Talk:Donetsk People's Republic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Flag

I don't know if the 'rebels', if you will, have realeased an official flag, but if not, I'd suggest using this flag instead of the current one, as it's (relatively) higher in quality. --NINTENPUG (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Did Donetsk really declare independence?

Did it really declare its independence or did it just pass a letter of intent? The Republic of Crimea passed a letter of intent to declare its independence days before it held a referendum. Couldn't this be a similar situation or am I just not getting this? [Soffredo] 12:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

According to the previously-cited ITAR-TASS article, it declared "state sovereignty" which at least in Soviet times meant that a republic considered outside laws passed on it by a "higher" entity (in this case the Ukrainian government, in Soviet times the Soviet government) not binding if the republic itself does not agree to them. It's not outright independence. --Ismail (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This Republic has declared independence though. (1) (2) [Soffredo] 13:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It's possible that these Western sources don't understand a possible nuance between "state sovereignty" and independence though. If either the Russian media or an authoritative voice from the Donetsk People's Republic says "it's independent," I think we can be sure it really has proclaimed independence. --Ismail (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

From the looks of it, it may be that the Republic was already declared and the referendum is just for joining Russia.

"Pro-Russian protesters seized official buildings in the eastern cities of Kharkiv, Luhansk and Donetsk on Sunday night, demanding that referendums be held on whether to join Russia like the one that preceded Moscow's takeover of Crimea."

[Soffredo] 13:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

" 'The territory of the republic within the recognized borders is indivisible and inviolable,' the council said." The Republic has clearly already claimed territory. It's not a proposed state, but rather an unrecognized state. [Soffredo] 13:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no such a thing as Donetsk People's Republic. It is just a saying. When I go to the City Hall of my living place and say the city is independent from the Netherlands, that is just what I think, not what is a fact. Hans Kamp (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"This Republic has declared independence though" No. Some guys that occupied a building do not make a "republic". That should be obvious. If that is not obvious to you, try perusing the corresponding Wikipedia about what constitutes an actual republic.

"The Republic has clearly already claimed territory. It's not a proposed state, but rather an unrecognized state." No, it is not. A small group of people claiming territory makes them not a republic, but rather a gang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.36.131 (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Declaration on state sovereignty was declared by some random idiots from Russia. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Pro Russian propaganda" section

There is a "Pro Russian propaganda" section with some POV-ish wording ("farce-session"), and it takes a great leap of OR/POV to conclude from the content that it is about propaganda, so the title of the section is also rather POV-ish. Is this section really necessary?

It would seem more reasonable to incorporate notable parts of its content to the "History" section and reword it in neutral way. Feon {^t/_c} 17:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

POVish is the creation of the article in the first place. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I've fixed that for now. Feon {^t/_c} 17:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Feon, please, read the official statement of the Donetsk city council that implies that the session in the Donetsk city council building by unknown separatists lays outside of legal field. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how someone's opinion of legality of something, or legality of something itself is related to this issue of neutrality. Feon {^t/_c} 17:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, you might want to read the WP:LD. Cheers! Feon {^t/_c} 17:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Feon, you're making no sense and you cannot delete stuff without finding a consensus. You failing notice legality does not constitute a fact. Russian government recognizes Viktor Yanukovych the President of Ukraine, but luckily you do not have a nerve to push that POV. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Aleksandr Grigoryev, I don't share this POV of Russian government and, more importantly, reliable sources disagree with it, so even if I did share it, as you seem to imply, I still wouldn't push if, but not because of "lack of nerve", as you seem to imply, but for sake of the neutrality.

And please, refrain yourself from imputing to other people that they have the POV opposite of yours just because they might not seem to share your POV in some areas. That's rude.

Also, I don't see the reason to beat the dead horse as the issue of this section seems to be resolved for now. If you see another issue with this article, I would suggest you to start a separate discussion. Mixing the topics is counterproductive. Feon {^t/_c} 18:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I didn't delete anything except the POV-ish title of the section. I've left all the content that was there. Feon {^t/_c} 18:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Feon CNN also reports about the Pro Russian propaganda that was spread by the Russian media Russia trying to 'dismember' Ukraine through protests, Kiev says. So there is no grounds for deletion of the section. Cheer yourself! Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Aleksandr Grigoryev, I might be missing something, but Ctrl+F "propaganda" yields nothing in the CNN article you have provided, so claiming that it is about propaganda constitutes original research. Feon {^t/_c} 18:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Feon, the article I mentioned states the following:

“ The protesters broke into a regional administrative building in the mining city of Donetsk on Sunday as well as security services offices in nearby Luhansk, where police said they had seized weapons. A self-proclaimed legislature, representing what it called the Donetsk People's Republic, then announced that it would hold a referendum by May 11 on whether the area should join Russia, Russian state-run news agency ITAR-Tass reported.

The report could not immediately be independently verified. The Russian news agency also said the Donetsk group asked Russian President Vladimir Putin to send a "temporary peacekeeping contingent."

”

Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Feon, are you denying the existence of the Russian propaganda? Here is an article, of course, on events that already in the past about the fact that I argued preciously with users like yourself with the exactly the same arguments that are using right now (Russian propaganda war in full swing over Ukraine by Associated Press). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Aleksandr Grigoryev, I am not denying such an existence, I acknowledge the existence Russian, Ukrainian, American and other propaganda. Again, you are inputting that I might have some particular set of opinions ("users like yourself") just because I might not agree on some of your POV. Please don't, that's rude and offensive.

Yahoo News article is better because it explicitly mentions the propaganda, but it mentions it in a broader context of Ukrainian crisis. If you could find a source that explicitly mentions the propaganda directly related to DPR, whether Russian or Ukrainian, then it would be possible to include it in this article in a neutral manner. Feon {^t/_c} 19:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Feon, have you read my quote from the article I mentioned already? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and, as I can see, it doesn't mention the propaganda explicitly, it only says that a Russian news agency reported something that could not immediately be independently verified. One might say it is "common sense" to conclude that this text is about the propaganda, but for Wikipedia it is original research to conclude that this text is about the propaganda, because it is unfortunately not explicitly mentioned.

Now, if you would excuse me, I will refrain from further participation in this discussion, at least for some time, because I have some RL stuff to do. Feon {^t/_c} 20:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Rename article to cover all separatist movements

They have declared a Peoples Republic of Kharkov now - in this case, they don't even control the building, they made the declaration from the lobby. This stuff isn't notable or legitimate or in any sense real. Just rantings of a few hundred rioters. link. Wait until we can establish notability or de facto control of some sort. Suggestion: Have all "declared" republics in a single article on the event or call it "Eastern Ukraine separatism movement 2014, or something. --Львівське (говорити) 18:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is a video of this "proclamation". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's wait to see how will those things evolve first and act later. Situation is so volatile that anything could happen. It should be clearer in a day or two. Feon {^t/_c} 18:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Next thing, we will hear a declaration of the Eastern Ukrainian People's Republic from the Kremlin, Moscow or Rostov-na-Donu. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Feon, the more logical thing would be to have a base level article on the movements as a whole, and if they constitute separate 'republic' articles then we make that decision in a few days. cart before the horse.--Львівське (говорити) 18:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I think I will declare the formation of the Budapest People's Republic from my basement. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Why stop there? Pest has been oppressed by Buda for so long already. It deserves recognition on its own! :) CodeCat (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

How about the Cherepovets Republic of Free Citizens? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

unexplained revert?

This diff shows me adding a couple of sources, but they were reverted as "not pov source", which doesnt seem to add up. I think this was an accidental revert but just posting here to make sure theres not an issue.--Львівське (говорити) 14:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it up here, I was just about to start a section. Just curious on the POV nature/reliability of the source since no other major news sources (http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/08/ukraine-lawmakers-fight-among-themselves-in-violent-parliament-brawl-as-russia-warns-of-civil-war/, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/08/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA370RU20140408, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/world/europe/russia-ukraine-unrest.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0) dated and timestamped later than the source cited suggest that the conflict/occupation has ended. Mind you, my Ukrainian is terrible...but I can't seem to glean any insight from the source you have there.JNC2 (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's possible that those western sources were written the night before and published this morning, and aren't up to date with local news. There's always a lag between Ukrainian/Russian news and what we get in north america. However, they do still occupy the building. The Donetsk Republic organization then declared themselves the legitimate authority so maybe you're right --Львівське (говорити) 15:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification :)–JNC2 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Communists In The Donetsk Peoples Republic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4Q_BphPLws

Bolegash (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Source for flag

There seems to be some edit warring going on over the flag. The flag visable at the meeting establishing the republic is the black red and blue flag with eagle emblems. This source has states that the flag of the Donetsk republic is black red and blue [[1]].XavierGreen (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Both versions with and without the arms have been used. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88HmeXWYN2s Bolegash (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Historic Event That Occured and Was of Big Importance -- for Deletion?!

What is wrong with the article? The whole world is talking about it and it has undoubtedly occurred. Maybe rename it to "self-proclaimed" or "the incident of" and forget about deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.41.252.228 (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

that appears to be what we're leaning towards. Please bear in mind an article on the pro-russian protests detailing everything in donetsk already exists, people are debating deleting the article about the country that doesnt exist. The content is good, it's a matter of labeling and sorting. --Львівське (говорити) 00:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The republic doesn't exist. That is the main reason. Hans Kamp (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hooray

I anticipate a new round of debates over maps, flags, the neutrality (or lack thereof) of texts, and general acrimony à la the subject of Crimea. Also for what it's worth ITAR-TASS calls it the "Donetsk People's Republic" rather than "People's Republic of Donetsk." --Ismail (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct name. Donetsk People's Republic = Донецкая народная республика, and People's Republic of Donetsk = Народная республика Донецк Aotearoa (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone just changed it to Donetsk People's Republic. --Ismail (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The point is that the English language has no adjective derived from Donetsk, while the Russian language has: Донецкая. Hans Kamp (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Donetskian? Donetskite? The point, English can always form adjectives, to be used in sentences like "Donetsk[...], Kievians, Muscovites and New Yorkers, inhabitants of Donetsk, Kiev, Moscow, and New York respectively, have... ". It is just a matter of finding out which is correct. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sovereignty?

So the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic can only be said to control a few buildings, is it appropriate to refer to it as an "unrecognized sovereign state"? Perhaps some other wording in the preface would be more accurate. --Astrofreak92 (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

they aren't a state (no governance, no citizenry, nothing) and they have no sovereignty (having absolute control over a geographic area). Right now they're just squatters, nothing more.(further, they don't want to be sovereign, they want to be part of Russia) --Львівське (говорити) 05:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Very, very slowly I am changing my mind about this issue. The main reason is that the protesters in Donetsk and Slovyansk is gaining more power, because they looted weapons and seized several buildings, courts, police stations and buildings of the Security Service of Ukraine. The republic still doesn't exist, but unless the Ukrainian government get those buildings and weapons back by force, this republic might exist in the future, and then there is reason to keep this article. Hans Kamp (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

THE RIGHT OF BEING

People's right to be what they feel they are should be recognized, honored and respected. In my opinion, when such conflicts arise UNO should be ready to sponsor transparent and independent referendums in which concerned people could state freely their preferences. The same applies to Catalunya (Catalonia), my beloved country of birth, which was annexed to Spain by force in 1714 as result of the defeat in the Succession War, won by Felipe V (ancestor of the present king of Spain), a defeat consequence of the treason of England who traded their alliance to the Austricians for the island of Menorca and the Peñón of Gibraltar. Catalunya is now challenging the "established legality" with a call for a referendum next November. As side comment, the present king of Spain is not king by right of succession but by direct appointment of fascist dictator Francisco Franco. As result of that, Spaniards are not "citizens" but "subdits".

David Sempau Catalan exilied in Panama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.219.37.21 (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome to our encyclopedia. With all the respect, this is talk page where people should discuss changes to article, not their personal views or opionions, so this isn't the right place for your political views. Thank you Petrb (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Tell that to those pro-Ukrainians who are avidly trying to get the article denigrated or erased due to some sort of an ego gap in their nationalist minds. Those are the people you should criticize, for they are just as amateur and yet much more disruptive than this person. Klopsikon (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I am criticizing nobody I am trying to explain what this talk page is for. It is meant to everyone who don't understand it. Petrb (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Folks. Please read WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Mmm... may I remember this is not a forum? Silvio1973 (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Donbass People's Milia

Donbass People's Militia was created. I hope it can be worked on and improved using Ukrainian sources instead of putting it on AfD too soon. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Donetsk People's Republic → 2014 Donetsk conflict – This article is broader than just the declaration. Bejnar (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Now meets declarative theory of statehood

The LA times [[2]] reports that the separatists now control two entire towns, given that the people's republic now meets the criteria to satisfy as a state under the declarative theory of statehood.XavierGreen (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

we cant conduct original research but IMO I think it passes the sniff test, unlike the others. It's debatable that they control the whole towns and not just specific buildings, though. --Львівське (говорити) 20:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is well sourced that city of Slovyansk is under the control of Donetsk People's Republic seperateists. More sources are here [[3]], [[4]], ect.74.105.130.90 (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Funny Lvivske :-) Isn't every state controlled by people who control "just specific buildings"? 90.221.159.64 (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

authority extends beyond buildings. Police stations are not islands, the public sector is a sprawl. --Львівське (говорити) 07:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Gubarev's Russian National Unity membership

This content keeps getting arbitrarily blanked, usually as "allegations" or "slander" by users. There is nothing about this that is speculative, there are pictures of him in the group and it's reported by many sources. Here's the text to save it from the users who keep content blanking

a member of the neo-Nazi Russian National Unity paramilitary group, who is also currently arrested on charges of separatism.

