Talk:Donetsk People's Republic

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

There are currently two rival infoboxes.

• Антон патріот's addition of a second infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DPR is NOT a country

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RGloucester, DPR does not have a government. Their "governing" started when they physically took over the local administration building and declared themselves city councilmen/women, and continued to fight each other for these positions. They have no practical control or governance over the territory, other than armed gunmen who keep the local population under submission. Their "ministers" have no practical role in the lives of "their" population (other than perhaps the "defence minister", even though I doubt he does anything practical, other than take commands from Moscow). After the "referendum", multiple groups claimed to be the actual DPR and proceeded to fight each other. The original leaders were all Russian citizens, including Strelkov (a KGB agent [1]), so this "government" did not represent the people in any way. DPR has a government in name only.--BoguSlav 22:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is NOT the only other option. We could use a variety of other infoboxes. I thank that {{Infobox Criminal organization}} works best. Another great option is {{Infobox War Faction}}. Way to misrepresent the other options!
As for "this is not a !vote". Consensus means "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned" [2]. How else to determine what "most of those concerned" without a survey? This seems to me, like a way to argue for your voice to considered more than someone else's.--BoguSlav 00:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV -- there isn't any

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have restored a citation to [3] which was inappropriately removed for the sake of "neutrality". Neutrality should be pursued by adding reliable sources, not removing them. However, edit-warring over the claim this piece was cited for had caused the claim to diverge from what was in the source. I have attached it to a more conservative claim in the "Military" section. Rhoark (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of human rights violations in DPR:

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

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

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

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

Rebel groups that control territory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuing POV-pushing

Blatantly obvious POV-pushing -- [4]. Try being more encyclopedic, please, since this is an encyclopedia.

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

My suggestion is WP:SPLIT -- [5] -- "... section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is often appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles. In some cases, refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central" -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

There are actually a lot of bad guys on both sides of the conflict. Amnesty International says it has evidence both sides in the conflict have committed war crimes.[6]. User:MyMoloboaccount suggested the best solution: "A split and leaving information covering briefly abuses by both sides." -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I made a compromise version [7] by moving one of the inserted paragraphs and removing two others. These two paragraphs are problematic because they are construed in a way to suggest that HRW blames primarily Ukrainian government for the abuses. No, it does not. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Tag "The neutrality of this article is disputed" re-inserted.[8] "Human rights" section is a massive POV push attempt at WP:GEVAL. My suggested solution: "A split and leaving information covering briefly abuses by both sides." --- Tobby72 (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

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

The neutrality of the article is clearly disputed. An involved editor should not remove the tag without consensus.[9]

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

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

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

This article, how its described

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name change suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV tag re-removed

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

It has been repeatedly discussed on the talk page again and again here & here & here & here & here & here & here & here, and clearly no consensus was reached.. - "The neutrality of the article is clearly disputed. An involved editor should not remove the tag without consensus."[10]. "Human rights" section is a massive violation of WP:GEVAL. My suggested solution: "A split and leaving information covering briefly abuses by both sides." (Here is my failed attempt) --- Tobby72 (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Well yeah, but you could have discussed even more before just thwacking the POV tag back on the page. By the way, did you read other editors' comments in the 'Continuing POV-pushing' section? This shows us that you have a lack of understanding of WP:DONTLIKEIT. McDonald of Kindness ^{(talk • contributions)} 03:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You can add me to the long list of editors who are fed up with Tobby72's WP:POINTy editing pattern on all articles surrounding recent events in Ukraine. This disruptive behaviour has been going on, and on, and on, and on... In all seriousness: next stop, WP:ARBEE. I've just reverted the his/her slapping on the tag yet again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I have started an AN/I discussion about Tobby72. This is stuff that we cannot tolerate anymore. My guess is that he will be topic banned from this topic area when the discussion ends. McDonald of Kindness ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

• User:MyMoloboaccount — The claim that there was a discussion is a weak one, there doesn't seem to be any consensus there and besides, consensus might change. At the moment the section was undue because it didn't represent a neutral view, which points to abuses and violations by both sides. ... I agree with Tobby72. The current attempts to erase all information by one side, leaving just abuses by another are POV pushing and seem to go against WP:NPOV policy.A split and leaving information covering briefly abuses by both sides seems to be the best course of action.[11]

• User:KoolerStill — The entire article seems to be trading on Wikipedia's good name as a reliable source, to provide seriously anti-separatist propaganda, eg a whole section of alleged human rights violations performed by unidentified groups with no clear links to the DPR as an entity. At last count there were more than 50 armed groups in the area, many of them privately funded nationalist militants fighting on the government side eg Donbass, Azov, Right Sector, Aidar etc. Clean up this article to be neutral or remove it altogether.[12]

• User:Tosha — Toddyl, it seems that you did not read the article. Look at the Anti-semitism section, it cites some media, no proofs are given, all the statements are based on someone's opinion, and it is given as "facts". The other sections are not better. Don't you want to improve it? ... P.S. In any case the article in present form is outrages, it is shame for wikipedia. Please do not remove the tags again.[13]

• User:HCPUNXKID — Another POV-pushing section, based only on an unreliable source, wich doesnt gives any proof of the alleged attack. Seems that lately WP is only used by some users for promoting their political views... Again, please be fair & serious, using a pro-ukrainian & anti-russian source in order to claim things against pro-russians is clearly unreliable, would you accept for example RT, Pravda, Life news, etc... as sources for claims against Ukraine? And dont tell me its different, its the same, using a source from one of the sides of the conflict to make the other side look worst.[14]

• User:Herzen — And my main point still stands: Western sources report homophobic hate crimes in Kiev, but only Ukrainian sources report homophobic hate crimes committed by the rebels. ... To repeat, the problem here is EXCEPTIONAL. If you can't find Western sources reporting this, it has to go. A single Ukrainian source about a story which would have been the main story in Western news media for days if it were true is not enough.[15]

• User:Lunch for Two — If this entity has some longevity, then yes the amount of information attributed to the pamphlets should be decreased. If not, then there is a high chance that was not able about the entity was this scandal with the pamphlets. In my opinion 6 paragraphs is excessive for this issue, feel free to condense the section if you take issue with it, it is a public encyclopedia after all. ... Condensing is good as it now appears that the DPR did not actually issue these pamphlets. Whilst a good media story a few weeks ago its significance will fade with time, more so if this entity has greater longevity.[16]

• 71.209.225.107 — There is a very strong POV here, especially in the Human Rights Section. This is not an encyclopedia article. Almost all of the sources cited come from the Kyiv Post, which you can see has very strong editorial opinions right on their front page.[17]

• User:Herzen — The material that I removed treats the accusation that the DPR was behind the antisemitic leaflet as something that should be taken seriously, even though that leaflet is now known to have been a crude hoax. Therefore, the text I deleted is a clear case of POV pushing.[18]

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

-- Tobby72 (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The format of the above is confusing. All the comments above were posted by Tobby72.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The format isn't confusing.Tobby72 simply quoted other users who disagreed with the current state of the article(which is incredibly POV and one sided).Looking at the above it seems that there are more users disagreeing with current POV, than those who support it, but the minority is more determined to keep things they are.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

If they all disagree with neutral POV the article currently has, maybe they could all boycott editing Wikipedia and edit somewhere that shares their POV, such as the talk pages of RT.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

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