Talk:2014 Donbas status referendums/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discussion

@DDima: I know you recently reverted the revival of this article, per the AFD. However, it now appears that the referendum is going ahead. I'm not sure if we should revive this article now, and start writing about the whole Putin debacle, or wait until the 11th when it actually occurs. I'll leave it up to your discretion, since you were the last one to maintain the redirect. RGloucester — ☎ 17:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

article might be of use from the new york times [1] --Львівське (говорити) 18:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

new york times is american-sponsored source, it cant be reliable

Dnipropetrovsk and Luhansk referendums

How do we handle the counter referendums? Should this article cover all three? Just Donetsk and the Donetsk-to-Dnipropetrovsk one?--Львівське (говорити) 19:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Counter-referendums can be included here. I only think stuff pertaining to Donetsk, though. RGloucester — ☎ 19:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

For a swiss democrat, the procedure doesn't even meet the standards of an Opinion poll, thus it is necessary to change the title. Go ahead to move it further if the one chosen is not strong enough.--Caumasee (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

im not sure what you mean but your changes should be reverted as they are strongly lop sided against all sources and media --Львівське (говорити) 07:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move: Misspelling in the title ("referrendum")

So, has anybody noticed the misspelling in the title and the double redirect from the link here? The article should be moved to Donetsk status referendum, 2014. The current title is just embarrassing, unfortunately I can't figure out what the procedure is to move it. Anyone know? Esn (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: There is also a referendum in Luhansk on the same day - in fact, news articles ([2]) say that the two separatist authorities organized them together. Russian Wikipedia has two articles on them (the one on Luhansk is ru:Референдум о самоопределении Луганской народной республики), but maybe it makes sense to place both of them into a single article here? In which case the name would be Donetsk and Luhansk status referendums, 2014 Esn (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Voters in Moscow

As far as I understand the voters in Moscow are just a sympathy vote, and won't be counted in to the results. These votes are just to demonstrate solidarity with the plight of people living under Kiev government. It might be worth checking. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

do you have a source? --Львівське (говорити) 18:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've seen absentee voting from Ukrainian people in nearby countries. BloodofIndependence (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Pictures and reports of referendum

Pictures of turnout for voting

from Mariupol http://wintersodom.tumblr.com/image/85438167117

from Slavyansk https://31.media.tumblr.com/3807fc0c1a1917b0906f87b03d2da022/tumblr_n5exevfCl51riizp3o5_1280.jpg

General pictures of polling

https://31.media.tumblr.com/678c6f5365f72a200fd2a3f0a31bb8dd/tumblr_n5f379vk5X1riizp3o2_1280.jpg

https://24.media.tumblr.com/b76735a3a18203b4ecf27fb2fd524c2f/tumblr_n5f379vk5X1riizp3o1_1280.jpg

http://rt.com/news/158160-lugansk-donetsk-referendum-vote/

http://afp-photo.tumblr.com/image/85423311834

http://rack.2.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE0LzA1LzExLzhhL3VrcmFpbmVzb3ZlLjFhMWUyLmpwZw/c0c974db/f54/ukraine-sovereignty.jpg

https://31.media.tumblr.com/5a09de6e3f9443cd90b9193c6c766113/tumblr_n5exevfCl51riizp3o7_1280.jpg

https://24.media.tumblr.com/f7d05ad990343d4b4f8d29a39a4a564b/tumblr_n5exevfCl51riizp3o2_1280.jpg

https://31.media.tumblr.com/3807fc0c1a1917b0906f87b03d2da022/tumblr_n5exevfCl51riizp3o5_1280.jpg

Along with many more out there. Good for pictures or external links.

In Mariupol: "protesters together with local police organized self-defense groups to guard poll stations. "

Reports of Ukrainian National guard block polling station in Krasnoarmiysk

https://31.media.tumblr.com/918eb0a55458a296aa02f6263fcdd8ad/tumblr_n5f2gvAkzz1riizp3o4_1280.jpg

BloodofIndependence (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This isnt a forum WP:NOTAFORUM --Львівське (говорити) 18:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Pictures of the voting, not a forum. BloodofIndependence (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

infobox

In regard to the question of the infobox as seen here [3].

I'll confess that I do, mildly, dislike infoboxes in general (though I'm not one of the anti-infobox fanatics), especially when they serve to misinform or mislead rather than to provide basic information in a succinct manner. In this particular case including the claimed numbers - which most likely are completely fictitious, which certainly have not been verified by any independent source (hence presenting them as fact violates WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS and WP:FRINGE), and even putting these issues aside which were obtained, in whatever manner, under some very peculiar circumstances - is exactly a poster book example of when an infobox misleads rather than summarizes.