That's Timothy D. Snyder, Halya Coynash (journalist and a member of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group), Oleksiy Matsuka (chief editor of Novosti Donbassa newspaper), and Vitaliy Sizov (journalist at Novosti Donbassa), and TSN (Ukrainian news). All good sources. If we're going to talk libel, there needs to be a reason to justify that this is speculative and not fact. Otherwise, it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't want to have to WP:CITEKILL but it shouldnt be hard to find more sources if pressed.--Львівське (говорити) 18:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

it appears some users tried to find a compromise solution and include both sides of his past party affiliation, but other(s) still are nuking the content without using the talk page. The consensus seems to be to restore it, based on the number restoring/compromising vs. those who are effectively vandalizing now.--Львівське (говорити) 16:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Gubarev's Russian National Unity membership is relevant and should stay.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Gubarev hasn't even made an appearance in the People's Republic since its foundation a week ago, so why does he even belong in the introduction? He is a political prisoner in a tightly guarded prison near Kiev. It's not like he is calling the shots from his jail cell. Furthermore a dubious allegation about his past, a membership to a group over a decade ago, has little relevance to police headquarters and city administration buildings being taken over by protesters, which is what this article is about after all. --Tocino 10:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Gubarev is the "official people Governor" of this "republic". I think his association with a paramilitary group is relevant Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article should be semi-protected because it's starting to receive a lot of vandalism, and a lot more of it is expected to come because this topic is related to the recent events towards which many people seem to have rather strong feelings. Feon {^t/_c} 13:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

PROTECTION???? DELETE SPEEDILY as nonsense!!! Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Please speedy protect. [Soffredo] 13:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The section on the leaflets is parroting a mistranslation, could someone with an account fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.147.125 (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I've requested the protection at WP:RFP. Feon {^t/_c} 13:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Please speedy protect, at least until source could be proven false or true. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

DELETE SPEEDILY as nonsense!!! until sources could be verified. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Instead of protecting this work of fiction, it should be speedily deleted.

There is a deletion notice on the page, in case you missed it. CodeCat (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic → 2014 Donetsk crisis – Until a 'republic' has de facto control or recognition, this should just cover Львівське (говорити) 20:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)--Львівське (говорити) 20:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Also suggest we rename to something that would encompass all 2014 separatist movements in eastern ukraine. --Львівське (говорити) 20:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support; falls in line with naming policy of Wikipedia (see: 2014 Crimean crisis) and the current content of the article deals with this crises. Not with features of this "Donetsk People's Republic" (The Donetsk People's Republic (Russian: Донецкая народная республика, Donetskaya narodnaya respublika) is the name for a building with 100 people in it.... etc.) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That misses the point of the article entirely. Plus it is redundant. Just use this page to describe the situation! Klopsikon (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Very good idea indeed. Perhaps "2014 Donbas crisis" would be a better name because Donbas refers to the whole historical, economic and cultural region of eastern Ukraine. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. So then: Donbas, Donbass, or Donetsk Basin? Donbass is Russian spelling so it's more fitting IMO, and it may be common use. Then again, it's slang, so does Donetsk Basin become the proper descriptor? I do like this idea since Donbass covers specifically Luhansk, Kharkiv, and Donetsk, and the former Donetsk republic from 1918 covered those 3 cities as well. --Львівське (говорити) 21:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer calling it how media call it, since that is what the people would search for. That is just "Donetsk". Other names could redirect there. Petrb (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Petrb; also Kharkiv has never been part of the Donbass... (and WP:OR sources informed me they do not like to be associated with it...) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yulia, you're right, I made a mistake. --Львівське (говорити) 21:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Do that, it much better describes the situation, and current title is pretty misleading, no such a republic was ever recognized by anyone, but this bunch of occupants. Maybe this place will become a separate republic one day, but wikipedia shouldn't be used to manipulate with people, especially when it comes to events that happened few hours ago, that we have little information about. Petrb (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - very sensible proposal. The current article title is a bit of WP:CRYSTALBALL and a lot of WP:POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support a much better title for this.Tracland (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support a title like Separatism crisis in eastern Ukraine, 2014 or anything close to that. The article should include all similar events in other oblasts. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose So far the information here is focused on the putative state, not on a crisis. In some aspects regarding the nature of article state it is similar to the Bavarian Soviet Republic which covers the history in the view of the existance of that putative state. XavierGreen (talk)

As this state does not exist, it merits no WP page of its own. The Bavarian Soviet Republic DID exist (i.e. govern and control people). --92.229.36.131 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It exists as a political body, ie there are people that claim to be its government. The Bavarian Soviet Republic did not control territory at first either, it is possible that militants in Donetsk could sieze bunch of towns tomorrow and actually control territory. The point is it is to early to delete.XavierGreen (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The point is, it is to early to have an encyclopedia article on an entity you say MIGHT exist tomorrow. ---> WP:CRYSTALBALL And people who claim to be a government who have neither actual control nor official legitimacy are NOT a political body. Factually, they are nothing but illegal occupants of a government building. --92.229.36.131 (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support For all the reasons given already above. Its not an actual Republic, but the events in East Ukraine should have a page. --92.229.36.131 (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware, the 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine article does exist and covers all the events in East Ukraine. --Львівське (говорити) 21:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

So it could be integrated into a subsection of that article.--92.229.36.131 (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. --Львівське (говорити) 22:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note to closer This article is at AfD, so it shouldn't be moved until that discussion is resolved. If it wraps up in a week, that won't be a problem. Otherwise, hold off on a close here. --BDD (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I could not see "Donestsk Crisis" elsewhere in articles. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)(User Indef blocked) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - This clip that came up in the deletion debate says it all imo. You can't declare something and expect it to be so. The event happened sure, but this is not an unrecognised state, they do not govern Donetsk in any form, never have - this is little more than a group of people occupying a building and declaring independence. Alexsau1991 (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - you cant just deny the existence of this newly proclaimed state by changing the title. The article is already being considered for deletion, which is not going to work either as it seems. Failing that, you just try to change the title. The article is about the new state, and not about some crisis. If you don't like the fact that Ukraine is falling apart, it is your problem, but pushing your POV and denial by changing the title of this article is not the way to go. There are many articles about even short lived, unrecognized states. Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)(banned sockpuppet acct. --Львівське (говорити) 07:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC))

  Get me an article for some republic that lasted few hours please and I will believe you. Petrb (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The Russian_Democratic_Federative_Republic lasted only a few hours. And the group that declared Donetsk independent has not recinded its declaration.XavierGreen (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

two things: the RDFR is an historical article, we dont know the historical significance of the donetsk republic yet; and two, the RDFR was decided by an elected body with actual authority, not a group of squatters. It was a short lived state, but it was at least de facto and de jure a state for a duration - the DR is neither and nothing so far.--Львівське (говорити) 03:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The proclamation of the state was already rescinded after locals complained.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, now that this has aborted itself I think we should just Merge the content into the greater pro-Russia protest article. This article was clearly WP:CRYSTAL. --Львівське (говорити) 14:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not aborted; the statement was by completely unrelated group of people. [5], where it clearly says: "Отметим, что КПСД не имеет отношения к сепаратистам, которые создали Донецкую народную республику, а потом их решение на ход событий вряд ли влияет." Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)(banned sockpuppet acct. --Львівське (говорити) 07:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC))

• Support - The Republic is fantasy of several hundred people (in a region where the population is over 4 million) and don't desire to have a separate article. Should be merged into the greater pro-Russia protest article or a separate article which will cover the crisis. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This doesn't deserve its own article, and can much more adequately be covered in a main article such as the one that is suggested. § DDima 06:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Let's keep our heads clear, there is too much hostility here. I don't care if you don't like the subject of this article, and if you preferred it did not happen. But it happened. Too late. Now the event began to be notable enough to be cited in media around the world. So we should keep the article, and wait for dust to settle before even thinking to discuss about a merge or a rename.Canadianking123 (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Sock account blocked - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Weak conditional support for a title like Donetsk uprising. There's no need to specify the year because no other Donetsk uprising or crisis happened yet. However, if this somehow manages to last and become stable (which might seem unlikely, but remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball), then the current title should be restored. Feon {^t/_c} 20:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is like it or not a legitimate request by people in Donetsk to break away from Ukraine. If it will be successful or not is not up to us to decide but the Donetsk People's Republic is a reality.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - wait until the dust settles. It is currently not clear who has the actual control on the ground in Donetsk. It is not obvious that Turchynov is in charge in the region. If it turns out that the rebels are effectively in control of the government organisations such as the police, courts, tax collections, schools etc, then the article should stay. Sardin23 (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The article and all reliable news sources indicate that the only parts of Donetsk under the control of this new "republic" are two floors of a government building currently surrounded by riot police. Everywhere else in Donetsk remains a part of Ukraine.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, now DPR apparently controls the police force. Let's wait and see. Sardin23 (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, it is not apparent that the riot police was fully controlled by the Turchinov government to begin with. Consider this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh9Y4_N2kVQ. But it looks like I'm selling past the close here, the article is staying. Sardin23 (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - At this moment the republic doesn't exist. It is encyclopedic to mention that there is a separatistic riot in Donetsk (and in Kharkiv and Luhansk). But more prove is needed to justify a WP page. Until now it is missing. On the 11th of April Ukraine demands the protesters to surrender and nothing is left of that non-existent proclamation. If tomorrow it is proven that Ukraine has no control over the oblast of Donetsk, you could speak of a republic and the page can be created again anyway. But for now: there is no reason for a page about this republic. Hans Kamp (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• There is still an AfD in process..... Can we wait for the result of that to come in first please? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support The so-called people's republic consists of around 200 individuals who do not even exert effective control over the entire building they are occupying. For something to be considered a nation-state, some central government needs to exert control over an area of land and people. This is not the case in Donetsk. To the contrary, reading through the article makes it very clear that the city and people of Donetsk do not support this new "government" and that they remain under Ukrainian control. This is an occupation of a building, not a new nation. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The Bangsamoro Republik and the Zamboanga City crisis have separate articles. [Soffredo] 12:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Seraborum (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC) (banned sockpuppet acct. --Львівське (говорити) 07:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC))
• Changing vote to oppose. This entity is lasting longer than expected. It was expected to be disestablished by Kiev today, but it continues to exist, so it seems that Kiev has no control over this region. Feon {^t/_c} 18:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• What region? Donetsk is a city not a region in this case, the city next door very much still controlled by Ukraine in the same oblast has set up roadblocks to keep the pro Russians out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. An April 9 New York Times headline reads, “In Eastern Ukraine, a One-Building, Pro-Russia Realm Persists Despite Criticism.” It captures the situation well: an entity (or “realm”) has been in existence (at least for some days), but it only has been able to control an extremely limited area. People come to WP (as I did) to figure out what this self-styled republic is all about. Given this article, they can. Why should they have to wade through an article about the much wider 2014 pro-Russian demonstrations in Ukraine, e.g.? In any case, there are many articles for various micronations with much less historical or political significance then the subject at hand. —ThorstenNY (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The Times also calls it "an imaginary new nation"/ I'd also like to point out that this proposal was to rename and keep all the content you just said was good, not kill the content and merge. --Львівське (говорити) 05:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose LOL! Wouldn't it be ironic, if the republic outlived its Wikipedia article. (We are soon there!) There is a crisis all right but it is in no way limited to the Donetsk State Administration Building but extends equally to Kharkov and Lugansk. A reasonable option would be to create separate article on the 2014 East Ukrainie crisis and merge material from Lugansk parliamentary republic and Kharkiv People's Republic. This article can stand on its oven merits. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support this so called "Donetsk People's Republic" is really just a manifestation of a wider 2014 Donetsk crisis. --Nug (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - but 2014 terrorist incident in Donetsk would be a better title. A group of terrorists have seized a building in Artema Street. They are no more a state than the terrorists who seized the Iranian embassy in London in 1980. With luck the incident will end the same way.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support The crisis has spread beyond the admin building when militants took over a police station in the Oblast, the current title also violates WP:NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The process similar to this one happened in Slovenia and all over Yugoslavia in 1991, and the right of self-determination of people prevailed. Also, Republic of Prekmurje existed for only 6 days, almost 100 years ago, and we have article with this title. Should not be removed OR renamed. Slovinan (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This is about the republic. Tibet2014 (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - territories under the effective control of the republic are rapidly expanding. Deserves its own article. Óðinn (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The Donetsk People's Republic is gaining more territory under its control by the day. It would be irresponsible to remove the formal name of this self-proclaimed state from the title and to arbitrarily give it a vague name that is seldom used in MSM like "2014 Donetsk crisis". --Tocino 11:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support When and if there is will a Republic of Donetsk we will think about writing an article about that.--Silvio1973 (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support While the event is clearly notable, it is dubious at best if any state exists. It is not even clear who has proclaimed it, not clear what support there is, and not clear if even those who proclaim it has any intention for it to be a state. The title 2014 Donetsk crisis is perfectly NPOV and would suite the situation perfectly.Jeppiz (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose simply because there is plenty of information here which is not to be found at the pro-Russian protests page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyzex (talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)<!— Template:Unsigned -->
• Strong support - The scope of this article should deal in a broad manner with the armed crisis in Donetsk Oblast, not just about the proclaimed one building state. RGloucester — ☎ 15:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Your alleged "one building state" now controls several buidings in more than 10 towns, thats what happens when you try to ridiculize something, that the one ridiculized could be you...--HCPUNXKID 00:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no certain and verifiable connection between the insurgency that has taken over various buildings and the 'Donetsk People's Republic' demonstrators in Donetsk city. RGloucester — ☎ 00:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you aint read carefully this article, as it says the contrary of what are you telling...--HCPUNXKID 17:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

