Jump to content

Talk:Donetsk People's Republic

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

Hooray

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

Yes, this is correct name. Donetsk People's Republic = Донецкая народная республика, and People's Republic of Donetsk = Народная республика Донецк Aotearoa (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone just changed it to Donetsk People's Republic. --Ismail (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

I don't see how this is vandalism if it's being widely reported... [Soffredo] Journeyman 3 12:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The person who made the proposal lives in Ukraine, so he/she probably did it for political reasons rather than anything to do with Wikipedia's rules. --Ismail (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now it's gone. --Ismail (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Did Donetsk really declare independence?

Did it really declare its independence or did it just pass a letter of intent? The Republic of Crimea passed a letter of intent to declare its independence days before it held a referendum. Couldn't this be a similar situation or am I just not getting this? [Soffredo] Journeyman 3 12:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the previously-cited ITAR-TASS article, it declared "state sovereignty" which at least in Soviet times meant that a republic considered outside laws passed on it by a "higher" entity (in this case the Ukrainian government, in Soviet times the Soviet government) not binding if the republic itself does not agree to them. It's not outright independence. --Ismail (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This Republic has declared independence though. (1) (2) [Soffredo] Journeyman 3 13:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that these Western sources don't understand a possible nuance between "state sovereignty" and independence though. If either the Russian media or an authoritative voice from the Donetsk People's Republic says "it's independent," I think we can be sure it really has proclaimed independence. --Ismail (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the looks of it, it may be that the Republic was already declared and the referendum is just for joining Russia.
"Pro-Russian protesters seized official buildings in the eastern cities of Kharkiv, Luhansk and Donetsk on Sunday night, demanding that referendums be held on whether to join Russia like the one that preceded Moscow's takeover of Crimea."
[Soffredo] Journeyman 3 13:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" 'The territory of the republic within the recognized borders is indivisible and inviolable,' the council said." The Republic has clearly already claimed territory. It's not a proposed state, but rather an unrecognized state. [Soffredo] Journeyman 3 13:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such a thing as Donetsk People's Republic. It is just a saying. When I go to the City Hall of my living place and say the city is independent from the Netherlands, that is just what I think, not what is a fact. Hans Kamp (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Semi-protection

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

PROTECTION???? DELETE SPEEDILY as nonsense!!! Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Please speedy protect. [Soffredo] Journeyman 3 13:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested the protection at WP:RFP. Feon {t/c} 13:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Please speedy protect, at least until source could be proven false or true. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE SPEEDILY as nonsense!!! until sources could be verified. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Pure Vandalism Page

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

There are sources provided about the Republic's creation. Please stop vandalizing the page. [Soffredo] Journeyman 3 13:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sources say something then please name the Article "Independence declaration in Donetsk" but not create the Article of something which is not exist. --Ipadm (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It actually exists. The nationalists were forced to leave Donetsk on their knees (literally). 2602:30A:2CE2:6AB0:8D6D:9F8E:66F2:53E0 (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are no nationalists, stop spreading the Russian propaganda and hatred in Wikipedia. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The best name of this Article "pro-Russia activists proclaim independent republic in Donetsk" --Ipadm (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, that would be like having an article titled "Michael Jackson has died" or "Montenegro just declared independence" back when those things happened. --Ismail (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's talk about facts: death of human - is fact, proclamation - is fact. There are no republic or even state like in U.S. there is only territory, and there was no official authorities proclaim in this territory. There is only proclaim from some activists. They have freedom to talk, so they do. That's all. --Ipadm (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And one more great fact: this is Russian invasion to Ukraine. Just take a look on new posted "flag" of this "republic" --Ipadm (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Micronations claimed by single persons and secessionist claims by very small groups that have no actual claim to territory in my country are all covered on Wikipedia. This "Donetsk Republic" doesn't exist outside of the heads of a few hundred activists, but it is still noteworthy enough to have an article.--
You are right, but the article in its current form does not report it as a Micronation. It talks about a "breakaway region" and that is verifiably false. The "Republic of Donetsk" is currently a one-building occupation and should be reported as such.--92.229.36.131 (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Flag

