. For the time being, we do have sources saying that DPR and LPR are considered by Ukraine as terrorist organizations (and this info is already in the article), but I still have to see an unbiased source saying they are terrorists.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * see Kharkov.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The first one was before DPR or LPR existed. For the next ones - fine, once we start getting RS referring to DPR/LPR as terrorists (not that the Ukrainian government calls them terrorists), we can include this to the article. Right now, I do not see any evidence that their ideology is terrorism.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * RS attest to the Ukrainian government as having designated both groups as being terrorists but, outside of op-ed pieces in various languages, they are defined as being 'insurgents', 'pro-Russian separatists', 'separatists' (and various convolutions on the theme). There are accounts of individual 'terrorist' acts, but there's a substantive difference between individual actions and ideology. IMHO this is an issue that must be treated with care. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ideology of terror is terrorism ideology. If the terrorists leaders promises that they WILL "free" Donbas region, how to explain it? It is exactly the same as communist's "red terror" ideology with only difference in wordings. D/LNR terrorists threaten violence on Ukrainian people and promises (and acting) to occupy more territory and kill more Ukrainians. They main ideology of "russian world" is the same to nazy ideology. It based on the "spiritual superiority of russians" which directly means "spiritual handicap of other nations". Political Ideology definitions it simply means a political doctrine which have two dimensions: Goals: how society should work, and Methods: the most appropriate ways to achieve the ideal arrangement. So first of all the D/LNR terrorists goals: "russian world" on full Donbas territory; and the methods: military occupation of those territories. --Ipadm (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What you write is factually incorrect, expresses your personal opinion, and can not be confirmed by non-partisan reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The DPR is comparable to ISIS now?
A recent edit was made where the "infobox geopolitical organization" was changed to a "infobox war faction". The reason for this was a comparison being that "both ISIS and Donetsk People's Republic are people with guns who claim they are running a state while the rest of the world sees them as people who are not a state". However, if we look at the very first sentence of the two articles for the groups, they begin with "is a Salafi jihadist militant group that adheres to an Islamic fundamentalist, Wahhabi doctrine of Sunni Islam" and "is an unrecognized state, supported by several rebel groups based in the Donetsk oblast of Ukraine". I don't know about you, but comparing an infobox of a real terrorist group which initially didn't proclaim to be a country, with a group that proclaimed to be a country from the very beginning is misleading. The United Armed Forces of Novorossiya article fits more with this infobox war faction since they are the actual military of the republics, whereas ISIS is a takfiri religious, political and military organization all in one. I suggest that we revert back to the older infobox, and perhaps fix it up so that it's not as bloated as it was previously. SkoraPobeda (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The edit you are complaining about was at 16:47, 25 December 2015 by . In his/her edit summary, he/she said:
 * "ISIS has a "Infobox war faction"; both ISIS and Donetsk People's Republic are people with guns who claim they are running a state while the rest of the world sees them as people who are not a state; hence both should have the same Infobox"
 * That seems a reasonable explanation. I do not see what the problem is.  Perhaps Yulia Romero could join the discussion, as he/she made the edit in question.--  Toddy1 (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, we would have put the war faction infobox with Nagorno-Karabakh, and Transnistria since some believe they are "people with guns who claim they are running a state while the rest of the world sees them as people who are not a state". Do you see what I mean? The war factions are for specific military groups such as the United Armed Forces of Novorossiya (NAF). I see that the Ukrainian Wikipedia has an infobox similar to the one we have now. In their view, the DPR and LPR are terrorist groups that can be counted as individual war factions. SkoraPobeda (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether the articles on Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria use the wrong info-box template is a question for their talk pages. What we are discussing is which is the best info-box template to use for the articles on the two terrorist organisations operating in Eastern Ukraine. You have not mentioned any reasons for objecting to the current info-box template, apart from that you do not like its name.  Do you have any other objections to it?