He's contributed far more than you have and has a far better bearing on this topic. Your accusations are once again baseless. --Львівське (говорити) 20:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - The subject of the article is relevant enough to have its own article, but some users here seem to just try to erase this article by any means necessary...Since 7 April the territory controlled by militiamen loyal to the Donetsk People's Republic is expanding rapidly (in more than 10 towns in Donetsk Oblast, for example, parts of Slaviansk city are controlled by DPR's militiamen), so the argument of a "one-floor building republic" used by some here to ridiculize it is now clearly not valid. Also, typing "Donetsk People's Republic" in Google returns more than 16,200,000 results, another sign of its relevance.--HCPUNXKID 00:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ironic that the editors you're trying to denigrate as dismissive of the article are also the largest contributors, while the ones who want to keep it don't really help. If it were up to the ones wanting to keep it it'd still be a stub. Without a doubt we'll need to split this article into the proposed title at some point, don't try to fight it.--Львівське (говорити) 00:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

To be fair to those editors who "don't really help", it might be hard for them to keep up with WP:Single Purpose Accounts who average close to 100 edits a day on various contentious articles. --Tocino 11:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying that the ones who want to delete this article are the ones who are contributing more to it? Sorry, but that's a total non-sense. If you want to remove an article, you dont contribute to it with more reliable information. Or are you suggesting that this users are giving unreliable information in order to make it more easy to remove it?--HCPUNXKID 17:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a request to delete. Please read the section or else your replies might not make a whole lotta sense. --Львівське (говорити) 17:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The events in Donetsk can't be considered separately from what is the Lugansk oblast. Therefore a "Donetsk crisis" doesn't really exist. This name is never used. Besides, "Donetsk People's Republic" is the most recognizable name. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The declared sovereign state and the crises are different things. How can you merge them? Tomh903 (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. This subtopic of the Ukrainian unrest is distinct and significant enough to be described in detail as an individual article. - Anonimski (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Uh…the proposal isn't to delete this article. It is to expand the scope of it, and retain a neutral title. RGloucester — ☎ 18:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

General info about the East Ukraine unrests could be in its own article (which doesn't seem to exist yet), or placed in 2014 Ukrainian revolution. - Anonimski (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It does exist: 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. However, the events in Donetsk Oblast should have their own article, which should be this article under a new title. RGloucester — ☎ 16:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Support - republic is just one part of crisis.--Staberinde (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

There is already an article about the crisis: 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. This article is more or less about the republic. Feon {^t/_c} 09:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

;;;strong oppose per my comment on another move section, this is consistent with others such as Azawad, Transnistria, its also NPOV in reporting the facts, and will be notable when /if it dissolvesv.(Lihaas (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

all cities

Map last updated April 14

BBC did a summary of everything, good article to source, no time to read it now here --Львівське (говорити) 04:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the map that was in the infobox? I think it should be put back. The caption could say as of April 14 unless the map is updated. Novoazovsk has been taken since then. -- 07:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, no clue who removed it, I thought it was helpful (and I made it too, so I'm kinda biased) --Львівське (говорити) 07:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

provide a reference for Novoazovsk and I'll add it in --Львівське (говорити) 19:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Can someone make the article more neutral and get rid of the word "terrorists"

So when it's Euromaidan armed people taking over councils and fighting police forces it's "protesters", but here it's "terrorists?

For neutrality sake at least use the word separatists. Before I start changing formulations about Ukraine's People Republic or the article about Ukraine independence from Ukrainians fighting for independence to "terrorists".

Seriously, use same standards for everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.159.64 (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Your title says get rid of the word separatists, and then you say to use it. --Львівське (говорити) 08:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed title. Are you going to comment on the context/title or do something about it, or do I need to start re-editing Ukraine People's republic? All articles need to be the same standards. If people fighting for Ukraine independence from Russia are not "terrorists", then people fighting for independence from Ukraine are not "terrorists" as well. You wouldn't like it if I change the word terrorists in the article to freedom-fighters, right? But freedom-fighters has the same weight as terrorists when coming to neutrality. 90.221.159.64 (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The first use of the word "terrorist" in the article is about the attack on Police Station. And it is a terrorist attack, as the definition of separatism slightly differs. The second use in the "counter-terrorism", but it is quote from the Ukrainian governmental sources. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"is quote from the Ukrainian governmental sources"? I see, so we should call American soldiers in Iraq terrorists, because that's how Sadam Hussein called them. The "Government" of Ukraine is a side in the story, therefore, it's terminology should not be used. Otherwise, Arafat should be labeled as a terrorist in the article because that's what Israel called him. How come you don't call Euromaidan protesters terrorists even though they attacked police stations as well?

Again, you need to use neutral terminology, the bias of Ukrainian nationalists here is a joke. Separatism is defined as "Separatism is the advocacy of a state of cultural, ethnic, tribal, religious, racial, governmental or gender separation from the larger group", that suits it perfectly. Terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition, or in other words, it's a POV term, therefore shouldn't be used here. In general, terrorism in modern days is defined as action against civilian/non combat population, and the Donetsk separatists didn't do it (unlike the Euromaidan right-sector). The fact they fight for separation from Ukraine and were joined by former Berkut officers and many defected Ukrainian soldiers shows it's more of a national uprising than anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.159.64 (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

A quotation is the repetition of one expression as part of another one, particularly when the quoted expression is well-known or explicitly attributed by citation to its original source, and it is indicated by (punctuated with) quotation marks. Please, see WP:MOSQUOTE as well. And terrorism has a criminal law definition, and see article 205 in Russian Criminal Law. Besides, in the article from where you the quote, it is written non-combatants also include military personnel in peacetime, which exactly suits the situation. Also in Euromaidan the actions from SBU forces against the protesters called "anti-terrorism". In Yasser Arafat he is called a terrorist according to Israeli sources. Please, do some research before claiming something. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You prove my point. Israel says Arafat is a terrorist, but does Wikipedia? No. Why? Neutrality. Same thing here! You say terrorism can include military personnel in peacetime, does it look like peacetime for you? Looks more like an independence word for me. Terrorism has no international legal term, it varies. As you said, in Euromaidan the actions from SBU forces against the protesters called "anti-terrorism", but were those actions named anti-terrorism on Wikipedia? No. I expect the same neutrality here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.159.64 (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about the Wikipedia articles. I see, you are not aware of those articles. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of the articles, but you are not aware of what's written in them, apparently. Euromaidan protesters in no article weren't called terrorists even in context of attacking police stations or physically assaulting pro-government protesters. Citizen of the Donetsk Republic (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Quotes: The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) launched an "anti-terrorist" operation, while the intelligence services began investigating unnamed politicians over what was described as an illegal attempt to seize power, The Security Service of Ukraine officially ended its "preparations for antiterrorist operation which was introduced on February 19, this year, etc. See: 2014 Ukrainian revolution. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Just registered an account (think it will look better than an IP). Citizen of the Donetsk Republic (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Can I remove the Kramatorsk section? I tried to make it more neutral by getting rid of the 'terrorist' descriptions but my edit got reverted. Also the grammar is very bad and both the sources are Ukrainian which isn't exactly neutral. Plus everything in the section is already ready covered in the 'other cities' section which makes the Kramatorsk section completely unnecessary! Tomh903 (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• The word terrorist should be removed. It is inherently not WP:NPOV to use the word 'terrorist'. Read up on WP:TERRORIST. Citizen of the Donetsk Republic is quite right in that regard. RGloucester — ☎ 14:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

But not in the case where it is written about "counter-terrorist actions" as it is a quotation. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't change the quotation. However, we shouldn't use the word 'terrorist' outside quotes. RGloucester — ☎ 15:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:TERRORIST says: "Value-laden labels—such as calling... an individual a... terrorist... are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." So if they are widely described as terrorists, it is OK, just as it is OK to call Myra Hindley a murderess (because that is how she is normally described).--Toddy1 (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It would probably be more accurate if we called them "Russian FSB or MVD Spetsnaz assisted by locally hired gunmen". But this would be against Wikipedia policy, because the sources use more neutral words such as "terrorist" to describe them.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not consistent in the application of the word 'terrorist', in this case. Can we please avoid taking sides here? RGloucester — ☎ 17:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine using 'terrorist' in the appropriate context, like the guys in Luhansk using bombs and hostages, but just using 'terrorist' to paint with broad strokes all of the separatists is wrong. Obviously using it in the context os anti-terrorist operation is alright, and I don't see the point in using scare quotes on a proper title. --Львівське (говорити) 19:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course you are "fine using 'terrorist'", it's not hard to find out what your political views are and what POV you are pushing. How come you are using terrorists in that context, but not using terrorists in the context of Euromaidan 'terrorists' storming storming council buildings, holding parliament members as hostages, and using live ammunition against police forces? Particularly the right sector actions. Common sense is not your strong side is it? We really need to ban people with a clear POV they are pushing from discussions. How are we suppose to get neutral balanced articles with people who live in an alternative reality (supporting the Ukraine Insurgent Army Nazi collaborators and calling others Fascists). Citizen of the Donetsk Republic (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Euromaidan protesters never took MPs hostage, like you claim, and you can't compare small numbers of people who returned fire on police who were killing civilians to groups of masked men who storm buildings with machine guns and rocket launchers. Huge difference. Also, your accusations of bias are laughable coming from a guy with the username "citizen of the donetsk republic", by your own logic you should be banned from this topic for conflict of interest. --Львівське (говорити) 21:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Words like "terrorist" are now only used as a part of "counter-terrorism" and in quotations while keeping the same meaning. That should make this dispute settled. Feon {^t/_c} 10:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

"Nazi" name calling

In the last few days, I removed a couple spams in the "See also" section. The last one being a link to the Gleiwitz incident (added two times), as if this event in Ukraine was in some way related to nazi crimes, etc. But I also removed references to Adolf Hitler, Anschluss, etc.