However, I'm not completely opposed to having *some* kind of infobox in there. Originally I was going to just remove the numbers themselves. But the problem with that is that then the infobox says "Results: Results not yet known", which isn't exactly accurate either. Is there some way where we could have an infobox which omits that sub-box? Or somehow structure it to avoid giving the misimpression that these are valid or accepted numbers? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

i dont know how but i agree what your suggestion that the figures be omitted and are better served in the body under proper context, given the nature of the vote and evidence that they are just completely made up to begin with --Львівське (говорити) 05:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The two of you are flagrantly engaging in original research. There is no consensus whatsoever among reliable sources that the referendum figures are "completely fictitious". But hey, everything is allowed, just as long as it supports the Ukrainian nationalist cause (of which we may be seeing the complete failure). – Herzen (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Cut it out with the WP:SOAPBOXING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You really can't have any kind of productive dialog with anyone outside of your information bubble, can you? I gave two perfectly reliable sources which make the referendum results presented by the Donetsk republic completely plausible. But you make no effort to process information that contradicts your preconceptions. – Herzen (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

What you've done is presented some of your own original research. I've processed it. It'd didn't compute. But either way, it doesn't matter seeing as how we don't base article content on original research.

But actually, you know what? In some sense I do find the "results" plausible. Seeing as how it would take great courage to go to one of these voting stations and cast a vote for Ukrainian unity, while knowing that by doing so, one risked kidnapping, torture and death - since that's what the separatists have been doing to anyone who dared to express such sentiments - yeah, sure, the "results" are "plausible".

Let's put aside the seized boxes of pre-marked ballots, the fact that people who support Ukrainian unity have fled the city in fear, the fact that the voting was done under the guns of the people who really want the results to go particular way, the intercepted phone calls where the separatists pre-agree on what results to announce with Russian neo-Nazis, the absence of any kind of independent observers, and the fact that the actual counting of the votes was done by the separatists themselves. Even if none of these things was true, even if the separatists dutifully counted each ballot as it was genuinely marked, that still wouldn't give the "referendum" a shred of legitimacy, exactly for that reason. Which is why no reliable source considers these numbers in any way legit, and why we can't either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

But does this go for Crimea too? In both cases the results were tarred and feathered by the intl. community. Though I admit that Donbass was much worse than Crimea in terms of how it was done (bloodier, guns at voting booths, etc.) —Львівське (говорити) 14:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

We've got to report what the DPR says. We don't give it "legitimacy" by presenting the numbers. We just need to make clear that the referendum is disputed, and the article does that at present. Let the evidence stand for itself, and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions. RGloucester — ☎ 15:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The thing is that we also need to make it clear that the referendum is disputed in the infobox itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

poll conducted by the US–based Purdue University|Institute of Social Research and Policy Analysis-translation required

Poll conducted by the US–based Institute of Social Research and Policy Analysis has several options, of which only two were translated: [4], can someone translate the results so that we have a full picture? Also as hard I tried I couldn't find this poll or research on Purdue University webpage.Can somebody point to it? Thank you.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That links says "Donetsk Institute of Social Research and Policy Analysis" which may be different than the "Purdue Institute of Social Research and Policy Analysis".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, so it is not Purdue Uni? Does anyone know the real source of this poll and what the other options mean which were untranslated?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm personally not interested in this poll, since the situation has changed significantly since it was taken. Also, it's annoying that the poll questions are in a graphic, so you can't auto translate them; I don't it's worth the trouble to translate them yourself.

It would be interesting to see what a similar poll taken today would show. – Herzen (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Article lacks neutrality

This article was written by a Ukrainian Insurgent Army supporter, so it is highly critical of the refferendum. User1975 (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Yaaawwwwnnnnn.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

sorry VM, I'm only here to take you down with me --Львівське (говорити) 14:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that currently the article isn't neutral, for example the information that civilians shot by National Guard were unarmed was removed, despite being sourced.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Extremely deficient in neutral tone, not worth bothering to change it, Life's too short.Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

regarding Russia recognizing the legality of the referendums

There is a dubious phrase from Kremlin regarding the referendums. “Moscow respects the will of the people in Donetsk and Lugansk and hopes that the practical realization of the outcome of the referendums will be carried out in a civilized manner.” It can be interpreted either way by different news agencies. I propose we leave the exact quote in the header and in case you wish to write various interpretations, I suggest creating a specific section for it. However, wikipedia not being a news site, I don't think it's even warranted. 217.136.43.62 (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Good suggestion.