--  Toddy1 (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not have a strong opinion on the issue but I do believe the geopolitical organization infobox suits the article better. First, war faction infobox has an entry on ideology, which we discussed in the topic above, and which will likely be filled with the "Terrorism" and like in the future. It is better not to have this field, since DPR has no ideology (unlike ISIS, which does have an ideology reflected in reliable sources). Second, it has a president, a prime minister and a government. Now we need to indicate the position of the individuals in brackets, since the war faction infobox understandably has the entry for leaders, who can hold any position. In the geopolitical organization we have an option of defining the position as a president and adding an entry that this is Zakharchenko or whoever. A geopolitical organization has a capital; a war faction has no capital. Again, as I said, it is not a strong opinion, if the majority supports war faction, let it be war faction, we can feed there the same info, but I do believe geopolitical organization is more convenient.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are among the reasons why I object to this war faction infobox. It is an unrecognized state, only Ukraine says that it is a terrorist group. SkoraPobeda (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream reliable English media does not "spread the message" that Donetsk people Republic is an unrecognized state. Wikipedia is about following reliable English media/sources. Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria are described as unrecognized states in the English speaking press. I am aware that the current infobox is not ideal. But the former one also wasn't.... The former Infobox failed to inform that everyone outside "Donetsk people Republic" does not see it as a state (including Russia and Putin). Wikipedia Infoboxes should not create realities, but follow the opinions of reliable English sources. Atleast the "|status =" part of Template:Infobox country should be used (while using that Infobox for DPR) and the infobox needs to say that is independence is not recognised and that it's current leadership has pledged to integration the territory back into Ukraine when it signed Minsk II. An "Infobox country" (here) without this information is just portraying a fantasy. DPR is not a normal country: the Infobox needs to reflect this. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  23:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mainstream media might not be saying that the DPR or LPR are unrecognized states often enough, but they have said it before. The New York Times has with "the unrecognized separatist mini-states in eastern Ukraine" or Radio Free Europe with "South Ossetia, itself almost wholly unrecognized as an independent state, has announced its recognition of the 'Luhansk People's Republic.'"  Having said that, I agree, the "Independence from Ukraine" in the former infobox can be changed to "Self-proclaimed independence" or something along those lines. But as previously stated by, the DPR doesn't have official ideologies, and neither does the current infobox mention that its capital is Donetsk (headquarters doesn't sound right for an area where 2.6 million civilians live.)  I'm still waiting on other editors to voice their opinion on this infobox issue. SkoraPobeda (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The infobox should also clearly state that current DPR leadership has pledged to integration the territory back into Ukraine when it signed Minsk II. I am not sure if that is what they want since they also have stated they want to integrate DPR into Russia (like the annexation of Crimea). But when they signed Minsk II they (DPR) officially ended their quest for independence. This (end of DPR independence drive) should be clearly visible in the DPR infobox. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  12:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am against the change in infobox . The People's Republic of Donetsk is as much a state that Kosovo, south ossetia . ISIS is a terrorist organization that wants to invade the world . Your change is a POV pushing . --Panam2014 (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: Aside from no international recognition outside of unrecognised states, is it even a relatively stable state with an infrastructure, a working economy, etc.? Sorry, but the last thing I was aware of was that they are still at war. Just because you can't pin down an absolute ideology doesn't mean that self-declared states aren't based on some form of ideology. According to RS their ideology is that of aligning with Russia economically, and that they are anti-Kiev governance. Whether the ideology parameter is filled in or not is another question altogether. Oh, and, which RS attest to either the DPR or LPR as being equally as valid as South Ossetia or Kosovo? That seems to be your POV push. Why is there even this OTT anguish over the use of the template. No one has said that the use of the same template as is used for ISIS is an indictment. It's a war faction template. If it weren't being used on the ISIS article, would it even generate such an hysterical overreaction to its use? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The People's Republic of Donetsk has a government, an army, town halls and limited diplomatic representation. In addition, the Confederate States of America has always been at war. It does not prevent them from being a state. In addition, the change of infobox is a forced passage since infobox countries remained in place almost two years. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read Sovereign state; List of sovereign states; List of states with limited recognition. You're oversimplifying the meaning of recognition and meeting declarative theory. As regards whether the article should have used the current infobox from the inception is another question to be asked. If not, why? Both states were war factions when the articles were started. Personally, I'm neutral as to which infobox is used, but I certainly see good arguments for the use of the current one. I've seen arguments - but no good arguments - as to reverting to geopolitical organisation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The confederates states of America were born during the American Civil War . She disappeared at the end of the war. Why she infobox a country then? It does not make sense. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, I seem to have missed something in your reasoning. That was over 250 years ago and the Russian Federation, just as an example, didn't 'exist' then... in fact, the majority of contemporary sovereign states weren't even close to existing in any form they exist in now. Perhaps you have a WP:CRYSTAL ball and can see into the future. That's fine, but Wikipedia doesn't. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Republic of Donetsk is in the same situation as the Confederate States if it disappears at the end of the war. If it survives, it is in the same situation as South Ossetia. There is no reason not to put the country in view of infobox state criteria I have set . It is even a POV . --Panam2014 (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet is it that there has never been a consensus to change infobox . So until we have a consensus for change, it restores the previous . --Panam2014 (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) the analogy with the Confederate States is your own personal original research. It's sort of silly. 2) The original infobox was the "war faction" one. There was some edit warring. There was discussion. Consensus, more or less was to keep the "war faction" one. Then a week or so ago an IP or a brand new account sneaked in a new infobox. And now you're pretending that "we must have consensus to change it back to war faction". Not how it works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I too oppose changing the infoboxes to "war faction", these are self declared states that administer territory and have millions of people under their administration. Putative states have always used state infoboxes on wikipedia. In any regard, there is clearly no consensus to change to the "war faction" box. As such i have reverted back to the way the infobox was before this discussion began.XavierGreen (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Xavier here, this is an unrecognized state and should use state infobox.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't there an RfC about this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, this was already discussed extensively. Here is one such discussion. I'm pretty sure that this wound up in an RfC and the result was the same - use "war faction" - but I could be misremembering. Anyway, what this means is that it is incorrect to claim that the infobox was *changed to* war faction. It was *returned back* to being war faction, per consensus. So if you want to change it to something else then you have to work to establish new consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That discussion you cite to was well before the Donbass War went into full swing and before the DPR gained effective administration over the areas it now controls. But all of that is irrelevant anyway. What matters is consensus now, not what consensus was two years ago. And as clearly indicated from the discussion above, there is no consensus to change from the polity infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That infobox is not appropriate because it presents DPR as a state independent from Ukraine. This is clearly not the case according to existing agreements. According to current agreements, it suppose to be/remain a part of Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This simply isn't an issue up for local consensus. Until such a time as it can be demonstrated that the DPR and LPR are recognised states, and that the Minsk II protocols have been fulfilled, treating these states as anything other than war factions is pure WP:OR. I don't know why it wasn't picked up on a couple of years ago when the articles were created... Oh, wait, perhaps I do: they were both subject to so much POV edit warring that it was impossible to even keep up with the tidal wave of traffic creating a POV construct of presenting both states as if they were legitimate. Unless those !voting for their preferred infobox can come up with WP:RS demonstrating the recognition and legitimacy of these states as 'geopolitical organizations', there is no consensus issue. It's down to RS, not POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All issues are a matter of consensus, and there is no consensus here for changing the infobox to war faction. The Minsk protocols are irrelevant. The DPR and LPR still hold themselves out to be states and still are recognized as independent by South Ossetia. Furthermore whats truely important here is not whether or not the LPR and DPR are states, but whether they administer territory. The LPR and DPR have civil administrations in place that govern people they control. As such, the infobox should be one of an administering polity which the geopolitical organization infobox fully reflects.XavierGreen (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, consensus is only up for grabs in instances where RS present conflicting information, where sourced information is deemed to be undue in the context of the article, etc. Policies and reliable secondary sources trump any form of consensus every time. We don't write op-eds: we write encyclopaedic articles based on information gleaned from reliable secondary sources. You're working on the assumption that declarative theory = sovereign state. Wrong. It's only one criterion, and one criterion does not a state make. Treating it as if this were a WP:PPOV issue doesn't wash. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Talking about reliable sources is meaningless in regards to discussing about which infobox to use, info-boxes themselves are merely stylistic presentations of information already contained in the article, all of which is already sourced by reliable sources already elsewhere in the article. Consensus is exactly what determines what infobox is used, and there is no consensus here to change the infobox to the war-faction type.XavierGreen (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Furthermore you seem fixated on the theory that the geopolical organization infobox is used solely for recognized states. This is simply not the case. The infobox is used for a wide variety of differing polities that administer people or places. For example, the UN uses the same infobox, yet the UN is clearly not a state. Micronation articles use the infobox, but they too are not states.XavierGreen (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The DPR and LPR are neither micronations nor the UN. They are unrecognised states and war factions. That's a big "no comparison" for your analogy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What I object is not the infobox per se, but its content. It tells:

• 	Independence from Ukraine • 	Declared 	7 April 2014 • 	Referendum 	11 May 2014 • 	Referendum ratified 	12 May 2014[6] • 	Agreement to form a confederation with the Luhansk People's Republic signed 	24 May 2014[7]
 * (1) there is no independence from Ukraine per Minsk agreement, (2) there was no anything at least remotely similar to a valid referendum in DPR; (3) actually, there is no confederation. My very best wishes (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As about the initial question ("DPR versus ISIS"), yes, these military groups have different ideologies and tactics. In addition, unlike ISIS, DPR has been completely installed by another state (Russia) and supported by its army. Obviously, this does not make DPR a more independent state than ISIS. Quite the opposite. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Kosovo has been completely installed by NATO. That's the closest parallel I can see to the DPR situation.


 * The big difference between DPR and Islamic State is that ISIS, like the Khmer Rouge or Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), is obsessed with ethnic cleansing and mass murder. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * While your assertion about the Novorussia confederation is correct. The fact remains that both the LPR and DPR declared independence, had the referendums, and maintain their administrations over territory, these facts are properly cited in the body of the articles. Thus the geopolitical organization infobox was correct in stating those facts. In regards to Iryna Harpy's remark above that these are unrecognized states, all unrecognized states use the geopolitical organization infobox on wikipeida. For examples see: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Republic of Biafra, Somaliland, Abkhazia, Kosovo, Confederate States of America, Free Territory ect.XavierGreen (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you're conflating issues again. The entities you're pointing to have been long established, or have been stable and functioning for long enough for RS to consider them to be geopolitical entities. Please don't just go to the List of states with limited recognition article and pluck out instances to back up your assertion. If you want to argue such matters, take a look at the Excluded entities section and read the talk page (including the archived talk) regarding the matter. Naturally, this is common knowledge to both you and I as you've also been POV-pushing on that article. I'm merely bringing it up so as other editors are aware of the fact that you seem to have difficulty in separating your WP:PPOV from the objective scrutiny of RS. For all of your attempts to speed up the process per WP:CRYSTAL, you still haven't been able to come up with a solid argument outside of WP:JDL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Republic of Benin (1967), Republic of Biafra, Free Territory, and Confederate States of America were all not long in existence. I can list over a score of different cases of break away polities using the geopolitical organization infobox. Its the standard infobox for such entities across Wikipedia. As for discussion you link to above on the List of states with limited recognition page, anyone that reads that can clearly see that I was proposing a solution to some ambiguity in that page's inclusion criteria, which another editor had brought up. I proposed a solution, which was accepted through consensus on that page.XavierGreen (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that infobox is called "geopolitical organization" rather than "state" (consider Free Territory ruled by Nestor Makhno as a similar example), I would not be opposed to using this infobox for DPR, LPR and ISIS if content of the infobox would be fixed as suggested above. My very best wishes (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I still have problems with it, even given amendments. The examples you've provided are historical (that is, done and dusted). In this instance, they are by no means done and dusted, nor covered by RS. Given another few years, this may become the case for the DRP and LPR... but, to reiterate, what you're proposing is a prognosis = WP:CRYSTAL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No objections to the current infobox either. It was placed by Julia Romero a month ago. Here, the relevant example is ISIS which is indeed similar to DPR and LPR. My very best wishes (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, nothing to do with Crystal. I note that the current version has no consensus. The Confederate States of America are in the same situation as Donetsk and Lugansk. The POV pushing avoid this. For cons, I'm against a change of infobox for Daesh. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are editors regurgitating the 'no consensus' line when it isn't a matter for consensus when RS do not ascribe any recognition of the state, nor that it is stable. In fact, being recognised as a state (as opposed to a war faction) is contingent on the Minsk II protocols being fulfilled. This is what makes them what they are: both are unstable, self-declared states dependent on martial law. There are no RS that speak of them as being anything other than that. I've encountered a couple of academic papers discussing them as potentially being states according to the application of one theory or another, but they are essentially op-ed pieces by a couple of academics with whom the mainstream disagree = WP:EXCEPTIONAL. How difficult is it to comprehend that we're WP:NOTNEWS, and that we don't engage in WP:OR. See Verifiability: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source... (bolding and italics per policy section quoted). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No it is false. We are in the same situation as the ephemeral state and warrior called Confederate States of America (1860-1864). Yet is it that infobox was changed without consensus. we must restore the old lack of a better and possibly recover if there is consensus. Here we are dealing with a forced passage and a wear strategist. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ↑? Where are the RS discussing these states as being comparable? You and XavierGreen have created parallels according to your WP:PPOV. Not only are you pointing to a secessionist state from over 150 years ago, you haven't demonstrated that any RS has so much as suggested that they there is any parity between these states as regards anything within the realms of political aspirations, modus operandi, etc. It's not even over, and you're trying to project a conclusion to that which has not concluded?! NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources speak of self-proclaimed state. It is a state. Since the subject is controversial, being changed without consensus and then to seek a consensus with those against the amendment is not a collaborative attitude. If the discussion I intend to appeal to administrator. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, both are transitory states and unrecognized . Moreover, Donetsk still exists and perhaps they will survive more years than the Confederate States. This denial is a POV pushing and unacceptable level . I ask a mediator. In addition, IP has reignited the debate but from the start, ie in December-January , the infobox was changed without consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NPOV. And thank you proved that infobox was changed without consensus.
 * I provide a link above where the matter is discussed. Your strange notion that "DPR is like the Southern Confederacy" is clearly original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That both the Confederate States of America and the DPR declared independence and lacked international recognition is not original research, its common knowlege and well sourced on each polities respective wikipedia pages.XavierGreen (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A comparison between CSA and DPR is most certainly original research, absent specific reliable sources which make that comparison. More, it is a textbook example of original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I will note that all of the Soviet puppet states from the 1910's and 1920's all use geopolitical organization infoboxes. In essence, these polities are most akin to the DPR, LPR, Transnistria, South Ossetia, ect. For example see Far Eastern Republic, Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic, Bavarian Council Republic, Hungarian Soviet Republic, Bukharan People's Soviet Republic, Taurida Soviet Socialist Republic, Kuban Soviet Republic, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you for the reminder of the discussion and !votes back in 2014, ! Due to the complexity of the umbrella project of "Novorossiya" at that time, I'd actually felt predisposed towards 'infobox country' as we were supposed to only !vote for one prospective infobox (even though others voted for a couple of options). I think that goes to demonstrate that I do not make decisions as to articles based on my own POV - whether it is tempting or not - and that I am evaluating this in context right now... and RS since that point in time have undoubtedly reinforced 'war faction'. The fact that it stood for some time at 'geopolitical organization' was never a consensus decision, and trying to point to it as being consensus by default because no one was really paying attention to what kind of infobox had been in place is not an argument for the continuing use of an inappropriate infobox.