Perhaps this article will be deleted, but for the moment it still exists, and it is not a reason to vandalize it. Please refrain from this kind of ridiculous vandalism. And if you still add such a link, then don't be insulted when I remove it. Thank you and have a nice day. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The Gleiwitz incident is an analogous case to what is happening in Eastern Ukraine now. It is therefore appropriate to have it as a "see also".--Toddy1 (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This is absurd. You get a Godwin Point. Congratulations. By the way Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL. Could someone please remove it? Please keep the discussion civil. thanks. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

How does WP:CRYSTAL apply here? Because Russia hasn't formally invaded yet?--Львівське (говорити) 22:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no invasion in Donetsk yet, formally or informally. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

There's also no Germans ;) why stop there? There are, however, 'informal' Russian soldiers on the ground now.--Львівське (говорити) 22:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Comparisons between the Crimean crisis or the Donetsk crisis and Gleiwtiz/Anschluss made in the press are easy to find. I put it in the See Also because I had concerns as to whether it belonged in article body itself. BTW, Godwin's doesn't apply to situations where the analogy is legitimate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Cmoibenlepro refers to the Gleiwitz incident as a Nazi hate crime. It was nothing of the kind. It was a ruse used by the German government to justify invading Poland.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The analogy is not legitimate. This is offensive. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Offensive to whom?--Львівське (говорити) 23:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, let's keep the conversation civil. You should know that calling people (and their articles) as related to the actions of Nazi Germany (and thus pro-nazi) is offensive. This is not offensive to one individual, this is an offense to common sense. Львівське, this is your last warning. Thanks. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What are you warning me about? You're the one who accused Marek of inserting "pro-Nazi spam". I truly don't know why you apparently feel offended and are lashing out at users over a content dispute, but this isn't the first time you've been like this.--Львівське (говорити) 23:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am insulted.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am Iron Man.--Львівське (говорити) 23:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't understand that we are having the current conversation. You are rude. good bye, and I don't want to talk to you anymore.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

As we all know, it is hard to remain neutral while saying an event is similar to Nazism. Maybe you could refer to WP:LABEL. Evoking 'Nazism', regardless of the facts on the ground, is not a very good way to advance your point. I do not know why I even need to repeat that.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No one has 'evoked Nazism' in form or fashion. I do however see an analogous historical military scenario being proposed.--Львівське (говорити) 02:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

OK whatever. You win. happy? Cmoibenlepro (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is a source [6] which makes the connection to the Nazi conducted Gleiwitz incident explicitly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Volunteer Marek for the source. I added it to the body of text in the "Reaction" section (please feel free to edit). I apologize for my behavior. I did not know there was any source, and thus I really thought that you put that reference based on you own opinion/own research to push a POV. I was wrong. I am sorry that I said it was spam. Sorry. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Compromise solution proposal: let's mention the analogy to the Gleiwitz incident and similar analogies under the "Reactions" section and attribute it to the sources that used such analogies instead of just mentioning them in the "See also" section without context. Those analogies were clearly drawn, so we should mention that they were drawn and by whom (not using the weasel words such as "some"), but not to draw them ourselves, because that would be in violation of WP:NPOV. Feon {^t/_c} 07:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is the incident being mentioned in the press [7] --Львівське (говорити) 03:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Referendum article

There is a deletion discussion going on at the Donetsk referendum page --Львівське (говорити) 17:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

All users here are obligated by policy to commit to NPOV and cease the hostile and combative language

I see a lot of hostile combative language here between users who in my view appear to hold pro-Kiev or pro-Moscow positions. WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NOTBATTLE are policies that hold here, that I see being violated. To all users here I say that if you feel strongly connected to what is happening in this Russia-Ukraine political crisis, and have attachment to one side, you either need to seriously attempt to look at the situation in another person's shoes and have an understanding of their perspectives and their claims to legitimacy; or if you are not able to do this do not contribute here on Wikipedia and contribute to a blog or website instead.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

please be specific. --Львівське (говорити) 14:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

For one, there is an example by a user titled Klopsikon in the section above titled "THE RIGHT OF BEING" that is openly combative, denouncing "pro-Ukrainians" for having an "ego gap" in their "nationalist minds". That comment is not constructive, is inflammatory, and breaches Wikipedia policy because of its combativeness (WP:NOTBATTLE). Another was this one: "Declaration on state sovereignty was declared by some random idiots from Russia." said by User:Aleksandr Grigoryev, followed by the same user repeatedly and aggressively demanding in bolded caps that the article be deleted. First of all, it is none of our business here to evaluate the character traits of the people involved based on our personal opinions. Second, calling a group involved "random idiots" combined with using bold caps demanding that an article be deleted, does not demonstrate a commitment to WP:NPOV, and the emotionality of the demands shows a potential WP:COMPETENCE bias-based issue. There are other comments here that are not constructive either, but that these are particularly inappropriate.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I very much agree and I'm glad to see that even an unregistered user (you're not a sockpuppet, are you?) can be this sensible about it. Also sad to see that some registered editors can't. If you had an account I'd give you a barnstar. :) CodeCat (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia would be a LOT better if it was completely anonymous, including all article edits. Then users would stop having inflated egos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.50 (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Pure Vandalism Page

The creator and supporter of this page are manipulating with facts and Wikipedia rules. There is no geographical or political Republic was created. This page is only about some people declared something with no results!! This Article is part of Russian Information War against Ukraine - nothing more! --Ipadm (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There are sources provided about the Republic's creation. Please stop vandalizing the page. [Soffredo] 13:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If there are sources say something then please name the Article "Independence declaration in Donetsk" but not create the Article of something which is not exist. --Ipadm (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It actually exists. The nationalists were forced to leave Donetsk on their knees (literally). 2602:30A:2CE2:6AB0:8D6D:9F8E:66F2:53E0 (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There are no nationalists, stop spreading the Russian propaganda and hatred in Wikipedia. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The best name of this Article "pro-Russia activists proclaim independent republic in Donetsk" --Ipadm (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, that would be like having an article titled "Michael Jackson has died" or "Montenegro just declared independence" back when those things happened. --Ismail (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's talk about facts: death of human - is fact, proclamation - is fact. There are no republic or even state like in U.S. there is only territory, and there was no official authorities proclaim in this territory. There is only proclaim from some activists. They have freedom to talk, so they do. That's all. --Ipadm (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

And one more great fact: this is Russian invasion to Ukraine. Just take a look on new posted "flag" of this "republic" --Ipadm (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the notion that this article should be on the act of declaration and not an article on a self-declared state by a few hundred unknown people squatting in a building.--Львівське (говорити) 14:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This group of people seems not bigger then 1,000 people according to the BBC. But till just now nobody bothered to put this important info into the article. Is somebody trying to make look this group bigger then it is? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

200 people occupying one building do not make a "breakaway region". These guys are squatters. This article should be about the event of the occupation of the parliament building. Everything else is fictitious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.36.131 (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Micronations claimed by single persons and secessionist claims by very small groups that have no actual claim to territory in my country are all covered on Wikipedia. This "Donetsk Republic" doesn't exist outside of the heads of a few hundred activists, but it is still noteworthy enough to have an article.--

You are right, but the article in its current form does not report it as a Micronation. It talks about a "breakaway region" and that is verifiably false. The "Republic of Donetsk" is currently a one-building occupation and should be reported as such.--92.229.36.131 (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Astrofreak92 (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete the article speedily as a nonsense. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The Maidan protests too were small at the beginning. In the end, the pro-EU protesters overthrown the government. Will it succeed in Donetsk too? This is far to early to say. But Ukraine could collapse, Yugoslavia styleCanadianking123 (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Possibly Canadianking123, the issue is that you are forecasting the events here. And what is most important there are no secondary sources, just links to newspapers and doubtful website and a lot of OR. This article should be removed, immediately. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Just because news on a subject do not reach out to US/UK in an unbiased form very well (or possibly at all), does not mean that the subject is non-existent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.50 (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

I don't see how this is vandalism if it's being widely reported... [Soffredo] 12:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The person who made the proposal lives in Ukraine, so he/she probably did it for political reasons rather than anything to do with Wikipedia's rules. --Ismail (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

And now it's gone. --Ismail (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What is widely reported is that some people have proclaimed such thing, not that the entity in the articles title actually exists. Deletion is reasonable. Article ought to be substituted with one about the event of the parliament seizure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.36.131 (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Kiev has effectively lost control in parts of Ukraine for an extended period of time, so deleting the article outright would be a bit strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.50 (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Lieutenant Colonel of the Russian Army

"In Horlivka, police who defected were commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel of the Russian Army." - better change it to "In Horlivka, one of police opponents reportedly claimed to be an Lieutenant Colonel of the Russian Army". Later some news agencies reported that this is a local, Igor Besner (in Russian.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.144.19 (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This is what I dug up: [8]

According to the SBU's information, Igor Bezler was born in 1965, and served until 2002 in divisions of the Russian Federation Armed Forces General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (the GRU), and in fact did reach the rank of lietenant colonel. After 2002, he was sent to Ukraine.

In February of this year, agents of the GRU restored communications with Bezler and ordered him to head to the Crimea, where he took part in the forcible actions to seize military bases, government bodies and offices, Ukrainian law-enforcement said. In April, beside the seizure of the local department of the Interior Ministry [police] in Gorlovka, Bezler also took part in a seizure of a building of the SBU in Donetsk Region.

According to the SBU, Bezler likely is now in the seized police department in Gorlovka, and is moving about the city accompanied by armed guards."

--Львівське (говорити) 15:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

MARIUPOL CITY HALL

Mariupol city hall is control by the separatist, and not by Ukraine : Pro-Russian activist denied recapture (see voice of Russia) and Ukrainian activist confirm that the "Donetsk people republic's flag" is still there. You need to remove the false information , otherwise you will be like the SOHR : a liar's band !!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.141.123.206 (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing, bud. --Львівське (говорити) 15:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No , this was denied by Voice of Russia and a Russian journalist from bbc ; Bud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.141.123.206 (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It was Natalia Antelava from BBC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.46.132.250 (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Split proposal and drafts

Given that the requested move has closed, I think it might make sense to split off content that doesn't pertain directly to the proclaimed state entity into a 'Donetsk crisis' article, and then leave this article to deal with the proclaimed state. RGloucester — ☎ 18:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

At present there is only a crisis and no state. If the state gains a degree of independence, like Biafra or the Confederate States of America then it would be worth splitting the article. Until then, let's do nothing.—Toddy1 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering that not all forces involved have to do with the proclaimed state entity, it doesn't seem right to detail the events of the 'crisis' on a page that uses the proclaimed state's title. RGloucester — ☎ 23:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Then rename the article.—Toddy1 (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The move discussion has determined that people think an article about the state should exist. Given that, it makes sense to split off stuff that doesn't have to do with the state. That way, we can have the state article, but remain neutral by not detailing events that don't belong with the state at another article. RGloucester — ☎ 13:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

That's your opinion, not mine.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - detailed information about military conflict between Ukrainian army and Donetsk separatists should be in the separate article which would have military conflict infobox that would say that this conflict is part of 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and the infobox in Sloviansk standoff would then say that it is part of this conflict. Feon {^t/_c} 14:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe this makes the most sense. RGloucester — ☎ 18:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

speaking of splits, I removed this paragraph since it was about the controversial shootout in Sloviansk, but had nothing to do with the military counter-offensive (the section it was in was about the counter offensive). Since we have the Sloviansk article and the shooting detailed fully there, I deleted it from this article to cut down on clutter (since this article is getting so large)--Львівське (говорити) 04:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

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

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

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

• Is anyone opposed to the implementation of this split? RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no state, only a crisis.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

good point, now I'm torn. How about we just keep this article as the main article for now. If the 'state' dissolves then this article will still be the catch-all for everything that happened, if it by some chance secedes then we do a proper split. In a sense, the donetsk republic and the donetsk crisis are one in the same (the crisis has entirely to do with the separatists involved). In all likelihood we'll eventually just be renaming this article down the road. --Львівське (говорити) 21:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• That isn't entirely true. There is a 'state entity' that claims territory in Donetsk, and is called the 'Donetsk People's Republic'. Regardless of the legitimacy of it, it does exist de facto in some form, as reliable sources attest, and not different from the infant Republic of Crimea. The so-called state entity itself is not the same thing as the 'crisis'. The present title is misleading in that regard, and conflates both the two. This is entirely inappropriate for NPOV reasons, as it isn't clear if all the protesters/demonstrators are associated with the Republic. To detail events that don't pertain directly to the 'state entity' or perhaps 'organisation' itself is conflation. Given that the move discussion failed, we have to remedy this problem through a split, or leave it horribly as is. Essentially, at present, we are giving WP:UNDUE weight to the Republic, inflating its importance in the overall events. This doesn't seem like something anyone would approve of. RGloucester — ☎ 21:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, the best thing to do is to continue to add to the current article. Lvivske is doing an excellent job of working with other people to produce a well-sourced factual NPOV account of events. We do not know how the situation will develop. In a few months time, once the crisis is over we will have the benefit of hindsight. Articles can then be recrafted (if appropriate) to take account of the different understanding we will have then. Remember, we are not working to a deadline.

The current article is extremely valuable to people trying to understand what is going on right now.—Toddy1 (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That value wouldn't be reduced by a split. It would only be enhanced, by enhancing neutrality. I'm not concerned with article content, I'm concerned with how the title relates to article content, and how the content is presented to the reader. There is no deadline, but by the same virtue, there is no reason not to do something beneficial if it can be done now. RGloucester — ☎ 21:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Toddy1: The other option is another page move. I'm willing to do this myself, and see if anyone challenges it by WP:BRD. Would anyone be opposed to this option? RGloucester — ☎ 22:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I've done it for the heck of it, to be WP:BOLD. Feel free to revert it. RGloucester — ☎ 23:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - a nice split that will provide better coverage and easier reading. Feon {^t/_c} 06:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Information about territory gained or lost by the People'e Republic belongs here. No need to create yet another Ukraine article. —Tocino 11:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't what I proposed. I proposed splitting off information which doesn't have to do with the Republic itself. RGloucester — ☎ 14:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The way it works out now we have three articles detailing the "East Ukraine crisis". One at the nationwide level: (2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine), one at the regional level: (Donetsk People's Republic), and one at the localized level: (Siege of Sloviansk). If there are further localized clashes that could use their own articles, then of course we could create a new article for it. Until then, there is a good balance with the present setup of articles--Silvio1973 (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC). —Tocino 01:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That isn't true, because of the problem of the title of this article. If this article were titled something else, fine. But as it stands, the scope of the article is the 'Donetsk People's Republic' as an entity, and not the events occurring in Donetsk Oblast which may or may not have something to do with that entity. At present, the content doesn't match the title. RGloucester — ☎ 03:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Richard, please could you take a rest from flogging this dead horse.—Toddy1 (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of the deadness of the horse, and have no intent on flogging it further. However, I do have the right, I believe, to respond to comments addressed to myself. I'd also prefer if you refrained from calling me 'Richard'. 'Your Grace' will do plainly. Yours, RGloucester — ☎ 20:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. However, this article is a triumph of OR and RECENTISM. Makes me sick to the point to whish the entire WP project goes in ruin. WP had different finalities when it was created. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

AFD: Please comment!