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

"Pro Russian propaganda" section

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

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

POVish is the creation of the article in the first place. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I've fixed that for now. Feon {t/c} 17:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feon, please, read the official statement of the Donetsk city council that implies that the session in the Donetsk city council building by unknown separatists lays outside of legal field. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how someone's opinion of legality of something, or legality of something itself is related to this issue of neutrality. Feon {t/c} 17:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you might want to read the WP:LD. Cheers! Feon {t/c} 17:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feon, you're making no sense and you cannot delete stuff without finding a consensus. You failing notice legality does not constitute a fact. Russian government recognizes Viktor Yanukovych the President of Ukraine, but luckily you do not have a nerve to push that POV. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aleksandr Grigoryev, I don't share this POV of Russian government and, more importantly, reliable sources disagree with it, so even if I did share it, as you seem to imply, I still wouldn't push if, but not because of "lack of nerve", as you seem to imply, but for sake of the neutrality.
And please, refrain yourself from imputing to other people that they have the POV opposite of yours just because they might not seem to share your POV in some areas. That's rude.
Also, I don't see the reason to beat the dead horse as the issue of this section seems to be resolved for now. If you see another issue with this article, I would suggest you to start a separate discussion. Mixing the topics is counterproductive. Feon {t/c} 18:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I didn't delete anything except the POV-ish title of the section. I've left all the content that was there. Feon {t/c} 18:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feon CNN also reports about the Pro Russian propaganda that was spread by the Russian media Russia trying to 'dismember' Ukraine through protests, Kiev says. So there is no grounds for deletion of the section. Cheer yourself! Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aleksandr Grigoryev, I might be missing something, but Ctrl+F "propaganda" yields nothing in the CNN article you have provided, so claiming that it is about propaganda constitutes original research. Feon {t/c} 18:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feon, the article I mentioned states the following:

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

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

Aleksandr Grigoryev, I am not denying such an existence, I acknowledge the existence Russian, Ukrainian, American and other propaganda. Again, you are inputting that I might have some particular set of opinions ("users like yourself") just because I might not agree on some of your POV. Please don't, that's rude and offensive.
Yahoo News article is better because it explicitly mentions the propaganda, but it mentions it in a broader context of Ukrainian crisis. If you could find a source that explicitly mentions the propaganda directly related to DPR, whether Russian or Ukrainian, then it would be possible to include it in this article in a neutral manner. Feon {t/c} 19:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feon, have you read my quote from the article I mentioned already? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and, as I can see, it doesn't mention the propaganda explicitly, it only says that a Russian news agency reported something that could not immediately be independently verified. One might say it is "common sense" to conclude that this text is about the propaganda, but for Wikipedia it is original research to conclude that this text is about the propaganda, because it is unfortunately not explicitly mentioned.
Now, if you would excuse me, I will refrain from further participation in this discussion, at least for some time, because I have some RL stuff to do. Feon {t/c} 20:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article to cover all separatist movements

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

Here is a video of this "proclamation". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait to see how will those things evolve first and act later. Situation is so volatile that anything could happen. It should be clearer in a day or two. Feon {t/c} 18:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Next thing, we will hear a declaration of the Eastern Ukrainian People's Republic from the Kremlin, Moscow or Rostov-na-Donu. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feon, the more logical thing would be to have a base level article on the movements as a whole, and if they constitute separate 'republic' articles then we make that decision in a few days. cart before the horse.--Львівське (говорити) 18:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I think I will declare the formation of the Budapest People's Republic from my basement. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why stop there? Pest has been oppressed by Buda for so long already. It deserves recognition on its own! :) CodeCat (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about the Cherepovets Republic of Free Citizens? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

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

Someone edited the Russian neo-Nazi Pavel Gubarev as People's Governor of the Republic. What is that about??? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They called it name calling, but it's cited by 2 sources. Please put it back if you have a chance, his political membership is very relevant since he's a political movement leader. --Львівське (говорити) 19:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lvivske, who appointed him a governor of the Republic? Is it because he is the leader, so now automatically he qualifies for that post? Please, show those sources. When it was posted there was none supporting that claim. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, somebody continues to categorize the article as secession in Ukraine. What is that??? When did that occur? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's governor ref --Львівське (говорити) 20:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lvivske, the article you provided states that he is the governor of Donetsk Oblast, not Donetsk People's Republic. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the article says he's the governor of donetsk, and he IS the leader of this movement. You're splitting hairs, as the DPR covers Donetsk Oblast. --Львівське (говорити) 21:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lvivske, now, you are simply accusing me of something that you do not like. He is not leader of no movement. Donetsk Republic is a separate organization, governor of Donetsk Oblast was elected before the establishment of the "DPR", and no one really knows exactly who was in that Donetsk regional council building. Those people could be just a bunch of drunkards who were paid by the Russian FSB. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lvivske, let's not pile up bunch of random events together establishing them as an occurred fact. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, I don't think you fully understand the situation. These are not unrelated groups. Gubarev is the leader, they took the Donetsk RSA once before, it's his followers who rally for his release, and the group in the RSA now is still aligned with him.--Львівське (говорити) 22:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lvivske, it is you who thinks that I do not understand. I see your point, but is it possible that it might be you who is missing some portion of the puzzle here? I am right now working on the article about Donetsk Republic (organization) that exists since 2005. Have you heard anything about it? The situation might be a bit more complicated here. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, somebody pinned the flag of Donetsk Republic organization for the political entity, while there was no such fact established, but people saw these flags and without knowledge of their origin pin them where they want. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Gubarev is a leader of the People's Militia of Donbass which seems to be a different organization. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here Gubarev is when they took the RSA last time, flanked with Donetsk Republic flags pic --Львівське (говорити) 23:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In another news, some clashes occurred not only in the East Ukraine, but also in Mykolaiv where Euromaidan activists forced the People's Militia of Nikolayev to retreat (by Ukrayinska Pravda). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is Gubarev calling for people to join his 'People's Militia of Donbass', and here is a commander of the militia, Rudenko, wearing a Gubarev shirt and declaring the appeal to Putin. While he is not the leader of the DR, he is the governor of the polity (it seems) and also the Militia is part of the group that took control. Maybe the PMD is the militant wing of the DR? --Львівське (говорити) 23:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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