By the way, if you are going to make comments about what WP is and is not, and undo other people's edits, you would strengthen your position if you registered, instead of just making edits as an IP. And this is friendly advice; I approve of the edits that I have seen you make. I really don't see why anyone who makes edits with any frequency wouldn't register. And if you register, you have more privacy as far as I can tell, as your IP address doesn't get shown publicly. – Herzen (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm just writing this. first I had to repair the vandalization that nobody seems to have noticed. Please help to rephrase my contribution and find more references to avoid this notable detail to be forgotten. No one needs to analyze a result of a simple yes-or-no question if it had been a legal precedure.... --Anidaat (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

UserGogo212121 Hello Preliminary results announced by the Central Election Commission of the Donetsk People's Republic.

Yes   89.07% No 10.19% Invalid ballots   0.74% this true these data loyal Are

--Gogo212121 (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No Russian or Ukrainian sources without cross-referencing in western sources

User:RGloucester reverted my edit [5], where I added polling numbers from various Russian sources (which were lifted from the Russian WP article) His reasoning was: "No Russian or Ukrainian sources without cross-referencing in western sources". I wasn't aware that such a regional preference policy exists. If it does, it certainly isn't being applied evenly through all of the Ukrainian crisis articles. For example, the table that shows "peak attendance numbers" for pro-Kiev rallies (2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine#Pro-Ukraine_counter_protests) are almost entirely sourced by pro-Kiev sources, with no Western sources to back them up. —Tocino 15:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

My concern was that you did not attribute what you put in. You merely said "turnout is x". A discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard said not use Russian or Ukrainian sources without cross-referencing, and otherwise to make sure that what one puts in is attributed. Attribute it, and I won't have a problem. RGloucester — ☎ 15:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Krasnoarmeisk shooting

In the video [6] you can clearly see that the soldiers were shooting warning shots into the air while being accosted by a crowd, they were backing off and trying to avoid a confrontation, then one smart guy decided to grab the end of a soldier's rifle and got shot. Let's not try to portray this as some kind of a "attack" on unarmed peaceful civilians.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No Original Research please. This is just a part of the events, and you deal with protesting civilians with batons and tear gas, not assault rifles. Let us not try to justify murdering people who wanted to vote. And yes this was an attack as they stormed the polling station-again you are seeing just part of the event.Also it is clear from video that civilians tried to protect themselves after shots were fired.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't "try to protect yourself" by getting in a soldier's face and then grabbing his rifle. It's pretty clear in the video who the aggressors here were, armed or unarmed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

If somebody tries to murder me, I would whatever it takes to save my life. And yes it is pretty clear who came to the town armed to the teeth and started shooting at civilians.Now let's end this pointless discussion since this is not discussion forum.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody was trying to murder anyone. The soldiers were backing off and firing warning shots into the air. The crowd was pressing on them. One guy grabbed a soldier's rifle. And got shot. That's not doing "whatever it takes to save one's life", it's actually sort of the opposite.

Of course they came to the town armed to the teeth, since their job was to secure the building. And let's not pretend that there isn't guys "armed to the teeth" on the other side. How did they bring down those helicopters, by throwing rocks? By using strong words? Telekinesis?

Look, one can admire the courage (?) of the "unarmed" protesters and consider this "pressing" on the armed soldiers a potentially valid form of civil disobedience. But to portray the situation as one where evil soldiers are trying to murder innocent civilians is just bunk. And it's POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

These armed men were clearly shooting at unarmed civilians, there are no helicopters on the video, and it is only short video of larger picture.For the record they are not backing off as they moved to re-occupy the polling station they took over. At the end of the day innocent people who just tried to exercise their right to self-determination were murdered. Now let's end this pointless discussion since your POV view is not a source we can use.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

These armed men were clearly firing warning shots into the air, when one smart guy decided to grab one of their rifles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Got to agree with VM. The guy clearly grabbed the rifle, likely jerked it, and the gun probably went off by accident. --Nug (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Crowd control isn't done by shooting assault rifles into people.Nor is this video of the whole attack and killing. Again, not a discussion forum for justifying shooting civilians.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a venue for advocacy. --Nug (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and suggest to delete this whole thread which includes advocacy of justification of shooting unarmed civilians.It has no place on Wiki. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This report[7] states the shot man was also carrying an AK-47:

"Witnesses to the shooting posted a number of videos on YouTube. One of the videos shows several armed men holding AK-47s yelling to the crowd "go home, get out of here." One then cocks his weapon, and seconds later a man from the crowd steps forward and approaches another gunman, also carrying an AK-47, to speak with him. The gunman fires a warning shot over his head, but that doesn't deter the man. He continues to approach as shots continue and the man is struck by a bullet, falls to the ground and can be seen bleeding from his leg."