 * Oh, and XavierGreen, re-reading the archived talk page VM has linked to, I note that you appear to be mimicking Herzen's comparisons which were refuted at that time, and are being (exhaustively) rebutted per WP:NOR again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This is just your opinion. Again nothing to do with original research. And it is time that this obstruction passage and forces cease. It is unacceptable that the infobox was changed in December without consensus. A return to the latest stable version is required. Panam2014 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * NOR is a policy fact, not an opinion. Unless you have RS to backing up all of these comparisons to any other unrecognised states, it's original research. Local consensus never, ever trumps policy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is not original research, it's just an excuse to justify your forced passage . You did not have to change the page without consensus. If you are confident about yourself, why you have not started looking for a consensus? This is because you do not have one . And if you were not is that the majority of contributors do not agree that this is an original research. Your change is not collaborative . --Panam2014 (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is valid point by Iryna. XavierGreen compared DPR with a number of other unrecognized states above. These could be valid comparisons in your or my opinion. However, can you or someone else please provide some published RS that make such comparisons? If you could, that would be an argument in favor of using the same infobox. But so far you did not. Hence she mentioned WP:OR, which is the policy here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What is OR? That administrations of territory use the Geopolitical Organization infobox? That's the accepted practice here on Wikipedia. Even defacto autonomous administrations that have not declared independence use this infobox, for example see here Rojava, Puntland, Serbian Krajina, SAO Romanija, Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia, Provisional Priamurye Government, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this is not accepted practice. This is one of cases when use of specific infoboxes is disputable. It appears that most your examples above are irrelevant because these pages use templates like "former country" or "territorial subdivision". DPR is obviously not a former country. Honestly, I am not even sure what exactly a "Geopolitical Organization" means, and it would help to have some RS telling that "DPR is a geopolitical organization". My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Serbian Krajina and SAO Romaija were self declared autonomous polities supported by the Serbian/Yugoslav army during the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990's. Their situation is virtually identical to the LPR and DPR, except for the fact that the LPR and DPR declared independence where the various serb puppet republics and autonomies for the most part did not. The geopolitical organization infobox is used for a wide variety of differing polities and administrations of land and people. Requiring a reliable source for the use of an infobox is asinine, no where in the manual of style does it say that one must present reliable sources regarding the use of one infobox over another. It is purely a stylistic choice, and in this regard there clearly was no consensus expressed throughout this discussion which would support changing the infobox to the war faction one. As I have indicated above, it is common practice to use the geopolitical infobox for any sort of polity, regardless of whether or not it has declared independence or is recognized as a state.XavierGreen (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:RS applies to everything, including infoboxes and categories. I think that any infobox would be fine if it provides correct information, however, current infobox stays in the page already for a month, so I would not mind keeping it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The layout of a page does not require reliable sources. All of the information in the geopolitical org infobox was sourced with reliable sources. The only reason the current infobox is there is because this page was edit protected shortly after the infobox was reverted to warfaction by another editor.XavierGreen (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Both infoboxes provide incorrect information. For example, current infobox claims incorrect "ideology". The older, "Geopolitical organization" infobox provides misleading info related to "confederation", independence from Ukraine and population. That must be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As bizarre as the ideology parameter descriptions may be, how does one define an 'ideology' when RS don't present absolute political ideological stances? Wikipedia articles cover wars (i.e., 2003 invasion of Iraq) where no ideology is presented. Does that mean that there was no ideological basis for the war?! According to the military conflicts infoboxes, wars aren't fought for a reason. More to the point, if there is nothing to inform us of what the DPR's political position is (are they left or right... and compared to what?), how can they be a 'geopolitical' organisation? The only RS testimony to their position is to their geographical position, so we've got the geo{graphical) part covered. Where's the political part of the equation? They're still at war with the Ukrainian state, therefore logic would dictate that they have to be passionate about something... Owning a few villages and closed down mines? To what end? Some form of statehood? What state, and how will it function? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no need to list the ideology parameter in the infobox. Virtually no page relating to a polity administering territory has that parameter, see the examples i listed above Furthermore it is well sourced within the article that both the LPR and DPR declared independence, so it is not erroneous to include that in the infobox. Whether or not they are a state or even recognized as such is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that both the LPR and DPR are polities administering territory, the exact situation the geopolitical organization infobox is meant for.XavierGreen (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I have no real objections to the political ideology parameter being cleared. Again, however, you are conflating 'common practice' across articles with parameters which have been left out precisely because there's no reliable evaluation of the ideology of groups. There are also no RS identifying either DPR or LPR as states or recognised, and that counts for everything outside of your own POV which = WP:SYNTH. Either find RS supporting your contentions, or drop it. All you're doing is WP:REHASHing the same arguments over and over again. That's not policy or guideline based argument but trying to badger other editors into getting your own way (AKA WP:CRUSH). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is what we have about Geopolitical organizations. These are international organizations. They are nothing even remotely similar to DPR. My very best wishes (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Most certainly, neither DPR nor LPR bear any resemblance to the EFTA, APEC, or the African Union... and, my goodness, who on earth has been working on the Geopolitics article? Certainly not experts. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As i stated above, the geopolitical organization infobox is used across a wide variety of different types of polities, including fully recognized states, such as the United Kingdom, unrecognized states such as Somaliland, other defacto autonomous administrations which do not assert independence such as Serbian Krajina, and non territorial based administrations like the UN and League of Nations. All of these different polities use the geopolitical organization infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh no, Somaliland uses infobox "Country". But whatever it uses, this is a different page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the county infobox and geopolitical organization infobox are one in the same with the same exact parameters, just different titles, indeed Template:Infobox Geopolitical organization is a redirect of the country infobox. Indeed if i recall, the geopolitical infobox was specifically chosen to be used on this page because a handful of users had objections to using the country infobox at the time the DPR and LPR were founded, when they had very loose control over a very small amount of territory. XavierGreen (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did not notice. So, is it really a country? Perhaps it is, but this is something disputable because this territory suppose to be returned back to Ukraine as a result of Minsk agreement and because the borders of the territory were constantly changing after the agreement as a result or warfare.My very best wishes (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of using the geopolitical organization or country infoboxes, it is not necessary to determine whether or not the specific polity is a "country", a "state", or something else, all that is necessary is that there is some type of administrative structure set up to rule over people or land. Indeed as i stated above, various serbian puppet entities created during the Yugoslav Wars use the country or geopolitical organization infobox. Practically none of these entities declared independence and they did not claim to be their own "country", yet because they had autonomous administrations over people and or land, they use the country/geopolitical organization infobox. Indeed another derivative of the same infobox which redirects to Template:Infobox County, is the micronation infobox which uses the same exact layout as the country infobox, except with a different title. No one argues that micronations are "states" or "countries", yet they still use the same type of infobox because they have (at least on paper) some bare bones type of administration which is outlined in the infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're WP:REHASHing yet again. As for what other historical entities did, and how they came to be recognised as countries is completely irrelevant because we're not there yet. All of your arguments are outside of the scope of this article and the LPR article: it's a case by case evaluation and the RS don't fit with the facts as you'd like them to be. How much more of the self-same arguments are you intending to barrage this talk page with? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You obviously haven't read anything I've posted above. Many of the various polities I've made note of which use the country/geopolitical infobox never declared themselves to be states/countries and never declared independence. ANY administration of territory uses the country infobox or one of its derivities. Even micronations use a derivative of the country infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Bump to keep section from being archived.XavierGreen (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Bumping again to keep section from being archived since it relates to the RFC below.XavierGreen (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This ridiculous debate is contrary to the nature of Wikipedia. We are supposed to state the facts, not take a side. The fact of the matter is that the DPR is a partially-recognized, self-declared independent state. It is not our place to debate the legitimacy of its statehood. That would mean taking a side, which would mean bias. Because it is a self-declared state, we use the country infobox, just as we do with all the others. It is not simply a war faction or insurgent group. It's government functions independently of the government of Ukraine. We aren't going to make an exception to the rule for this article just because certain media sources say they are terrorists. This opinion is not universal, and it is not the majority opinion, Anasaitis (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Bumping to keep this thread from being archived until the related RFC below closes.12.10.199.11 (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Danger of creating a non-neutral article?
Both Donetsk People's Republic and Ukraine do not seem to do a lot to implement Minsk II.... It can be argued that both are doing the opposite. Should referenced information about this be included into the article or are we in danger of creating a non-neutral article if we do that? Cases in point: since Minsk II DPR has not scaled down its attempts to create state institutions and Ukraine has not lifted its economic blockade of Donbass. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  21:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There should be plenty of neutral sources around stating this.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This risk is present in all articles. We'll just work through any disputes like normal. Nuke (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)