Also suggest we rename to something that would encompass all 2014 separatist movements in eastern ukraine. --Львівське (говорити) 20:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree; falls in line with naming policy of Wikipedia (see: 2014 Crimean crisis) and the current content of the article deals with this crises. Not with features of this "Donetsk People's Republic" (The Donetsk People's Republic (Russian: Донецкая народная республика, Donetskaya narodnaya respublika) is the name for a building with 100 people in it.... etc.) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Very good idea indeed. Perhaps "2014 Donbas crisis" would be a better name because Donbas refers to the whole historical, economic and cultural region of eastern Ukraine. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. So then: Donbas, Donbass, or Donetsk Basin? Donbass is Russian spelling so it's more fitting IMO, and it may be common use. Then again, it's slang, so does Donetsk Basin become the proper descriptor? I do like this idea since Donbass covers specifically Luhansk, Kharkiv, and Donetsk, and the former Donetsk republic from 1918 covered those 3 cities as well. --Львівське (говорити) 21:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer calling it how media call it, since that is what the people would search for. That is just "Donetsk". Other names could redirect there. Petrb (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Petrb; also Kharkiv has never been part of the Donbass... (and WP:OR sources informed me they do not like to be associated with it...) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yulia, you're right, I made a mistake. --Львівське (говорити) 21:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


As this state does not exist, it merits no WP page of its own. The Bavarian Soviet Republic DID exist (i.e. govern and control people). --92.229.36.131 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It exists as a political body, ie there are people that claim to be its government. The Bavarian Soviet Republic did not control territory at first either, it is possible that militants in Donetsk could sieze bunch of towns tomorrow and actually control territory. The point is it is to early to delete.XavierGreen (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, it is to early to have an encyclopedia article on an entity you say MIGHT exist tomorrow. ---> WP:CRYSTALBALL And people who claim to be a government who have neither actual control nor official legitimacy are NOT a political body. Factually, they are nothing but illegal occupants of a government building. --92.229.36.131 (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just so everyone is aware, the 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine article does exist and covers all the events in East Ukraine. --Львівське (говорити) 21:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So it could be integrated into a subsection of that article.--92.229.36.131 (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that. --Львівське (говорити) 22:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This clip that came up in the deletion debate says it all imo. You can't declare something and expect it to be so. The event happened sure, but this is not an unrecognised state, they do not govern Donetsk in any form, never have - this is little more than a group of people occupying a building and declaring independence. Alexsau1991 (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - you cant just deny the existence of this newly proclaimed state by changing the title. The article is already being considered for deletion, which is not going to work either as it seems. Failing that, you just try to change the title. The article is about the new state, and not about some crisis. If you don't like the fact that Ukraine is falling apart, it is your problem, but pushing your POV and denial by changing the title of this article is not the way to go. There are many articles about even short lived, unrecognized states. Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Get me an article for some republic that lasted few hours please and I will believe you. Petrb (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proclamation of the state was already rescinded after locals complained.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, now that this has aborted itself I think we should just Merge the content into the greater pro-Russia protest article. This article was clearly WP:CRYSTAL. --Львівське (говорити) 14:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not aborted; the statement was by completely unrelated group of people. [1], where it clearly says: "Отметим, что КПСД не имеет отношения к сепаратистам, которые создали Донецкую народную республику, а потом их решение на ход событий вряд ли влияет." Atila-bich-godyi (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THE RIGHT OF BEING

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

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

Hello! Welcome to our encyclopedia. With all the respect, this is talk page where people should discuss changes to article, not their personal views or opionions, so this isn't the right place for your political views. Thank you Petrb (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to those pro-Ukrainians who are avidly trying to get the article denigrated or erased due to some sort of an ego gap in their nationalist minds. Those are the people you should criticize, for they are just as amateur and yet much more disruptive than this person. Klopsikon (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am criticizing nobody I am trying to explain what this talk page is for. It is meant to everyone who don't understand it. Petrb (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Folks. Please read WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

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

Sovereignty?

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

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

unexplained revert?

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

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

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

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

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

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

please be specific. --Львівське (говорити) 14:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For one, there is an example by a user titled Klopsikon in the section above titled "RIGHT OF BEING" that is openly combative, denouncing "pro-Ukrainians" for having an "ego gap" in their "nationalist minds". That comment is not constructive, is inflammatory, and breaches Wikipedia policy because of its combativeness (WP:NOTBATTLE). There are other comments here that are not constructive either, but that one was particularly inappropriate.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donetsk_People%27s_Republic&oldid=603374032"