so please stop spinning this BS about "shooting unarmed civilians". --Nug (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to ask this The Guardian and the other media. Also AP reporter already confirmed two dead bodies.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm just going to sit this one out for today and let the dust settle. It's pretty clear to me that they didn't just go shooting at unarmed civilians. Like in Mariupol where the RT reporter got shot and one side shoved this POV about unarmed civilians, we then saw the other angle of the video where there was a pro-Russian guy in the crowd firing with a pistol. You don't approach armed soldiers aggressively, just like you don't charge at police when they have their guns drawn. Common sense has gone out the window in the east unfortunately and these rabid provocative crowds are indeed causing some unarmed people to get shot, but this is unfortunately being spun into some "Ukrainians fire on civilians for no reason" fantasy. Let's just cut the crap here.--Львівське (говорити) 22:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Also I'd just like to add that while the article currently states its the National Guard, I'm like 95% sure it wasn't. Seems to be the Dnipro Battalion commissioned by Kolomoisky, who are a volunteer force not under the auspice of the Ministry of Defense.--Львівське (говорити) 22:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this report says that it was the Dnepr Battalion (which I know nothing about). – Herzen (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Plot thickens: Dnipro officials say they were there but only at checkpoints, not in the city [8][9], Ministry of Interior says they never left Dnipro at all [10]. For background, the unit was created on April 14 by Kolomoisky in cooperation with the Interior Ministry [11] --Львівське (говорити) 23:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

If I can just offer my own opinion, but these guys for sure arent SNA/Right Sector. They also aren't National Guard. Are they Dnepr? Probably not, they are a rag-tag bunch with non-matching uniforms - and no organized military would just send in a dozen guys with no backup. To me, it looks like some unknown party of locals, or if we get into guesswork, maybe separatists themselves? Ultimately its an unofficial group of militants of unknown origin. --Львівське (говорити) 00:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, this is what the NY Times is reporting:

in the afternoon, a Ukrainian national guard unit known as the Dnepr Brigade appeared and broke up the voting. Organizers grabbed the boxes of cast ballots and ran, presumably intending to count them later, and the soldiers took up positions in the City Hall building where a secessionist polling station had been operating on the steps.

With the cardboard and cloth remains of a polling stand littering the ground, the armed men demonstratively cocked their rifles, sometimes leveling them. When a man from the crowd approached the building to block another group of soldiers from entering, he was shot and killed.

But I will leave it to others to sort this out. – Herzen (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sure there is a conspiracy theory webpage which would be more suitable for some of the comments and POV (rabid provocative crowds) present in this discussion. I suggest that, for now, this particular incident remains mentioned only in the form of facts that can be confirmed, i.e. "after preventing access to the building, the unit (whoever they are) was surrounded by the citizens and in the resulting scuffle one person died from a shot fired by one of the unit members". AzraeL9128 (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This English-language Paris match article states:

• "The government ... has categorically denied that the National Guard or any other unit of its regular forces had taken part in the raid. The transitional government added in a statement that it was opening a criminal investigation into the murders."
• "Andrey Denisenko, deputy chief of [Right Sector] and its acting head in the Dnepropetrovsk region" was seen shooting over the heads of the crowd at the scene of the shooting.
• One of those who was shot dead was not the least bit aggressive, and was shot to kill.
• Some from the "militia" spoke with Western Ukrainian accents, and others seemed to come from the Caucasus region, possibly "mercenaries from Chechnya". Others, judging by their behavior were either American mercenaries or American-trained mercinaries.

This appears to be the most detailed account of the shooting that yet appeared. There is no indication that the shootings were justified by anything the crowd did. (In any case, how can the shooting of unarmed civilians be justified?) Time has a shorter story with photos by the same photographer. – Herzen (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Title Typo

The plural of referendum is referenda, not referendums.

Not true. Read the OED. "Referenda" is deprecated. RGloucester — ☎ 19:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Merger

How about merging Luhansk status referendum, 2014 into Donetsk status referendum, 2014, and renaming that article to Donetsk and Luhansk status referendums, 2014? The Luhansk article is so sparse, and I think it might make more sense to just merge them. Many of the reactions and stuff here pertain to both, anyway. RGloucester — ☎ 18:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. I haven't even looked at the other article. Also, news reports usually cover developments in both regions. – Herzen (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No objections here. The Luhansk article is rather small, so a merge can be completed without violating article size guidelines or deleting encyclopedic content. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

this was my idea, see 2nd talk page discussion ;) so yeah, im in favor of it --Львівське (говорити) 21:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Merger complete! Let's get to work on expanding the Luhansk section. RGloucester — ☎ 21:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest changing the name to "Donbas status referendum, 2014" as that is how it is commonly referred to in the media. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. There were two separate referendums. RGloucester — ☎ 02:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I know that there were two separate referendums, but if the two pages were merged why not just call it "Donbas status referendums, 2014" it's shorter then the current title and this title can also make up for the counter referendum that took place in the region since the suggested title covers the entire area of Donbas. —WhyHellWhy (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Most English speakers don't know what the Donbass is. It is easier to stick to administrative definitions. RGloucester — ☎ 00:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Translation required