Someone has circumvented the talk page discussion above at #Split proposal and drafts and created the article Pro-Russian insurgency in Donetsk region. I've nominated for deletion, as it is clearly a fork, and implements a split proposal that was not agreed upon by consensus. See the AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-Russian insurgency in Donetsk region. RGloucester — ☎ 21:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

May 9th

The Republic's 'foreign ministry' has called for an open insurrection on May 9th [9]. Most sources in the government are fearing what violence will occur on Victory Day. As it pertains to this article, maybe whoever is out there could help compile any announced plans (prior or developing) so that what inedibly happens on that day has a decent background? Right now it may be too early to add to the article per WP:CRYSTAL so I'm just posting it here to collab --Львівське (говорити) 07:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but since when are we considering posts on VK to be a reliable source? AzraeL9128 (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You should read WP:SELFSOURCE. Subject to certain conditions, self-published sources such as the Donetsk People's Republic organisation's VK page, "may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves".--Toddy1 (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It was also posted by (Ekaterina) Gubarev on facebook (she manages his account and makes 'official' announcements on his behalf. --Львівське (говорити) 15:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

SOAP and choice of references

The article is awfully skewed in favour of anti-Russian POV.

• First of all, the History section starts by claims of anti-Semitism, it includes statements such as "carrying the flag of the Russian Federation" which can not be found in the references and it fails to mention that the leaflets under question were fake and aimed at discrediting pro-Russians.[10][11] The whole section is very WP:UNDUE and can be summarised into one paragraph.
• The section on Roma is based solely on Ukrainian sources, if neutral mainstream media didn't pick up the story why should Wikipedia do it? WP:SOAP?
• Despite the conflict being featured in "neutral" western coverage, Ukrainian sources still prevail throughout the article. Some sources such as the "Euromaidan PR" have a pretty self-explanatory title.--Kathovo talk 19:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that this article is a total mess. That's why I've refrained from bothering with it, and have focused on other articles. RGloucester — ☎ 19:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what your problem is with the first point, the flag is referenced and the discredit theory is mentioned --Львівське (говорити) 15:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

user:Kathovo says that mention fo the flags "can not be found in the references". Untrue - see [12]

user:Kathovo objects to the mentioning of the Roma. Well the media in England cover events in England in more detail than Ukrainian media do, and the media in Ukraine cover events in Ukraine in more detail than the English media do. So the argument against mentioning the Roma is not valid.

user:Kathovo objects to there being more citations to Ukrainian media than to foreign media. It is an article about a current event in Ukraine, so you would expect there to be more coverage in Ukrainian media.

User:RGloucester thinks that the article is a total mess. Well have you seen the article entitled the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. It ought to be retitled The Russian Government's view on the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation since that is what it has been edited into.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Akhmetov

This piece in the Moscow Times seems to implicate Renat Akhmetov as being in charge of the separatist leadership [13] Are there any other sources out there corroborating his involvement? --Львівське (говорити) 03:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Poll conducted by the Institute of Social Research and Policy Analysis

It shows several options, only one of which was translated before. I have translated some parts but other options remain untranslated, can somebody do this? [14] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Background on leaders / group

• washington post article

good stuff, don't have time to add it now --Львівське (говорити) 02:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a nice source with a lot of information, but the article might be biased, there is "Donetsk People’s Republic — a renegade regime that has spread chaos and fear across eastern Ukraine" in its first sentence, which might indicate a strong anti-DPR bias. It might still be useful though, but we should extract the information carefully and present it in the neutral way. Feon {^t/_c} 12:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence indicates a heavy bias an POV against the protesters in the East Ukraine. Doesn't thus seem to be reliable on the subject.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources may be biased, and they may be reliable or not, but a source cannot be POV. I think this particular source satisfies all the criteria for reliability.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Are we really going to sit here and debate on whether the Washington Post is a reliable source? Really? While their description of the insurgents was blunt, it was factual - have they not spread chaos and fear? They are taking hostages and murdering people while conducting daily raids - seems apropos. The main thing are the facts presented accurate or not, and there is no reason to not believe the facts presented once stripped of emotive language. --Львівське (говорити) 22:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"Are we really going to sit here and debate on whether the Washington Post is a reliable source?" Depends on what it covers and in which way, and yes we are going to if the article is obviously politically one sided towards one side.

"have they not spread chaos and fear?" Frankly I would suppose people living in territories who experienced Nazi occupation and were classified as subhumans by Nazis will be more afraid of those who commemorate Waffen SS in Kiev[15][16], but let's focus on the subject shall we?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Really? Really? --Львівське (говорити) 23:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, really [17], but let us focus on the subject. Discussion about commemoration of Nazi units engaged in mass murder and criticism of such events by media and politicians(mentioned in the article I linked) can be made appropriate articles.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

'Terror' is the eye of the beholder. However, such a remark as that one has no merit. It has been consistently reported that by the OSCE and other neutral third parties that there is no threat to those in eastern Ukraine, or to Russian speakers.

In fact, and while I know this isn't 'verifiable', I have friends from Donetsk city who were no friend of Euromaidan, but who are Russian-speakers, but who despise the separatist for making a mess, especially when they were always a niche faction previously. This is all irrelevant, though. RGloucester — ☎ 23:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"It has been consistently reported that by the OSCE and other neutral third parties that there is no threat to those in eastern Ukraine, or to Russian speakers", Svoboda party has been described as anti-Russian and planning to engage in ethnic discrimination against Russian population(by reducing number of Russians in state institutions to ethnic quotas) by Polish scholarly sources years ago.[18]. I could dig up numerous statements by Right Sector about Russians as well if somebody is interested as well.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be fear mongering on your part, and if you wished to cite the OSW above, be at best original research. Svoboda, a party with 10% of the vote, is not a threat to anyone, nor are they "discriminating on Russians" --Львівське (говорити) 23:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

OSCE is by no means a "neutral third party". They are clearly politically biased, do the people commenting in here even read news? Some of the things written above are ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of atrocities during the Great Patriotic War

And while Russian media is being parroted of some Nazi menace coming from the west, I feel I should point out that the above youtube link is of a march for the SS Galicia, not the Waffen SS in general. The SS Galicia fought only in western Ukraine and in central Europe as an anti-Communist force, and was never found guilty of any war crimes. It should also be pointed out that those in the video are also Ukrainians, who as pointed out, were considered subhumans themselves and who also suffered from Nazi occupation as bad as anyone.--Львівське (говорити) 23:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC) "The SS Galicia fought only in western Ukraine and in central Europe as an anti-Communist force" If anyone wants to read what "anti-communist fighting" means there is a good info on the subject here[19]. Now let's get back to the subject shall we? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Why leave wikipedia? 14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Ukrainian)#Accusations_of_war_atrocities - "The Institute also noted that at the time of the massacre the police regiments were not under 14th division command" --Львівське (говорити) 23:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC) "According to the witness' testimonies, and in the light of the collected documentation , there is no doubt that the 4th battalion 'Galizien' of the 14th division of SS committed the crime", you forgot about this part. Cheers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Rename

The article, as it stands currently, is mainly about the seizure of the Donetsk RSA and the act of declaring the DPR. The article itself is better than before, but the title should be renamed so as to correctly reflect the content of the article. Something like: Seizure of Donetsk RSA Building and Declaration of Donetsk Peoples Republic. Other than that, delete, or merge with general page about events in East Ukraine. --92.229.36.131 (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that Russian special forces have started to seize buildings, this article more than ever needs to be converted into a 2014 Donetsk conflict type article as we have for the Crimean invasion/conflict. This is about way more than just the RSA building now. --Львівське (говорити) 14:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"Now that Russian special forces have started to seize buildings"...please, do everyone here a favour and keep your conspiracy theories for yourself. Or if you want we can talk about that Kiev snipers and who controlled them, oh the POV-driven double standards...--HCPUNXKID 11:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ditto

Also keep the name as its consistent with other such articles as in Azawad, Transnistra, etc. Even when/if it dissolves this will havehistorical notability(Lihaas (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)).

+1 Agree with User HCPUNXKID. There are no Russian special forces in Ukraine. When posting, please be sure that you are not adhering to ridiculous propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is it relevant Pavel Gubarev used to be a member of the Russian National Unity?

He's long member of a communist movement, so obviously he's views changed since. Yuschenko used to be a member of the USSR Communist Party but I don't see the introduction of the Orange Revolution article saying "Victor Yuschenko, former member of the Soviet Communisrt Party". Sounds like someone is trying to push a certain agenda. At the end of the day, Mussolini used to be a member of the Socialist Party in the beginning, but how is that relevant him changing his views and becoming a Fascist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.159.64 (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

If he changed his views or not is just point-of-view, and we are not allowed to add OUR opinions. And it is important, because being a Neo-nazi is not just political affiliation but also a hate crime. Besides, for a politician from ex-USSR countries being a former member of the USSR Communist Party is not something surprising. For Mussolini you can discuss in that talk page and add the info as an interesting fact, if it is not there yet. It is not an argument. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"being a Neo-nazi is ... a hate crime". lol. Ukraine is a country where the Svoboda (Ukrainian Nazi Party) is part of the government.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Toddy, calling Svoboda the "Ukrainian Nazi Party" is inflammatory and grossly inaccurate. --Львівське (говорити) 19:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand what you are saying doesn't make any sense. He is no longer a member of the neo-Nazi party for years, just like Victor Yschenko and Yulia Tymoschenko are not members of the USSR Communist Party for years, how is it relevant for now? "If he changed his views or not is just point-of-view"? What?? He was a member of the party years ago, and he is not a member for many years. Just like it's irrelevant to mention in context of World War 2 that Mussolini is a "former member of a Socialist Party", because it's a part of a past which doesn't matter for the specific case. You don't have much logic in what you say.

Being affiliated with a neo-Nazi movement is not a "hate crime", it's membership of an extreme dangerous organization. "Hate crime" is when you act upon it. Besides, how is it relevant for now, if he's not a member of that movement for years? He obviously switched to the communist side. Citizen of the Donetsk Republic (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Previous political affiliations of Mussolini and Yushenko are present in the appropriate articles. Tymoshenko can not be so, as she entered politics much later. And yes avoid name-calling and personal attacks, be polite. Accept it as my first warning WP:NPA. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! And that information does appear in the article about Gubarev, but the fact that he used to be a member of an organization many years ago which is ideologically contrasting the one he used to be a member of, has nothing to do with the article about the Donetsk People's Republic. Just like the fact Yuschenko used to be in the USSR Communist Party was not mentioned in the article about the Orange Revolution, and the fact that Mussolini was a member of a Socialist party wasn't mentioned in the article about Fascist Italy. Do you understand it now, or will you keep on pretending you don't get it? Citizen of the Donetsk Republic (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It is relevant because both parties are known for their pro-Russian ideology, which also explains his current political position. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Citizen of the Donetsk Republic has pointed out that various other articles fail to mention important points. Maybe he/she is right. Why not go fix them? He/she is using the argument other stuff exists to try justify deleting relevant and important facts from this article. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

As Ali said, it's relevant because he's the leader of a pro-Russian insurgent movement and its military wing (the people's militia) and was a former member of a radical pro-Russian paramilitary group. It's also relevant because articles that write about him always make sure to mention this point, which makes it due weight --Львівське (говорити) 19:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske as always is trying to play ignorant just so he could continue pushing his unlogical POV. It's irrelevant that he was a member of Russian Unity because it was a long time ago and he is not a member of it now and was not a member when the current conflict started. Can people who love the Ukrainian Insurgent (pro-Nazi) Armi (like Lvivske) be banned from those kind of pages? Same about Putin-lovers. We really need people without a POV, and not people like Lvivske who rather throw meaningless slogans like "Crimea is Ukraine. Full Stop." to promote their unrealistic point of view.Citizen of the Donetsk Republic (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor, be polite. WP:NPA#WHATIS. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

+1 COMPLETELY agree with user: Citizen of the Donetsk Republic. Unfortunately it seems to me that certain people have unreasonable POVs, that they necessarily feel obliged to enforce. This also results in a heavily one-sided article, that tells only one point of view of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article does not have any articles from the local news agencies or government authorities, while mentioning the Russian foreign ministry on several occasions. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone edited the Russian neo-Nazi Pavel Gubarev as People's Governor of the Republic. What is that about??? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

They called it name calling, but it's cited by 2 sources. Please put it back if you have a chance, his political membership is very relevant since he's a political movement leader. --Львівське (говорити) 19:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske, who appointed him a governor of the Republic? Is it because he is the leader, so now automatically he qualifies for that post? Please, show those sources. When it was posted there was none supporting that claim. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, somebody continues to categorize the article as secession in Ukraine. What is that??? When did that occur? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

