Talk:Donetsk People's Republic

So-called "Prejudice against Ukrainians"

The "hunt against Ukrainians" claim by UNIAN is not based on any evidence. They quote Ponomarev as saying that suspicious activity including people speaking Ukrainian should be reported, which in itself does not mean "hunt against Ukrainian", because virtually all ethnic Ukrainians in Donbass speak Russian and speaking Ukrainian is regarded by some as a signal of Ukrainian nationalist sympathies rather than Ukrainian ethnicity. To my knowledge there hasn't been any reports that people actually get prosecuted in DNR for being Ukrainian. I have removed this section. 46.56.100.44 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable published sources, not the opinions of editors.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If only Kyiv Post and Unian were reliable. 217.76.2.162 (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Section totally un-encyclopedic, as its based on unreliable sources, but sadly some ultranationalist hooligans want to turn WP into some type of political biased forum...--HCPUNXKID 23:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's based on reliable sources. Don't insult other editors or call them names. Volunteer Marek  18:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources? Are you serious? You really claim that Kiev Post is a reliable source on this issue but RT isnt? That is bias on its highest level, you seemingly want to turn an encyclopaedia into a political website because of your evident political views...--HCPUNXKID 21:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

DPR flag

I added the flag of DPR freedom fighters (the one that looks like American Rebel flag) because people are googling for it and come to DPR and it will be visible--184.161.146.100 (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The crown on the eagle has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Let general RS or specific RS determine usage re Alleged attack on gay club

Regarding revert of section title reverter reinserted archaic usage of term "homosexual" when virtually all mainstream media and scholarly sources use the term gay or LGBT. If he reverts my compromise re-edit I suggest that we stick with the RS. The article in question, at Kyviv Post, uses the term attack on "gay club". The reverter complained that the attack was on "people" not a "nebulous community" so I did not restore but rather tried out "LGBT attack". That is consistent with the usage of the preceding section "Sectarian attacks". If not hapy with that the default seems to be the term used by Kyviv Post itself. Have a good day. Wikidgood (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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...--HCPUNXKID 23:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

LGBT attack is better. It's a reliable source. Volunteer Marek  18:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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.--HCPUNXKID 21:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

False analogy. It is different. One source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, the other one a reputation for lying and misinformation. It absolutely does not matter what the "ethnicity" of the source is or even if it's government owned or not. Volunteer Marek  05:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I watched the video that is the sole source for this claim, and it is preposterous. This "news report" claims that twenty rebels went into the gay club shooting and held people at gunpoint for two hours, yet says that no one was hurt. Why is there only one source for this incident? If this really happened, it would have been the main story on Western cable news channels for days. I would say that EXCEPTIONAL clearly applies here. Is anyone other than Volunteer Marek willing to sanguinely assert that this is a reliable source? And even if it were a reliable source, which it obviously isn't, EXCEPTIONAL would still apply, so this must go.
Note that a gay club was attacked in the Ukraine this summer, but that happened in Kiev, not Donetsk:
Gay Club in Kiev Attacked By Mob of Neo-Nazis: Video

Violence against the LGBT community in Eastern Europe continued this week with an attack by a group of 15 to 20 neo-nazis against the gay club "Pomada" (Lipstick) in the Ukrainian capital city, Kiev. The melee was captured on video by a surveillance camera. …

Pink News reports far-right homophobic groups were influential in Ukraine’s recent coup, prior to which the parliament attempted to pass an anti-discrimination bill.

This is just the usual ploy of right wingers to accuse the other side of doing what they themselves are doing. – Herzen (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"This is just the usual ploy of right wingers to accuse the other side of doing what they themselves are doing." - what the hell is that even supposed to mean? There's no point in having a discussion if you're gonna say stuff like that. Volunteer Marek  01:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

My point is very simple: it is the people in power in Kiev and their goons who are homophobic, not the people of Donbas. You can disagree with that point, but why do you claim that you can't understand it? The other point I made was that attacks by rebels on gay clubs are fictional, whereas attacks on gay clubs by the people behind the regime in Kiev are real. Is this also something you can't comprehend, as opposed to disagreeing with it? Note that in the case of attacks on gays in Kiev there are Western sources, but for this alleged attack on a gay club in Donetsk there is only a Ukrainian source.

And in case you don't think that homophobia is a problem with the current regime, I guess you haven't heard that the oldest movie theater in Ukraine was burned down last month by a veteran of the so-called Anti-Terror Operation, by throwing smoke grenades into it, in order to protest a film with a LGBT theme being shown. See The arsonist of Zovten has turned out to be a radical from the paramilitary group "Revenge" (in Russian). – Herzen (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Um, when did Vesti become an RS? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: As far as I can tell, Vesti is the only Ukrainian news site which can be considered to be a RS. In any case, are you suggesting that Vesti made all that up, in the way that I claim that the source Volunteer Marek is defending made up the attack on the gay club in Donbas?