This poll is used quite a lot in articles about this, but only two options were translated. Can someone provide translation of the other options? http://novosti.dn.ua/details/222251/ --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If google translation is correct then: 4.7% of those polled in Donetsk supported independence, while 31.7% wanted expansion of autonomy for Donetsk region, at the same time 15.5% opted for the federalization of Ukraine with the division of the country into several federal districts serve, 18.2 % of respondents were in favor of joining an interstate union with Russia, and 8.7% - for becoming part of ​​the the Russian Federation, only 18.6 % were supportive of the current unitary status of Ukraine.

Makes the referendum results quite believable. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I want to see the original poll from supposed US source. We shouldn't take it second-hand. RGloucester — ☎ 23:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't add this poll to the articles.I am glad to see you seek the primary source now that we know that majority asked in the poll has supported distancing Donetsk from Ukraine.—MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't care whether Donetsk wants to be Ukrainian, federalised, or Russian. I hardly give a damn. But I dislike people putting false information into articles, for example, saying that it was a "US-based source", when it isn't. RGloucester — ☎ 23:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this was the primary source / they had some sort of exclusive breaking news for this poll, it was the first to report it. The study is by the "Донецкий институт социологических исследований и политического анализа" and when referencing other stuff by them even Interfax cites the Donbass News [12] --Львівське (говорити) 23:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

All I could find is this is their address and pravda when citing them cites the Ostrogo news portal, presumably this article --Львівське (говорити) 23:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• 18.6% unitary stated with no change to current system
• 31.6% unitary state but with broader powers at the local level*15.5% federalization
• 8.7% want to stay in Ukraine but in a union like the USSR
• 18.2% want Donetsk region to leave Ukraine and join the Russian Federation
• 4.7% want to form an independent Donetsk republic

--Львівське (говорити) 23:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• News of Donbass says they got the numbers from the Donetsk Institute. The English-language website for that is here. Apparently is part of some pro-Europe NGO thing. I'm still looking for the actual poll. Regardless, it certainly wasn't a "US-based" anything, so whoever put that link to the Purdue University was a total idiot.

i dont know how you found that site, i've been on it before but forgot to bookmark. wow, good job. But what link to Purdue?—Львівське (говорити) 23:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Look at my recent revert. It previously said "US-based Institute blah blah blah" with the "institute" bit linking to Purdue University. RGloucester — ☎ 23:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, while I think this "Donetsk Institute" is somewhat questionable, given that I can't find the original poll, and that there is no way to verify their methodology or even when they took the poll, it seems that The Guardian mentioned it in an article, so I propose that we use that source, if we use it at all. RGloucester — ☎ 23:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a "Institute of Social and Policy Research" at Purdue University [13] and maybe the similarity in the name for some reason confused someone. Although it's actually discussed right above [14].Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that's a possible mistake, however, the translation of the News of Donbass pages is pretty clear that it is the "Donetsk Institute" and even gives an acronym. Nevertheless, I've re-added it with The Guardian as a source, since that's more tolerable.

On another note, how do we deal with Yanuk's reaction? Before it was standing alone as the reaction of "Ukraine" which is a bit ridiculous. I changed it to "Yanuk Government-in-Exile", but I'm not sure such a thing actually exists. RGloucester — ☎ 23:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Presidency in-exile. He is still the democratically elected president of Ukraine and still claims to be the President. "Government in exile" implies an alternate government, whereas a presidency-in-exile is more reflective of Yanukovich's situation (as there he does not lead any functional alternate government). Lunch for Two (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Voter turnout

Have separatists published results of referenda – not only percentage, but also accurate number of voters? We have put information about voter turnout (74.87% in DPR and same [!] in LPR 75%) but we have no information what that “voter turnout” is in this context. Haw it have been counted. Is this number of registered voters in whole Donetsk (Lugansk) Oblast? Or only in localities where referendum was passed? Or something else (e.g. counted as number persons in lists in locals, included ones who were been added to it)? Without this additional information (ie. number of voters) this percentage is say nothing. Aotearoa (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

They have not. RGloucester — ☎ 14:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The final results were announced on the day after the referendum. Here are the results. Here is the press conference at which they were announced. This is for the Donetsk region only Lunch for Two (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I've been looking all over for the numbers, and could not find them. That's good on you. RGloucester — ☎ 16:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries, happy to help :) Lunch for Two (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Here are the results for LPR. For people who do not read Cyrillic, a quick overview is provided here. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