He's governor ref --Львівське (говорити) 20:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske, the article you provided states that he is the governor of Donetsk Oblast, not Donetsk People's Republic. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

the article says he's the governor of donetsk, and he IS the leader of this movement. You're splitting hairs, as the DPR covers Donetsk Oblast. --Львівське (говорити) 21:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske, now, you are simply accusing me of something that you do not like. He is not leader of no movement. Donetsk Republic is a separate organization, governor of Donetsk Oblast was elected before the establishment of the "DPR", and no one really knows exactly who was in that Donetsk regional council building. Those people could be just a bunch of drunkards who were paid by the Russian FSB. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske, let's not pile up bunch of random events together establishing them as an occurred fact. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Alex, I don't think you fully understand the situation. These are not unrelated groups. Gubarev is the leader, they took the Donetsk RSA once before, it's his followers who rally for his release, and the group in the RSA now is still aligned with him.--Львівське (говорити) 22:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure this Gubarev guy belongs in the lede at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske, it is you who thinks that I do not understand. I see your point, but is it possible that it might be you who is missing some portion of the puzzle here? I am right now working on the article about Donetsk Republic (organization) that exists since 2005. Have you heard anything about it? The situation might be a bit more complicated here. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, somebody pinned the flag of Donetsk Republic organization for the political entity, while there was no such fact established, but people saw these flags and without knowledge of their origin pin them where they want. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, Gubarev is a leader of the People's Militia of Donbass which seems to be a different organization. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Here Gubarev is when they took the RSA last time, flanked with Donetsk Republic flags pic --Львівське (говорити) 23:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In another news, some clashes occurred not only in the East Ukraine, but also in Mykolaiv where Euromaidan activists forced the People's Militia of Nikolayev to retreat (by Ukrayinska Pravda). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is Gubarev calling for people to join his 'People's Militia of Donbass', and here is a commander of the militia, Rudenko, wearing a Gubarev shirt and declaring the appeal to Putin. While he is not the leader of the DR, he is the governor of the polity (it seems) and also the Milit/span>]] {ia is part of the group that took control. Maybe the PMD is the militant wing of the DR? --Львівське (говорити) 23:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is in no way Neutral. There is mention of alleged Russian involvement (for which there is absolutely zero proof), but no mention of the definite and proven American involvement. Raging double standards across the article at some parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

GDP and population

How much population and GDP do the breakaway regions constitute? I have seen the following figure Donetsk: 12,5% GDP, Lugansk: 4,5% GDP, 20% population, 15% territory, 85% coal production, 45% gas production 33% manufacturing production but I don't know the source. Does anyone know the figures ? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

these numbers are for donetsk oblast, not the DPR. The DPR doesnt control all of its territory, and isnt even currently collecting taxes. So far its GDP is literally $0. Also factor in all the business that has closed or stopped because of the conflict. --Львівське (говорити) 18:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

External links

• Official Government Website of Donetsk Narodny Respublika

Please could someone authorized add the above link to the main page? It is a principal and up to date official source of Republic policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.96.176 (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Flag

do we know that the flag used is the flag of the 'state' and not just the flag of the political group of the same name? Obviously, the flag pictured doesn't say "donetsk peoples republic" it just says "donetsk republic" (like the org.) Also, in their 'state owned' newspaper the flag they use has no words [20] --Львівське (говорити) 06:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The flag on the official 'government' website of the republic has no words on it, i suggest we go with the version on the site and in their official newspaper. Opinions? If no one says anything I'll go rogue bold --Львівське (говорити) 19:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the Donetsk flag without the text cannot/should not be used. Lunch for Two (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm more irritated that the flag for some reason has a Latin "N" in the word Donetsk rather than a Cyrillic "H". Every source you can find shows that the flag has an "H". Can somebody please correct it? SkoraPobeda (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the SVG image with the typing error, and added the PNG image with the correct wording. I have notified the editor who created the SVG image that their image has a typographical error.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

i dont think its a typo, i just think its the font--Львівське (говорити) 16:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, whatever it is, the SVG file is no good until it gets corrected. The PGN file is correct.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right, the H is wrong [21] < pic of an official banner —Львівське (говорити) 03:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I just added the correct flag without the words. RGloucester — ☎ 03:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that the version with no text, but just the coat-of-arms, should be added. It is clear that that is the "state flag". RGloucester — ☎ 03:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought we agreed on a flag without text. Somehow the old one has made its way back into the infobox. Have we got the link to fix that up? Lunch for Two (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it. Some new account on the Commons with a Cyrillic username reverted the new file upload. RGloucester — ☎ 16:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Demands

Pointless subsection. I will remove it, hopefully no one against it. --Tosha (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

merge with referendum since their demands evolved to eventually become it --Львівське (говорити) 04:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

New government?

If this source is correct then it appears we have a new provisional government for this entity. I quickly checked the "official website" and couldn't find an "official" announcement (maybe I have missed it). If true I guess we will have to update the Leadership subheading. Lunch for Two (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: The composition of the cabinet is now on the DPR website. Lunch for Two (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

there is even someone elected - well, it's Russian propaganda: http://de.ria.ru/security_and_military/20140515/268506611.html it says Der von Bürgern gewählte Gouverneur der Donezker Volksrepublik, Pawel Gubarew, hat Kriegszustand in der Region ausgerufen (the governor elected by citizens ....) Why is there no part with Russian Propaganda? --Anidaat (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what point you are making. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

you would have to check the english version of the RIA article. In german it says "elected by citizens". This is obviously wrong. Then, as a second point, my proposal was to include a chapter "Propaganda lies" including the most obvious Russian media "mistakes" in the very broad article. (or in the crisis article)--Anidaat (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Proclamation

In German we have a Video of the proclamation. It would be a bit more specific. Can you verify the subtitles? They say: There was an "Ultimatum" which requested the deputies to "decide" the "declared intention" of the "public/nation" within a certain time from 12:00 hrs (speaking after the decision of the same day, which leaves less than 12 hours). The deputies did not do this. The attendees then declared themselves as a "representation" and did this "on behalf of the deputies". (After 30 seconds the rest is rhubbish but the start is quite informative): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM3t8KcNfFk --Anidaat (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Life News

Life News is a Russian state-owned tabloid and hardly a reliable source for sensative material such as this, can we stick to better sourcing? --Львівське (говорити) 15:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is full of references to Ukrainian state media, which in this case is just as biased (obviously on the other side). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.50 (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a single reference to Ukrainian state media, care to point it out? --Львівське (говорити) 15:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Just posting it here in case one of our classic IP/SPAs tried to cram this into the article but LifeNews was reporting that Ukraine was using UN branded helicopters in Sloviansk. It ends up they were using footage from 2 years ago from a UN-Ukraine peacekeeping mission in the Congo. Yet another reason why Lifenews can't be used as a source, I guess. Good grief. [22] --Львівське (говорити) 23:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What's the problem using older african footage to remind the history of said helicopters? There were other videos proving them being used now around Sloviansk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.157.91 (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Proving what? This is a hoax, catch up. There's a reason no real news outlets touched this. Next we're going to find out Bigfoot has been spotted and he's a Nazi. --Львівське (говорити) 04:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not a hoax. You seem to be heavily biased in favour the Ukrainian government's opinions, so these comments are extremely unhelpful. SEVERAL major news outlets have reported this all around Europe. Stop spreading misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

94.194.205.197 - please could you provide links to the stories you referred to.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Please just type "Ukrainian UN helicopter" into google in whatever your native language(s) is(are) and there is going to be pages of results about it, (if your native language is English, the sources i have read would be not understandable for you) besides:http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c72_1400108505

Also, reading through Lvivske's profile, he seems to be inherently biased on this story, based on what is found on it, so I think anything that he writes, should be taken with caution. (He openly supports the Maidan-coup, and openly supports the Svoboda Party, which amounts to a substantial inherent bias.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

95.32.157.91, you claimed that: "SEVERAL major news outlets have reported this all around Europe". But when asked to provide links that show this, you cannot. Instead of providing evidence, you make a personal attack on an editor.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's too difficult to type a relevant phrase into Google search? I was just perhaps sligthly annoyed at a deliberate attempt of misinformation. Anyway I've posted the video source of the incident, so it can be seen there anyway. It was not a personal attack on the editor, I simply stated facts from his user profile. He is writing and discussing on an article about his ideological opponents, so it's fairly probable that there will be some inherent bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The video you posted is from Russia Today, which is a television channel owned by the Russian government. The video itself shows a Mi-24 on the ground in the Congo two years ago.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty wild statement, to say the least. (Besides, there is nothing wrong with Russia Today, a lot of other news websites copy it/source it/reference it, especially in central european countries) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You claimed several news outlets covered this story. In response, you provided the same source video this thread is about that was already debunked as a hoax. It seems we're going in circles. The onus is on you to provide sources, not tell us to Google things for you and send us on wild witch hunts for phony video stories. --Львівське (говорити) 21:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It was debunked according to who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Coup

'Island' [23] is reporting something about this ongoing Strelkov & coup stuff but I'm having trouble with the translation. Elsewhere, Tymchuk reported clashes near Sloviansk between Republican militants [24] (but hes not the most reliable source so we'd need confirmation. Just posting for help on the translation and to try to hash this out as / if it develops further. Also, this is me just speaking here, but RT and Russian news talked about Ukraine assaulting Sloviansk but that was debunked, so maybe they were covering up what was really happening among the pro-Russians? --Львівське (говорити) 23:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The "useful idiots" no longer useful, so GRU is putting them in their place? Anyway, just wait till it hashes itself out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It isn't surprising, if one listens to that SBU tape. It is quite clear that the Russians and the DPR people were not on the same page at all. RGloucester — ☎ 00:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Or from Strelkov's own quote: “The agreement wasn’t easy for us, because in the resistance we have quite a lot of grievances about the leadership of the Donetsk People’s Republic, which has been able to do almost nothing since the seizure of the Donetsk governor’s office.” --Львівське (говорити) 00:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you started a Talk section about this. I did a Google News search on "Igor Girkin", and the only relevant stories I came up with were two from Businessweek; I added the later one as a citation.

The problem is that the Businessweek story says nothing about a coup; nor does it say that Girkin has proclaimed himself "Supreme Commander". A story in a reliable German language source doesn't say anything about that, either. None of the three Ukrainian sources you site can be considered to be reliable. Therefore, I suggest you edit the section title and the contents of the section not to go beyond what the Busnessweek article says about Girkin/Strelkov. – Herzen (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said above, I think at this point it's best to wait and see how this turns out and is reported on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• [25]: "Later in the afternoon it was confirmed that Colonel Igor Strelkov would be the military commander of the People’s Republic."
• [26]: "The authenticity of the pamphlets could not be independently verified"
• [27]: "Pushilin said he had appointed Igor Girkin, also known by the pseudonym “Strelkov” who is leading the rebel military effort in Slovyansk, as commander-in-chief of the Donetsk region’s armed forces."
• [28]: "Igor Strelkov, who has been named by Kiev authorities as a colonel in Russian military intelligence, issued orders today from his headquarters in rebel-held Slovyansk. In a statement he orders all Ukrainian forces to either leave the region or join the Donetsk Republic army or they will be detained. They have 48 hours to comply. "

Seems they are on the same page on the 3rd quote, all 3 confirm the commander claim which would lead to believe the leaflets are real, even if not verified. We might have to wait this out.--Львівське (говорити) 05:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the "coup" bit out. I simply couldn't understand what the coup was supposed to involve, so I thought that that produced way more confusion than is allowable in a WP article. I have not followed stories about these leaflets at all. Waiting this out is fine by me. – Herzen (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The current title of the relevant section - "Ultimatums and loss of control" - is sort of weird and not particularly informative. Ultimatums by whom? Loss of control by which side? There's also stuff on there that's not really sourced, from facebook or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

can you be specific? several ultimatums were issued, i know of no facebook sources. The 'loss of control' part was attributed to the NYT article where the steelworkers have reclaimed parts of 5 cities and destroyed the checkpoints in the region. --Львівське (говорити) 03:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

edit: Gubarev issued the ultimatum on his facebook but it was confirmed by another DR official. Gooby likes to use Facebook to issue official statements from what I've seen. The Interior Minister Avakov does the same (such is the world we live in now?) --Львівське (говорити) 03:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can't see all of the KP source so maybe the facebook thing is discussed there. I'm also not clear as to what the word "Republican" in the sentence "The threat was confirmed by Republican co-leader Myroslav Rudenko" means. The title of the subsection should be changed to something like "Statements from the separatist leaders".Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I've used the word 'Republican' in place of repeating 'separatist', feel free to remove --Львівське (говорити) 18:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• [29] apparently there's more in-fighting? i'm not doing a good job translating this one so posting it here, maybe someone can vet if it's worthwhile or not --Львівське (говорити) 14:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Intro Section is over-detailed, out of date and biased