The movie theater was set afire, and two suspects have been apprehended. The question is, were they paid to commit arson by people with financial interests in the theater, or did they torch the theater because it was running a LGBT film festival? Do you know of any reports which deny what Vesti reports at the link I gave? Are you suggesting that the theater getting torched while it was showing a LGBT film was just a coincidence? Pink News doesn't seem to think so. – Herzen (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Look. You appear to be a well meaning, liberal minded kind of a person, yet you've chosen to support some jack booted neo-Nazis who go around attacking people based on their ethnicity or sexual preference (putting the murder of civilians and all that other stuff aside), simply because ... well, that's between you and your own thoughts. And now you're experiencing some cognitive dissonance, because the evidence says that maybe, just maybe, these guys aren't some kind of brave freedom fighters you've talked yourself into believing they are, but just your regular, run of the mill, mostly hired, thugs who are into doing bad things that neo-Nazi types usually do.

This cognitive dissonance of yours is not my problem (though I wish you well in curing it, constructively). Info is sourced, it's reliable, it's relevant.

What is NOT relevant is whether or not some other homophobic attacks occurred somewhere else, perpetrated by someone else. This article is on Donetsk People's Republic. Not Kiev. And - I'm not sure why obvious things have to be pointed out - there's a big difference between some idiot privately attacking a club (and getting arrested and persecuted by this evil "Kiev junta" for it) and the actual separatists militia doing the attacking. If a former veteran of the Allies from WWII goes and does something stupid, let's say, says something anti-semitic, that does not mean that the Allies in WWII were the anti-semitic side. This is pretty elementary, so again, I'm not sure why there's even a need to explain something so basic. Volunteer Marek  05:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one with the cognitive dissonance. 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. (This is not to say that the rebels do not engage in what would be considered by Western liberals to be homophobic hate speech, calling the Ukrainians who are murdering people who are opposed to the regime "fags". But speech and physical assault are two different matters.)

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. – Herzen (talk) 05:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Splitting off content on human rights into a sub-article

An editor has split off content to create a new article.

The split was not discussed on talk page first. As it is a major split I think it should have been.

Nor was this split done in accordance with Wikipedia policy, which says:

"The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This does not go on forever: very long articles would cause problems and should be split. A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it."

Given that the content that has been deleted from the main article is generally negative about the behaviour of the people running the Donetsk People's Republic, there are serious neutral POV concerns about the way this split was done. (Imagine if we took the article on Beria and put all or most of the bad things about Beria in a sub-article and left all the good things about him in the main article.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the split of content from Donetsk People's Republic should have been discussed first on the article talk page. This was done with other splits.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it should have been discussed. And yes, there should be a summary within this article assuming that the split-off remains. Volunteer Marek  09:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the split, as it was poorly carried out and totally crap. If we actually want to do a split, we should discuss it, decide what content to split, and what the name of the new article should be. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, we started a discussion on this page (I give this link for references). Let's wait for more opinions. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion should take place here, as the content was from this article. I should also note that that split was a copy-vio, as no attribution template was given by the splitter. RGloucester — ☎ 21:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

From a purely practical point of view, the discussion should take place here. Far more people have contributed to this article and therefore have it on their watch list.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely in agreement with the dissatisfaction with a split that was not even discussed. The section should be left here until it's established that there should even be a separate article on this. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Lucian Kim quote

How Lucian Kim from Slate relates to the article? How exactly Maidan is being copied in the Eastern Ukraine? I do not see any similarities. Who is Mr.Kim to make such analogies? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove all of the words "Pro-Russian separatist"

Remove all of the words "Pro-Russian separatist" -- 37.215.177.7 (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I also saw your comment on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. It shows what kind of person you are.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic POV-pushing

Because no one responded, so once again. The "Human rights" section is a mess. Pure war propaganda. (see WP:NPOV). I'm having problem with the following additions:

• WP:UNDUE -- [1], [2], [3], [4] - Anti-Semitic leaflets have been declared a hoax
• WP:RS -- [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]
• WP:COPYVIO -- [10] http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-crisis-deepens-rift-between-orthodox-churches-044052410.html
• WP:OWN -- [11]
• Blatant attempt to POV the article & double standard -- [12], [13], [14], [15]

-- Tobby72 (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)