International Reaction

Should the reaction of the Republic of Crimea be included here and if so should it be treated as a domestic or international reaction? The acting head of state has recognised the results. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Supposed results

Final results are in, 89,07 Yes, 10,19% No. 74,87% turnout[15].--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Can you spare the POV in your comments?! This isn't a forum. RGloucester — ☎ 21:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Given that there were no observers, even from Russia, the result is highly dubious. --Nug (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess for some editors here results are not dubious only if white house claims it...Results in Crimea were NOT dubious but still 'the usual editors' have doubt about them Even in an unofficial poll opinion conducted by western media http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/separatisten-verkuenden-grosse-mehrheit-fuer-abspaltung-von-ukraine-12934681.html vast majority of citizens of Donbas support independence from Kiev. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.155.5 (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

A Pew Research Centre poll released recently said that 70% of easterners polled said that they wanted Ukraine to remain united.[16] It isn't so cut-and-dry. Anyway, from an anecdotal perspective, I have multiple friends from Donetsk, and they are not so keen as you mention. In fact, they are not keen at all. RGloucester — ☎ 22:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The poll was done before mass murder of civilians in Mariupol and other atrocities I believe, this might have changed the attitude of people. Also other polls showed majority of people in the East being for either federation or separation,Kiev recently refused federation as far as I remember.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No civilians were murdered in Mariupol, your extreme POV is duly noted. Also, polls have never shown a majority for federalization/separation, and those are two different things altogether so to join them together is fudging numbers to suit your argument.--Львівське (говорити) 00:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I too know someone from Donetsk and their feeling is that what's happening is "an embarrassment" --Львівське (говорити) 00:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I added the results of the poll mentioned by that FAZ story to the "Opinion polls" section. That poll should make the referendum results uncontroversial. The Washington Post reported that "The vast majority appeared to be voting in favor of distancing themselves from the central government in Kiev." It must have based that observation on the poll the FAZ talks about, since a Post journalist participated in the polling. (No, that's not "original research". Discussion in Talk pages would be impossible if you couldn't make reasonable inferences. The prohibition on original research applies only to articles, not to Talk pages.)

Unsurprisingly, the Post story doesn't mention that poll, and states instead, "Polls have indicated that most residents of eastern Ukraine would prefer to stay part of that country." The referendum results do not fit into the narrative that Western media were constructing.

I'm sure that most western Ukrainians believe that Right Sector was behind the Odessa massacre (burning people alive in buildings was a Nazi trademark), so the poll results are entirely unsurprising. And then there is the use by "the central government in Kiev" (to use the Post's wording) of the military—including armored personnel carriers, tanks, and mortars—against its own people. That doesn't make a government popular, either. – Herzen (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

A random poll doesn't determine any absolute facts, and furthermore, this is original research. So please, stop! This is not forum to discuss whether this referendum was legitimate or not. It isn't. RGloucester — ☎ 23:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester, in this edit, you claim that Germany's flagship business and financial newspaper is an unreliable source. Are you serious??? – Herzen (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

English-language sources are preferred when available, as you know, dear fellow. RGloucester — ☎ 23:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You edit comment was "Results: adding results/removing unreliable sources". It didn't say anything about any language. In the future, if you provide an edit comment, please make it accurately indicate the reason for you edit. – Herzen (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Well if English language source is preferred, has one been found that can convey the information from the removed source, since I dont really see this rule being applied to any of the Ukraine based sources (Kyev Post, Ukrainska Pravda...)? AzraeL9128 (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've removed many questionable Ukrainian sources. Many. Furthermore, in this case, I removed a German source and replaced it with an English source that said the same thing. Please don't make foolish accusations. RGloucester — ☎ 04:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I was just going to reply by saying "nonsense" but RGloucester has put it much more eloquently.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You should write a letter to the LA Times, telling it that it is publishing nonsense:

Scores of deaths during confrontations in Odessa on May 2 and in Mariupol on Friday appear to have spurred the massive turnout Sunday, despite the prospects of the results being rejected as illegitimate by the international community....

Opinion polls conducted in April by both foreign and domestic agencies showed a sizable majority — at least 70% even in the eastern regions — opposed to secession from Ukraine or union with Russia. But the recent violence has turned many against the Kiev government that took power after a three-month rebellion ousted President Viktor Yanukovich...

"After Odessa and Mariupol, everyone should run to vote for independence. All Donetsk people want out from the Kiev government. We're all afraid now," said a 70-year-old retired teacher...

Supporters of the interim government were hard to find in this city of about 1 million, despite the pro-Russia gunmen's limited physical control.