The opening section section is overly detailed (for an introductory section), out of date and biased in favor of the Kiev government. I'll try to fix these problems over the next few days, and am happy to accept any help provided. I think we might consider the Lugansk People's Republic entry as a model.Haberstr (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What's biased about it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is excessively lengthy and should be condensed. Lunch for Two (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with the part that it is too long. I think the third paragraph (about the age of people involved etc.) could be cut or moved to main text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I hate when people say text is 'biased' but avoid explaining how or why or what it should be changed to. --Львівське (говорити) 14:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and have been thinking this for awhile. The current intro focuses too much on the initial occupation of the RSA building at the beginning of April and fails to sufficiently convey how this independence movement/ separatist state/ whatever you want to call it has grown from a few hundred activists occupying one government building into a full-fledged rebellion against Kiev. There is no mention that a referendum was held or that there have been numerous bloody battles between the Ukrainian National Guard and militias and protesters associated with the DNR, for example. At the very least it is out of date. --Tocino 11:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree on all of those points.--Львівське (говорити) 14:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet

Please can people add this page to their watchlist File:Leaflet ordering registration of the Jews.jpg‎. The IP of blocked editor Cmoibenlepro‎ keeps posting speedy deletion notices on it.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Since he/she will not stop, I have opened a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 April 17.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, this is a copyright violation. I opened the citation, and the picture is copy-pasted directly. No permission provided. 69.156.130.146 (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we cannot claim the image to be a public domain unless we consider the Republic as legitimate. Still we can use it under a fair use claim to illustrate the policy of the republic. What bothers me is the lack of references that the leaflet was really authorized by the Government of the "Respublic". It is quite common in PR battles to distribute some outrageous material claimed to be originated from the opponents and I cannot see a proof that is not the case. I guess WP:BLP is still applicable here Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

On the opposite, the so-called "republic" did not authorize the leaflet, it was distributed by 3 unidentified men that could be Ukrainian. I agree that it is very common to say that outragious material came from an opponent. 69.156.168.142 (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we please remove the leaflet immediately? It has no source, is more than likely propaganda and damages the articles neutrality. Tomh903 (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

OK I removed it. 206.47.245.252 (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Both IP users above tag teaming this have been named in a sock puppet investigation (69.156 and 206.162) as additional socks of Cmoibenlepro --Львівське (говорити) 14:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Finally someone reverted my change. 206.47.245.252 (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In the article quoting the reference it is written oppose the pro-Slavic People's Republic of Donetsk. But we can see in the leaflet itself oppose the Orthodox People's Republic of Donetsk. What to do? Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I bet they got a Russian-speaking person who understood only conversational English to do the translation. Not everyone understands that "православной" (pravoslavnoy) translates into English as "orthodox". If you only understood conversational English, you would transliterate it and insist that it was a proper name.

I suggest that you correct it, and explain in the citation.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Anti-semitic leaflets are fake. Stop propaganda, i can print any leaflet take a photo of it and upload it online. It is obviously a provocation. There is no Jewish issue here in Donetsk. Wikipedia is seriously turning into a huge rubbish dump.

Are Eastern European copyrights even valid in civilized countries? Since this is the U.S., are copyright from a foreign country should be irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.150.252 (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please do not use offensive language like that. There were civilised towns on the southern coast of Ukraine in 400 or 500 BC. The first civilised towns in the USA appeared about 2000 years later.

Please look at the financial pages of newspapers - you will find that copyrights are taken very seriously in USA - and that includes foreign copyrights. It tends to be only communist states that ignore copyrights - and USA is not communist.

Incidentally Wikipedia and the internet are international. This is why Renat Akhmetov (a Ukrainian citizen) was able to sue Obozrevatel (a Ukrainian online newspaper) for libel in London in 2008. As people in England could read Obozrevatel online, it was subject to English law. This is a good thing because the English legal system works much better than most others.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Anti-semitic leaflets are fake. Stop propaganda, i can print any leaflet take a photo of it and upload it online. It is obviously a provocation. There is no Jewish issue here in Donetsk. Wikipedia is seriously turning into a huge rubbish dump. 103.5.183.41 (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Your IP is in Malaya, so "here in Donetsk" seems an odd thing to say.

Whether the anti-semitic leaflets are real or fake, they are still notable. For example, the US Secretary of State referred to them in a speech in Geneva on 17 April 2014. Listen to the video of his speech on US NBC.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

wikipedia is zio-con propaganda tube for fagged minds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.6.29 (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Registration of Jews "Leaflet ordering the registration of the Jews. Pushilin has denied the report and assured reporters that the flyer is not from his organization..." Why there is such picture and link? Original source (cited on International Business Times) is Twitter page called "Donbass News" which is obviously against Donetsk People's Republic. There are no any evidence of such order from the government of Donetsk People's Republic except a picture of a piece of paper. Such picture can be made by anyone with MS Paint and a cheap printer. It seems to be an example of propaganda from one side, not sure if it have to be quoted in Wikipedia article. Otherwise why not quote anything from Twitter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.144.19 (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to remove the the following words "Ukrainian and Israeli media claimed that". There is no doubt that the incident happened. Furthermore, these words give the article an anti-semitic slant. I do not think that is appropriate.

As for whether the people handing out the leaflets were who they appeared to be, that is already covered (and was covered fairly and neutrally before the edit that inserted the words in question).--Toddy1 (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, things were fine and neutral before presenting all sides. As for what you said, Ukrainian and Israeli media are not the ones making the claim, locals who received the leaflets are the ones who did (and leadership, who initially admitted it was them and it happened.) Ukrainian and Israeli media were simply the first to REPORT on it, not claim it. --Львівське (говорити) 07:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Leadership of DPR initially admitted it was them? Can you prove it?--75.73.144.19 (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2014

A reliable source is cited for this.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

But this "reliable" source contradicts the primary source it mentions on Pushilin's words! (more on this later) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.157.91 (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Look at this article from the English BBC. You can cherry pick it, to back up the claim that the leaflets were a "hoax" (though I think that is a misuse of the term hoax). But what does the article really say: "The leaflets bore the stamp of pro-Russian separatists the People's Republic of Donetsk, but the separatists have declared them a hoax. Nonetheless... they seem to be part of a larger, anonymous campaign of intimidation against minorities in Ukraine." "Many in the Jewish community in the region around Donetsk say they feel safer in a pro-European Ukraine than they would in Russia".

Maybe it would be best to 100% revert the recent POV edit.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

'hoax' implies the event itself never happened, like if it was reported but then upon investigation the leaflets were a fabrication. It wasn't a hoax, it happened, and people received these threats in person - for two days straight. That said, just because the DR says its a hoax doesn't make it a hoax, it just means they deny it...which is how the article represented the fact previously IMO. I agree that it should be reverted, the edit by HCPUNXKID appears to be an attempt to whitewash the event, with all due respect. --Львівське (говорити) 07:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"Many in the Jewish community in the region around Donetsk say they feel safer in a pro-European Ukraine than they would in Russia" - these words are coming not from Jewish community, but from people who are trying to portrait their political enemies as anti-semitic.--75.73.144.19 (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2014

So I looked at HCPUNXKID's edits again and found two things. First he removed the original citation where the chairman confirmed it was the DR, there was no legitimate reason to do this. Second, he inserted "Pinchas Vishedski, Donetsk city chief rabbi, claimed that the pamphlet was fake and meant to discredit pro-Russian protesters or the Jewish community" - what he actually said in the Guardian article was ""I think it's someone trying to use the Jewish community in Donetsk as an instrument in this conflict." - Nowhere does he say it was fake or meant to discredit pro-Russian protesters. Nowhere.

Third, and this was already fixed by Toddy, but saying that it was reported by "Ukrainian and Israeli media" is dismissive of the fact that the incident was reported by the rabbi himself, here's a quote from the Guardian

Vishedski said he reported the incident to law enforcement authorities and asked them for additional protection of the synagogue and Jewish school, and he plans to raise the issue with the Russian Orthodox leader, Patriarch Filaret.

I hope this settles this POV dispute.--Львівське (говорити) 14:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"Incidentally Wikipedia and the internet are international. This is why Renat Akhmetov (a Ukrainian citizen) was able to sue Obozrevatel (a Ukrainian online newspaper) for libel in London in 2008. As people in England could read Obozrevatel online, it was subject to English law. This is a good thing because the English legal system works much better than most others"

This is very stupid Logic. If France would make articles posted in the English language article illegal, then should everyone sue English-language websites? :D Basically, a London court should not have any jurisdiction over what is hosted on a Ukrainian server for a Ukrainian newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

More on the allegedly fake anti-semitic leaflet

Right now this article refers to [30] for the claim that "Donetsk People's Republic chairman Denis Pushilin initially confirmed that the flyers were distributed by his organization, but denied any connection to the leaflet's content". Actually this cited source in turn refers to some "Ukrainian Jewish website" for Pushilin's words. This primary source webpage mentioned was [31] i think, but it doesn't confirm that "his organization" was involved. Literally it says that "some freaks distributed (it)". Furthermore, second link [32] also states that "his organization did not distribute the leaflets". So there's some misunderstanding (if not an outright lies) on the [33] part. Someone please remove the false claim! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.157.91 (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

possibly condense and move the gist of it to a new human rights article just for reference sake --Львівське (говорити) 15:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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. A new "Human Rights in DPR" article is still a bit early imo and should probably only created if the DPR has some longevity. Lunch for Two (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

it's actually not clear they didn't, they just denied it. the event still happened. (im thinking a human rights in donbass in general that covers the entire conflict, though, including the hostage stuff)--Львівське (говорити) 18:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It is currently alleged by some parties that the leaflets were fake. But then they would say that wouldn't they.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Map should be updated

Ukraine has retaken control of Sviatohirsk. [34]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

THERE WERE NO SEPARATIST IN SVIATOHIRRSK : THE YATSNYUK GOVERNMENT IS LYING EVEN AFTER THIS PROPAGANDA DECLARATION . THERE IS NOT UKRAINIAN FORCE THERE!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.141.123.206 (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Would it not make sense for the map to be updated to show the greatest territorial control exercised by those involved in the uprising? This seems to be the case for other uprisings on Wikipedia. If it comes to an end in the coming weeks, then for historical reasons it is notable to have visual information that shows the entire area, however brief, affected by the uprising. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

that's what we're currently doing, pink for areas of conflict (past or present), red for current holds. --Львівське (говорити) 15:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps colors should be changed. Pink, being similar to red, gives the wrong impression of merely quantitative difference, a slightly lower level of control by DPR than in red areas. However, the difference is qualitative. Color like (light) brown (like contested color in the map of Battle of Aleppo, but lighter) might be a better choice than pink. Feon {^t/_c} 06:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Khartsyzk, Krasnoarmiisk, Novoazovsk are also under separatist control. Yet the map currently doesn't reflect that. There are probably others too. --Tocino 11:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have refs or are they already cited in the article? I added them anyway just going to assume you're correct --Львівське (говорити) 20:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It is now being reported that the Republic controls Kostiantynivka as well, I'm not too sure if this is reflected in the map. If there is something notable about the 14th of April, then maybe the map should remain as so, if not it should be updated imho. Lunch for Two (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Kostiantynivka is already colored in --Львівське (говорити) 20:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• this map on business insider doesnt list any west donetsk cities as being under control so please provide sources before i revert, alright? --Львівське (говорити) 21:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

note to self, add alchevsk --Львівське (говорити) 06:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Just some comments; Not all of Mariupol municipality is coloured in dark red and not all of Yenakievo is coloured in pale red. I'm not sure if Krasnyi Liman should be a darker red rather than pale red. Re: West Donetsk, the map appears to be correct as only Krasnoarmiysk is under their control. Lunch for Two (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

should i just switch to a single color to avoid having to keep up to date? the flip side is it may give the wrong impression of total control over all the colored regions...--Львівське (говорити) 07:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

At this stage it appears that neither the Kiev nor Donetsk forces have de facto control of the entire region. However, If much more of the map gets shaded in, then it might be time to start thinking about simply putting a new map of the entire region as opposed to one that requires constant updating. Maybe simply shading those parts that are/have been under the de facto control of the activists is the best option at the moment (and this would leave only one colour [dark red]). However short of going to a map of the entire region, it will still need updating. Ps. Torez should be shaded dark red. Lunch for Two (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed that Komsomolske municipality is still unshaded even though, according to Russian Media it and a neighbouring town are now under separatist control. Lunch for Two (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is an updated version of the original map as of 3 May and it is in .svg format to allows it to be updated more easily. Lunch for Two (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The current map confuses me, so red is now where the DPR has a building under control (but colors in the entire county) but pink is where "anti-Kiev" forces control the entire county? What about areas that are disputed or where Ukrainian troops control the region and have cities quarantined? --Львівське (говорити) 19:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest going away with Red-Dark Red-Pink scheme and adding a bit more contrast as per WP:COLOR. Current map could be very hard to read. --Truther2012 (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

other map sources

This map shows a whole different story in the north. I adjusted the current map to at least not have Mariupol under rebel control (even though there are reports of some in the streets, they aren't in control). Not sure why it says Azov battalion. I have read reports in the (western) news that Ukraine does have control in the north and is focusing up there which would explain that. I guess we could source each oblast individually...I'm not sure but the source may be the official euromaidan info center [35]--Львівське (говорити) 14:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

