Jump to content

Talk:Donetsk People's Republic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 212.90.182.118 (talk) at 06:25, 29 November 2016 (→there is no dnr: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Status"-section in Infobox. Let's use it!

In have seem to have started an edit-skirmish on this page and on the Luhansk People's Republic-page. I tried to use the "status =" of Template:Infobox country to describe the situation that the two self-proclaimed states are now in.... I was reverted because "Minsk II is already mentioned in the infobox". That might be the case but without explaining what Minsk II is the Infobox it becomes an attempt to make the two self-proclaimed states pass for "normal" states which makes the articles a publication of original thought; since mainstream media does not try to make the 2 self-proclaimed states look as normal (as (for example) Canada). I also noticed that in the articles on Transnistria, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic this handy "status ="-section is missing in their Infoboxes. One missed opportunity to explain the current peace proposals (or lack of...) of those self-proclaimed states. But I would not be surprised if enthusiastic diaspora (originating from those places) tried to WP:POVPUSH the Wikipedia community in trying to threat those self-proclaimed states as "normal" states. They are not "normal" states (because they have too few recognition by UN-states); so they should not be treated like one. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Minsk II but the explanation you had there was really helpful and should be put back. Legacypac (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No polity using the country type infobox uses the status parameter to my knowledge, so i don't see why one should be used here. There was just a massive RFC about the use of the infobox on this page and the LPR page, the result of the RFC was to use the country infobox. By using Minsk II is already linked in the infobox, there is no need to list it twice. Furthermore none of the other parameters in the infobox have legnthy explanaitons attached to them. If further explanation is needed one can merely refer to the article, or a note can be included in the reference section, though this would be redundant since its already clearly mentioned in the article. Since Minsk II was not implemented outside of the ceasefire, its pointless to include much detail about it anyway since it does not reflect the actual situation or "status" of the two polities in question.XavierGreen (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the findings of the RFC specically stated that the infobox as it stood prior to your edits did not in fact do anything to tip the POV of the article towards the legitimacy of the LPR and DPR as states.XavierGreen (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The specific language the RFC closing comment made regarding this is as follows "I'd like to caution editors that this should not be taken as license to insert a particular POV regarding the DPR's status into the article." Given that Minsk II was signed but is has not been implemented, mentioning it in the status parameter is quite meaningless, since the DPR and LPR defacto lay outside of the regime envisioned by the Minsk II agreement. Rather than explaining one point of view or another regarding the status of Minsk II, merely mentioning it in the infobox should suffice as it was originally should suffice, let the readers themselves decide what the current status of the DPR and LPR are, there is no need to put POV statements one way or the other in infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue that the RFC covered was which template should be used to generate the infobox. As you pointed on in one of your edit summaries, the question of the status line in the country infobox template was mentioned. The comments that clearly mentioned it were:
  • 21:35, 8 March 2016 "I would not mind country infobox as long as it's "status"-section shows the correct situation. As it does in Wikipedia's Rojava article. I would suggest for this "status"-section: both DPR and Ukraine agreed of reintegration of DPR held territory back into Ukraine proper when signing Minsk II; but so far both have done nothing to make this possible. Or a more neutral phrasing..... The problem with the previous country infobox was that it ignored Minsk II and looked like an attempt to make DPR look just as normal as Canada."
  • 18:01, 11 March 2016: "However, if it would make satisfy the critics, I would support the suggestion of a status section within that country/geopolitical organization infobox which explains the DPR's status as an unrecognized state."
These comments supported the use of the status line in the country infobox template.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The POV in the summary description was a reference to using the infobox in order to promote the presentation of the DPR as a country along with driving on the right hand side, population estimate, plus, plus, plus: all that was missing was the phone number for the 'Better Business Bureau'. In fact, it has basically reverted to exactly the same piece of rubbish purporting a recognised and established state as it was before the RfC. Do we now need to hold an RfC defining what constitutes superfluous, POV-pushing content for the infobox? This has simply regressed back to the WP:BOLLOCKS being promoted as 'neutral' when it has absolutely nothing to do with what any reliable sources have to say about the DPR or the LPR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You had stated that you would abide by the RFC regardless of its outcome, and would not oppose putting things back to the original country infobox if thats what the RFC found. The RFC found that the language as used in the country infobox was not POV, it seems like you'r going back on your own statement...XavierGreen (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The comments your refering to were not in the Closing statement of the RFC, and don't constitute consensus on that issue, in fact there were other editors who opposed such an implementation of a statement in a status section as you are advocating.XavierGreen (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There were? Did they write anything in the RFC? If yes, please provide times and dates of their posts in the RFC.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See this comment in the above RFC - "I agree with the concept of putting Minsk II and such in the establishment timeline, but I'd prefer just putting "Minsk II", "Novorossiya formed", "Novorossiya suspended", etc. Nuke (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)" As i have said from the beginning, i'm not opposed to mentioning Minsk II in the infobox. What i am opposed to is mentioning it twice, and any lengthy/ POV statement. Its not up to us to determine what the status of the DPR and LPR is, that is for reliable sources and the readers themselves to interpret from reading those sources.XavierGreen (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are seeing what you want to see. The comment you refer to said:
  • 3:02, 9 March 2016 "I agree with the concept of putting Minsk II and such in the establishment timeline, but I'd prefer just putting "Minsk II", "Novorossiya formed", "Novorossiya suspended", etc."
This is not a clear statement that the the status line in the Inbox Country template should not be used.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its a clear statement that in the editor's opinion, that in regards to mentioning Minsk II in the infobox it in that editor's opinion should be limited to "just putting Minsk II" which is a clear statement in regards to what we are talking about. Regardless, what matters is the closing comment, which clearly indicates that POV regarding status of the DPR should not be put into the infobox. Creating a status paratmeter clear indicates a POV in regards to status.XavierGreen (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also note, the citations given for the "status" section, state nothing about the actual "status" of the DPR or LPR. Two of them merely cite that a ceasefire agreement was signed, but are so old that they do not mention that the provisions agreed to in the agreement were not implemented. The third source from the New York Times, is a piece covering an inverview of a Ukrainian politican who opposed the signing of the deal and has no bearing on the current "status" of the polities in question.XavierGreen (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are not 'noting' anything, XavierGreen: you are nit-picking in order to twist the RfC outcome to fit your POV. This is known as WP:REHASH. Read the RfC and note how many times you were asked to stop the rehashing and WP:CRUSH tactics. The fundamental agreement was to use the country infobox on the understanding that OR was not to be introduced, nor relevant content pertaining to the 'in the real world' status (i.e., Minsk II) be removed as part of the 'at a glance' information the infobox provides the reader. If you believe the RS is somehow out of date, please bring RS demonstrating a change in status to the table for discussion. I don't particularly care if an international law enacted in 1948 hasn't changed: if it hasn't been repealed or redefined it still remains the contemporary international law whether you'd like to wish it away or not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The closing comment of the RFC by the administrator clearly states that there should be no POV injected into the infobox regarding the status of the DPR, creating a status parameter directly injects an opinion into the infobox regarding the status of the polity.XavierGreen (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but this appears to be an attempt to WP:WIKILAWYER the closing statement of the RfC into something it wasn't, *precisely* for POV purposes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having nothing in regards to a status parameter gives the infobox absolutely no POV in regards to status.XavierGreen (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having nothing in regards to a status parameter gives the infobox the POV that the DPR (sub LPR) is a real little boy, Geppetto. False advertising... as you well know. Please stop these horrendously disruptive POV contrivances, XavierGreen. You are edit warring against several other editors and refuse to stop WP:BLUDGEONing everyone yet again. You did this with the RfC. You are now trying to get the infobox back to the same piece of nonsense editors had objected to prior the RfC... so I am reminding you again to drop it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the RFC was to revert to the infobox used prior to the edit dispute that caused the RFC. Virtually no polity using the Geopolitical/Country infobox uses the status parameter, so not having it implies nothing. Those few pages that do have it use it to describe what type of polity the particular entity in question is. The status parameter as it currently stands on this page does nothing of the sort. I have removed the two sources that user:VolunteerMarek stated in his edit summary only implied what was asserted. Since there is no synthesis of sources allowed, they should not be listed as citations regardless. The third source dates from February of 2015, as has utterly no bearing on the current situation in the DPR. Thus that source is also irrelevant.XavierGreen (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox provides incorrect or inconsistent info. The estimation of population (based on prewar numbers) is grossly incorrect given that hundreds thousand (at least) left the area. Why this a "Unitary semi-presidential republic"? What does it mean "International recognition"? Is it independent from Ukraine or "reintegrated" to Ukraine as different parts of infobox inconsistently claim? The "religion" section is also inconsistent with the quoted source, which tells about persequition [1]. And so on. My very best wishes (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to changing the statement in the infobox about international recognition, a more NPOV way to handle it would be to simply list that there is recognition by 1 non-UN member, as the Transnistria page's infobox handles recognitions. In regards to the religion parameter, if there are no sources stating that the DPR has an official religion, I would not oppose that parameter's removal as well. For population, there is a note attached stating that the number quoted is a pre-war estimate, if there is a better more current number that can be found it can be updated. In regards to independence, that the DPR has declared independence and the dates given are well sourced in the article.XavierGreen (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's incredibly noble of you, considering that it was you who restored the 'infobox country' to exactly the problematic, misleading state it was prior the RfC. Is this meant to be some sort of compromise? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself had clearly stated in the RFC and prior discussions above that if consensus was to return to the old country type infobox, that you would not oppose it any further. Well the RFC was closed in favor of using the country infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I even changed my !vote to no infobox rather than the 'geopolitical' one. Read through the RfC again and pay attention to what editors were !voting for and against, as well as the decision. As it stands, any WP:CALC for numbers of people living in the DPR is WP:OR as there are wads of reliable sources discussing the displacement and refugee status of literally at least a couple of million people. It was not a vote to reinstate the POV and OR inclusions of 'type of government' (except if qualified as being per self-identification), currency, etc. as if it were even functioning as a real state, but as a vote for flexibility. Flexibility is most definitely not the same thing as way off the mark misrepresentation and POV omission of defining features of the 'state'. The status of both the DPR and LPR are clearly that of unrecognised states that must technically reintegrate with Ukraine in some manner in order for the RF's annexation of Crimea to be internationally recognised. It may be a dumb, unworkable, awkwardly engineered piece of politicking, but that's what the status is. Wikipedia represents what the RS mainstream tells us regardless of any editor's personal politics. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly stating something controversial in the infobox is frequently misleading. For example, someone who reads "referendum" in the infobox would assume there was indeed a referendum. But it was not actually a referendum in the normal meaning of the word. Describing this event in detail in text is fine, but simply calling it "referendum" in the infobox is misleading. Also, we all know that population numbers in the infobox are completely wrong, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was a referendum, whether or not it was valid is POV, something that readers should decide for themselves. As for population, the note clearly states that its the prewar population, it doesn't purport to be anything but that. If you have better more recent numbers, put them there.XavierGreen (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A referendum is a direct vote in which an entire electorate [of the country] is asked to vote on a particular proposal. There was no such referendum. That was only called "referendum" in sources. It is OK to call it "referendum" on the page if we explain what it actually means. But simply saying "referendum" in infobox is misleading. And no, this is an absolutely wrong idea to place any outdated numbers in the infobox when we know that the actual numbers are significantly smaller. My very best wishes (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on what the referendum means and its validity is Original Research, the readers themselves can determine what they believe the validity of the referendum to be by reading the body of the article. That the DPR and LPRs conducted referendums on indpendence in the areas they control is an uncontroverted fact well sourced in the article. As for the population data, a whole host of countries list similar data for example Syria, Turkey, Iraq, South Sudan all have wild population fluctuations that are not necessarily reflective of what census data shows.XavierGreen (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The readers can determine something themselves only if relevant information was provided to them per WP:NPOV, i.e. in the body of the page. Once again, placing highly controversial claims that were disputed in sources in the infobox (i.e., essentially as a matter of fact and without appropriate context) is POV-pushing. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to RfC closing, I'd like to caution editors that this should not be taken as license to insert a particular POV regarding the DPR's status into the article.. Yes, exactly. I removed certain POV/misleading statements from the old version of the infobox and explained why (see above). Please do not restore without consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is common problem for infoboxes: they do not provide appropriate context - as required by WP:NPOV. Therefore, placing any questionable and controversial data in infobox is POV. Placing something undisputable and non-controversial is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, the referendum parameter really isn't used much in these types of pages, so I have gone ahead and removed it from this one. Looking at the citations for the population parameter, it looks like its synthesis to me so I removed that as well. The edits that you stated you did not have a problem with in your edit summary I have restored (removing the ethnicity parameter and editing the recognition parameter to make it NPOV.XavierGreen (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I think that map is misleading ("Territory controlled by the Donetsk People's Republic within its claimed territory"). Is it really their claimed territory, especially after Minsk agreement, and which sources tell about this? Why their "claimed" territory (rather than controlled territory) is at all relevant? Some of them claimed the entire Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be listed as a Client/Protectorate of the Russian Federation? - mango2002 07/09/2016 08.43 AM GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.163.234 (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources describing it at such? If, not such suggestions are a breach of WP:NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent naming conventions