Nonsense, all nonsense. – Herzen (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The "nonsense" isn't with the journalism. It is you presenting information as fact, when it is heavily disputed by every side in this information war. Nothing is confirmed or verified, and it is very hard to deal with people who like to take theories as facts. RGloucester — ☎ 04:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Good argument from Herzen that makes much sense.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

re: the 89% total [17] --Львівське (говорити) 01:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "This isnt a forum WP:NOTAFORUM" said by Львівське 18:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC) in this same talk page. But hey, I guess some animals are more equal than others... AzraeL9128 (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm allowed to point out that the 89% cited in the article was the 89% result we're discussing here. Toodles. --Львівське (говорити) 03:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, per this edit summary, Herzen wants people to discuss undoing that edit in this section. Ok, I'm here to discuss. Most of this section appears to be about something else. So let's start discussing. Let me. Why are you removing text sourced to reliable sources and substituting your own original research in its place? Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Move Page

I still strongly suggest this page is moved to "Donbas status referendums, 2014", the current title is too long, the suggested title will cover all referendums in one word which will become more clear to the readers.--WhyHellWhy (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - "Donbass" isn't well known to English-speakers, isn't natural, and implies one contiguous area that does not exist. There were two separate referendums, and two republics. RGloucester — ☎ 20:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the names "Donetsk" and "Luhansk" are not well-know by English-speakers either. I do understand that they are the official names of the oblasts but Donbas/Donbass is very commonly used to interpret the region by Ukraine and Russia. Isn't informing the whole point of Wikipedia, so why not inform the English speakers about the Donbas region.--WhyHellWhy (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Donbas is simply not a term widely used in the English language, certainly less so that the names of the People's Republics themselves. Furthermore, two referendums were held, albeit in a coordinated manner, they nonetheless asked different questions. Lunch for Two (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I never said that there was one referendum. Changing to the suggested title would have the exact same meaning as the current title except with a more concise format.--WhyHellWhy (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not WP:COMMONNAME, that's why. Lunch for Two (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester,Today WhyHellWhy's suggestion may actually not be such a bad idea as the term "Donbass" is becoming a lot more common, as the article on the insurgency in the region is actually titled "2014 insurgency in Donbass" and a lot more media outlets have used the term in their coverage of the events in the region. I also want to point out that the current title may be misleading as it refers to Donetsk and Luhansk which are names of cities and the reader may interpret the referendums that took place only as referendums that occurred in the two cities. The suggested title covers the entire area of the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts which means it covers the referendum regarding the DPR, the referendum regarding the LNR, and even the counter referendum that took place separately from the two self-declared republics. —KronosLine (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

My comment was from ages ago. Regardless, "Donetsk and Luhansk" does not refer to the cities in this instance, and never has done. It is a common way to refer to the regions in English. The first sentence of the article very clearly says "oblast", so there can be no confusion whatsoever. Secondly, no referendums were held on the status of "Donbass", which has no official existence. The referendums were held on the status of Luhansk and Donetsk. RGloucester — ☎ 05:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've rethought this proposal, and boldly implemented it. Given that our main article is War in Donbass, and given WP:CONCISE, I think that this is appropriate. The lead adequately explains that there are multiple referendums. My original knee-jerk opposition was perhaps hasty, however "Donbass" has become much more common in the intervening period. RGloucester — ☎ 03:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Donbass status referendum, on March 23, 1994

There was another referendum 20 years ago, it was about land-federative structure of Ukraine, the Russian language as the state language of Ukraine together with the state Ukrainian language etc. 84.187.99.48 (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we know that. You can learn about that at this link. RGloucester — ☎ 02:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks i've never read this chapter, but now we have at least a Ukrainian source from The Kiev Times especially for users of Ukrainian descent 84.187.99.48 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.223.23.39 (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Map request

Was the referendum carried out across the entire territory of the provinces? If not, it would be good to make a map to show where it took place. The geographical boundaries gain potential relevance in light of Zakharchenko's statement that the Donbass rebels must take over all of the areas in which the referendum took place (I've added a sentence about it at Minsk_II#Efficacy). Esn (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Fighting in Krasnoarmiisk

This section is located in the wrong place. For one, Krasnoarmiisk is an enclave of Krasnoarmiisk Raion, a confirmed location of the counter-referendum -- meaning it affects the results of the surrounding raion of the same name when the Ukrainian National Guard shoots someone. Fear of dying is something that might quite reasonably affect the referendum more than the separatist referendum not happening in one more Government-occupied town, even though it is technically neither within the area of the counter-referendum nor directly related to the counter-referendum AFAIK. It may be better to make this section a subsection of a new section called "referendum violence" independent of the other three sections. Nuke (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Referendum section names