[36] recolored --Львівське (говорити) 15:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

[37] saw this one too now --Львівське (говорити) 14:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Use a better map

(Also discussed here)

We should base our map off of this, as it shows actual rebel-held areas instead of just occupied government buildings which make the republic look bigger than it actually is. (Source) [Soffredo] 23:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I like this map, we should use it ! --Львівське (говорити) 22:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

DPR no longer exists

breaking news, but the Donetsk and Lugansk republics no longer exist. They signed a decree merging the two into a state called "New Russia", how do we handle this now? source: [38]--Львівське (говорити) 18:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Does it no longer exist? My impression is that both the DPR and LPR are now constituent states in an albeit unrecognised confederation. Lunch for Two (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

it's now looking like the DPR turned into New Russia, and they claimed the LPR without permission. So a possible coup / strongarming. The LPR seems to have declared war on the DPR/New Russia now [39]. --Львівське (говорити) 22:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this a story whipped up by euromaidanpr.com? If not, then it is definitely worthy of being reported on in this article. It does rather seem beyond belief though to be honest. Lunch for Two (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I cited iPress above. EPR had an article on it which was a translation of a report by Hromadske.tv [40] which was also on Ukrinform [41]. I've looked into it now and am seeing that he apparently is denying the reports now [42] so I guess it was hot air or at the very least something to sit on. (I have no idea where their official press service is so I can't verify one or the other) --Львівське (говорити) 06:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes I tracked it down to hromadske.tv but short of an actual statement or youtube clip it was somewhat difficult to believe. This is the LPR website where all official announcements are [supposed to be] made however I cannot connect to it, maybe you will have better luck. Lunch for Two (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

DPR and LPR have announced that they have united as "Novorossia", but what Novorossia exactly is is sketchy at this point, so DPR and LPR continue to exist for the time being.

A heads up based on some original research (not forbidden in Talk pages): DPR and LPR would probably not have bothered to "unite" as an entity called Novorossia unless they expected other southeastern regions of Ukraine to join.

Novorossia doesn't have an official press service, since it has absolutely no formal structure at this point, but there is a Web site about Novorossia (in Russian). – Herzen (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree the LPR continues to exist but New Russia seems to have taken over the DPR, even Gubarev gives all his public addresses in front of the 'confederate' now. Their official site is novorossia.su and thats where official statements are published, they have a whole section for it. I think novorus.info is a fan site type of news site, like how novoross.info is also a pro-novorossiya type news site --Львівське (говорити) 15:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok in a few days the Ukrainian Army and Aviation will reinstate the order, the DPR and LPR stop existing and this article willt get a different name (indeed it should have never been named like that).

Coup in Donetsk

Still developing so not putting it in the article yet but it appears that the Vostok Battalion guys (Chechens) are going toe to toe with Gooby's guys. [43] [44] The 'Vostok' are dismantling the barricades around the RSA and have apparently issued a warning to all DPR supporters to turn the building over.

Asked Vostok Battalion soldier at DPR building if Gubarev, Pushilin et al. would stay in power. "No comment. They will. For now. Probably."

removed flags. According to witnesses, people do not understand very well what is happening.

also [45] [46] [47]--Львівське (говорити) 15:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

more with great pics [48] --Львівське (говорити) 17:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

interpreter [49] --Львівське (говорити) 18:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Where did they come from? Who are they?Fungal vexation (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

From what I can tell they appear to be former Russian military? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Vostok Battalion is under the Patriotic Forces of Donbass (local rebels). Being the "East" battalion, that appears to be a ephamism for them being from 'east' of the border. They have the admitted Chechens and of course other Russians, all do appear to be proper military and/or trained veterans with military grade equipment (not surplus / old AKs, but proper surface to air, rockets, small artillery, light machine guns, etc.) --Львівське (говорити) 21:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This source as well[50]. My speculation is that Gubarev, Pushilin et al probably wanted to abandon the fight as most of their guys were killed at that airport battle, so the Vostok Battalion guys took over. --Nug (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Vostok were the guys at the airport. Maybe they were pissed that they had so many losses and said "screw it, we deserve to be in charge"? PFU made comments about anger about the looting, the tweets seem to indicate they're using the looting of Metro as a pretext to 'clean house'...hmm--Львівське (говорити) 21:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Likely. There seems to be tons of news reports now[51]. This news article[52] implies that Vostok guys took over because Moscow wanted tighter control and Boroday welcomes this development. --Nug (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

[53] Telegraph now has an article on it. Calling it a coup but its still unsure where everyone stands. Definitely a shift occurred.

But looting - of which there was plenty of evidence - appears only to have been a pretext for a purge designed to assert control over the fractious rebel movement, eliminate autonomous groups, and possibly reverse a breakdown of law and order that has created increasing resentment amongst the public.

Denis Pushilin, the speaker of the republic's parliament, said the operation was aimed at "dishonest people" guilty of "criminal activity against the republic."

Access to the building had previously been tightly controlled, and the raid provided a rare opportunity to glimpse the chaotic mechanics of the pro-Russian counter revolution.

--Львівське (говорити) 22:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

kp [54] more on this here. Looks to me that it's Borodai's coup - the Vostok guys were his personal bodyguards when he was in Moscow recently. --Львівське (говорити) 01:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

What is it called when someone creates an artificial crisis so they can come in and rescue the day and then be a hero? USchick (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to a false flag --Львівське (говорити) 03:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

NYT also calling it a coup now [55]

the bold assault seemed intended more to strengthen the position of Alexander Borodai, a Russian citizen who was also involved in Russia’s seizure of Crimea.

men from the battalion kicked, beat and crowbarred doors open in front of several foreign journalists in an obvious attempt to embarrass the political leadership of the Donetsk People’s Republic.

The professed reason for the ouster was the looting of cheese, grapes and other groceries from a supermarket by some of the locals, many of whom had been living in the building on couches and blankets. But most believed that was little more than a pretext for what amounted to a naked power grab on the part of the militia and Mr. Borodai.

--Львівське (говорити) 04:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• I included wikilink to old "Vostok" in Chechnya based on this article. My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, Gubarev is pushing the New Russia thing with Pushilin and appears to be in charge of the Donbass Militia, which was kicked out of the RSA. Their stated goals have been for an independent 'Novorossia' state. However, now Borodai said "I have no other objective but to make Donbass a part of Russia," which contradicts the other side. Something more is going on here between the Donbass separatists and the Russian annexationists. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 19:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

neutral point of view

Let us do some steps to write it in a more neutral way.

1. The term "pro-Russian" is better to change to "anti-Kiev".
2. The fake (or at least unproved) statements as "leaflet to Jews" has to be removed. At least we should state that it is "most likely fake" before, not after.
3. I think "Russian propaganda channels" has to be changed to "Russian channels"
4. In the section on referendum we should state the results.

My edits were reverted Lvivske, citing "media" which is not neutral at all. Even if one takes it into account, this can only explain pro-Russian/anti-Kiev part.--Tosha (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we have consensus to use 'pro-Russian' and its the most used descriptor in the media, and we abide by WP:COMMON. "anti-Kiev" is a bit vague, are they against the city?

As for the leaflets, they were never fake, saying they were "most likely fake" is original research and speculation. Everything in that section is well sourced out.

The only mention of "Russian propaganda channels" is a direct quote

I'm unsure about putting the results in here, we have a separate article to avoid bloat, I'll let someone else weigh in on that --Львівське (говорити) 01:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Львівське, let start with something. Why not to include the results in the section with on referendum? --Tosha (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I'll let someone else opine on that one, I'm unsure if that will lead to bloat. (one person puts the numbers, next person puts in all the info on fraud, another puts in the government's figures, etc. and it spirals out) --Львівське (говорити) 02:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I will do small edit, if you want to revert please tell why BEFORE. --Tosha (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The concern is that we already have a dedicated article for the referendum so we should try and avoid duplicating it here. However, Lvivske is right in that if we put "the results" then we need to put in "recognition" and "controversy" and the section gets bigger. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but the results of referendum have to be here; the remaining part is less relevant. --Tosha (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is no reasonable justification for the NPOV and Unreliable sources templates that an editor has put on the article. Unless someone can give a reasonable justification, I propose to remove them 24 hours after they were added.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No, one can not cite media, in the time of infowar. Some proof have to be given. Maybe we can give statements confurmed by both sides, say itar-tass and bbc.--Tosha (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutral point of view: first step

The article is quoting media, in the time of infowar.

I suggest that we add "According to ..." before each statement which has no clear proof. Let us consider this as the first step to neutral point of view. --Tosha (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

So basically, you want the article to have like 200 "According to ..."s in it.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Toddy1, That's how it supposed to be, read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Tosha (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood it. "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" is an example in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view of what not to do.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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? --Tosha (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Tags

Sorry if I missed the discussion on this if it already took place. Somebody added "clean up:npov" and "unreliable sources" tags to the article. Where is the supposed npov problem? Which sources are supposed to be unreliable? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It is hard find reliable source in this article; one can not site media in time of active infowar. Please do not remove the tags untill some work is done. --Tosha (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

you're being very vague. "Until some work is done"? --Львівське (говорити) 05:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske, I think I was very clear. Say, look at first 10 refererences --- BBC and Kiev Post, both sources are taking part in infowar which happens now --- one can not trust these sources at the moment. There is little (if any) real proofs or support from the other side. Please do not remove the tag. --Tosha (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the BBC, take it up somewhere else. As far as wiki is concerned, all of these re reliable sources and your tagging is spurious. --Львівське (говорити) 15:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You can say "Acccording to BBC", but you can not state it as a fact. --Tosha (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

what fact are you disputing? You can't hold an article hostage on 'truther' grounds --Львівське (говорити) 15:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I already stated some before. Entire article at the moment needs attention. Let us stat with the following:

• The term "pro-Russian" here is misleading; it used by western media in the infowar and it is not appropriate to use it in wikipedia.

Hopefully you can fix it and it will open way to make to move in the right direction.—Tosha (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It isn't at all misleading. As I've said twenty-thousand times before, "pro-Russian" merely means that the protesters/demonstrators/activists/militants/insurgents have a favourable view of Russia, by comparison to the European Union. This is a verifiable fact. RGloucester — ☎ 18:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm getting tired of the "lets remove pro-Russian" from the article. The term now has over 5 million hits on Google and is by far the most common descriptor. WP:COMMON comes into play here, not NPOV. There is nothing non-neutral about the term, as you said, it just says which sign they lean towards. To say the DPR isn't pro-Russian is just verifiable nonsense. --Львівське (говорити) 18:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There is at least one reliable source that says that there appears to be an "orchestrated pro-Kremlin campaign" on websites concerning Ukraine.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Troll army

• Forbes - Inside Putin's Campaign Of Social Media Trolling And Faked Ukrainian Crimes
• Business Insider - Is Vladimir Putin Behind An Army Of Internet Trolls?

• St Petersburg Times - INTERNET TROLL OPERATION UNCOVERED IN ST. PETERSBURG

• Trumpet - Putin Hires Pro-Russia Trolls to Spread Propaganda
• RFERL - Hashtag Hijacked: Russia Trolls U.S. Twitter Campaign In Ukraine Crisis
• The Times - Kremlin pays internet trolls to flatter Putin
• Buzzfeed - Documents Show How Russia’s Troll Army Hit America

--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 17:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Non of these "sources" give a proof. One only can say that it is "likely", not more. --Tosha (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. In any case the article in present form is outrages, it is shame for wikipedia. Please do not remove the tags again.--Tosha (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You were asked on 17 May to provide justification for the tags. The best you have come up with is a demand that the article be written in a format expressly forbidden by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - i.e. the formula "According to... but media controlled by the Russian Government dispute this analysis". --Toddy1 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you simply did not read it. It seems that I am the only one here who wants this article to be better --- I gave up. --Tosha (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

airport battle

did someone start an article on this? this looks to be the bloodiest day in the entire conflict to date. hundreds possibly killed. --Львівське (говорити) 22:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it should have an article. EkoGraf (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I'd be happy to help if it is created. RGloucester — ☎ 14:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

just throwing this down but the LPR has said they are sending reinforcements for the donetsk battle [56] --Львівське (говорити) 06:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Going to need a bigger boat

If up to 500 insurgents were killed today and 2 cities taken back, we may need a new sub article on this battle. I guess we'll wait for more sources to come in to give us the story of what went down, but wow. Sloviansk is next I guess but we have that article...--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 18:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

So far only one source has made the claim of 500 dead and 1,500 wounded militants (which I personally think is a bit far-fetched and unrealistic) and the claim was reported in a heavily pro-Ukrainian news outlet citing an unknown ATO source. Neutral non-government and non-rebel sources are only citing the earlier 300 figure and saying it included both dead and wounded, but even than noting the number is unverifiable. EkoGraf (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)