Talk:2014 Donbas status referendums

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2014 Donbas status referendums article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1: 30 days

Ukraine Low‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Infoboxes

An Rfc on the inclusion of "Infobox multichoice referendum" into 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine was closed on 9 January with a consensus that the boxes should not be included, see Talk:2022_annexation_referendums_in_Russian-occupied_Ukraine/Archive_1#RfC_on_the_inclusion_of_the_below_infobox's_for_the_results_of_the_referendum. Since this article is about a pretty similar case, I think the same should apply here. So I was bold and removed the infoboxes. I don't think anybody should restore them without explaining the differences between the events covered in this article and those in the other one. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Want to add in following info

I like to add in the following edit. That for the polling in Donetsk that; 72.5% said that if given the chance, people of Donetsk was polled to vote for entry into the Customs Union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. But only 9.4% supported entry into the European Union. Reason why I think it should be included into wiki article, because such a true fact would show the background that people in Donetsk wanted to be part of Russia's economic sphere but not the European union economic spheres. One editor said it was not relevant to the topic but I do not agree. So I opened this chapter to discussfairly on the matter.49.186.90.34 (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said so. Why should something that was not even on the ballot should be relevant ? This article should not be an arbitrary selection of details from primary sources, but should follow reliable, secondary sources. "Background" is exactly what should be provided by secondary, preferably academical sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wanted to be helpful and add what I feel is a highly relevant fact. It's like the only question in the polls that gives an indication on whether the people in Donetsk leaned towards Russia or European union. However you say it's not in the ballot question in the referendum hence irrelevant. So I guess I can agree with that and won't contest your reverting, as I find that to be a valid enough reason. Thanks for the reply. 49.186.90.34 (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bothsidesism

The article reflects a false balance because it consists largely of attributed quotations. The fact is that expert consensus assesses the “referendums” as not meeting democratic standards, fraudulent, and illegal. The article should say so in so many words. —Michael Z. 15:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]