Can someone explain to me why this article describes DPR as a self-proclaimed state, whereas Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is described as a terrorist organisation? Seems to me the only difference is predominant skin color, their objectives and status are identical. One or the other. 86.93.227.7 (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you are right. The problem is that NATO Pact countries do not designate the DPR as a terrorist organisation. Because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, it has to reflect what mainstream reliable sources say.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SOAPBOX before placing a nonsensical post like this again. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the infobox: map

I'm removing File:Donetskrepublic.svg - the map that was being used in the infobox - as being both unsourced and outdated. It was last updated in February 2015. Just comparing it to Lugansk News Today - a problematic source in itself - demonstrates the the purported "controlled territory" for February of 2016 here), and LiveMap here do not correspond with the Donetskrepublic.svg.

Further to this, as was noted in the discussion regarding parameters for the infobox a couple of months ago, the description, "Territory controlled by the Donetsk People's Republic within its claimed territory" is nonsensical. It controls territory within its territory? How remarkable and caption-worthy it is... not: tautological at best; complete load of old cobblers at worst. Either scenario marks it as not up to scratch as encyclopaedic content. The map claims areas no longer controlled by the DPR or LPR, so how can it be realistic to even imply that everything within the defined region is absolutely and unequivocally under DPR control (which is what the convoluted caption was presumably trying to infer)? I'd suggest that the only way to get around map issues if for a sourced map to be created, and for an apt description to be appended as the caption. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parity between articles

I would request that editors of this article take a look at the Luhansk People's Republic article. There is an editor edit warring to introduce Category:Ukrainian irredentism, as well as remove the List of designated terrorist organizations from the article. The editor also opened a thread at the NPOVN a few days ago. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there is no dnr

it looks like the article is trying very hard not to mention the russian involvement in this thing called "dnr", and trying to present it as an autonomous entity. Ukraine and the western world consider this territory to be occupied by Russian Federation. That's not a small thing, that should be in the article. were you asleep for the past 3 years? here watch this report https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxtq4PNfRPg 212.90.182.118 (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donetsk_People%27s_Republic&oldid=752052316"