Currently, the separatist referendums are titled "Referendum in [Donetsk/Luhansk] Oblast] rather than something more clearly indicating the referendum, ironically with "Counter-Referendum" being called "Referendum in Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts" which in turn contributes nothing and provides no value for the person reading the article. I changed the first two titles to "Referendum held by the [Donetsk/Luhansk] People's Republic", but this was reverted by User:RGloucester. I find this to be an adequately neutral reading seeing as they did in fact hold the referendums, even if this was done on Ukrainian-occupied and recognized Ukrainian territories in the first place. It may also be fitting to say "[Donetsk/Luhansk] Separatist Referendum" by such logic, but in turn this is actually politically loaded language even if it somehow cracks through a loophole just because these referendums (a) are reasonably vague so as to imply they may actually be calling for autonomy or federation (which Russia agrees is the solution) rather than separation or joining Russia and (b) offer a no vote. It may also be good to change "Counter-Referendum" to "Referendum held by the Ukrainian Government" or something similar. Nuke (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The counter-referendum was not held by the "Ukrainian government", but by various village councils, and the other referendums were not held in the LPR or DPR, but in the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts of Ukraine. The present headings are correct. I don't understand what trouble you're having in comprehending the headings as they are. RGloucester — ☎ 17:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That was my initial impression before reading some of the sources, since they seem to be saying it was actually held throughout both oblasts (although I have not read them extensively), so I believe you. However, my revision did not say "in [Donetsk/Luhansk] People's Republic", but "held by", and you have not given a reason to say they did not hold the referendums or organize them, while the article seems to very strongly imply DPR/LPR held these referendums, including saying they kidnapped people to help run them. However, this still causes conflict with the counter-referendum, since it is still held in roughly the same area. It may be apt to call the "Counter-Referendum" section "Local referendum on joining Dnipropetrovsk". I'm not having any trouble understanding the article itself, but I believe this article needs improvement in its structure. Also, saying they're "in [Donetsk/Luhansk] Oblast" implies they might actually be authorized by the Ukrainian Government, i.e. through their regional administrations. I do not see your problem with updating the headings. Nuke (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is very clear. Read the lead section: "Referendums on the status of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, parts of Ukraine that together make up the Donbass region, took place on 11 May 2014 in many towns under the control of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics. These referendums sought to legitimise the establishment of the republics, in the context of the rising pro-Russian unrest in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution", and furthermore, read the background section. There is no doubt about who held the referendums, or why they were held, and I don't see why it is necessary to ham-fist overprecise information into the headings. The headings are not supposed to be overly specific. The body contains the content, which provides context. RGloucester — ☎ 18:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The counter-referendum is also within the scope of this article, and should be mentioned in the lead as well. I am first and foremost trying to resolve conflicts emerging from this. The fact that "fighting in Krasnoarmiisk" is in the "Donetsk Oblast" section despite being Ukrainian-occupied ([18]) for instance indicates DPR and LPR actually at least attempted to hold referendums outside of their occupied territories, and in some cases it is likely they succeeded, although I have not found a source yet for the latter. Would it be better to say "[Donetsk/Luhansk] People's Republic Referendum" in the titles? Nuke (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the counter-referendum should be mentioned in the lead. Krasnoarmiisk was not "Ukrainian-occupied" at the time of the referendum. It was separatist controlled, the site of recent fighting, and Ukrainian troops intervened in the area during the referendum. Your map is from 2015, not 2014, and isn't an RS anyway. Keep in mind that at this stage in the conflict, the lines of control had not been firmly established. RGloucester — ☎ 18:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed right before coming back to this talk page that I got the wrong date; and it seems they don't have such maps. I cannot actually find a source to prove that Ukraine's government ever lost Krasnoarmiisk either, although they may have lost only buildings (which generally aren't notable enough for news attention) given the early nature of the conflict. I split the fighting to another talk section like I was originally going to do, in any case. I'll start revising the article to pay more attention to detail in the meantime. Nuke (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

At that stage in the conflict, they had lost control of the municipal council building, as I understand it. They were still in control of the general area. RGloucester — ☎ 19:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've done a bit clean-up. It seems that that section was a confused mess, and I've hopefully sorted out some of the confusion. RGloucester — ☎ 20:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you did a lot; thank you very much. The only major problem I can really raise with your revisions is the fact that the most notable (or perhaps only) referendum violence isn't relevant enough for the lead. I looked through a few revisions and saw minor issues. I'll work on the Luhansk section sometime soon since it feels like it's missing information. Nuke (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

We looked for information on the Luhansk referendum at the time, but could not find any good sources. They were almost none in English, and few in Russian or Ukrainian. If you can find any, that would certainly be good. The reason I believe the shooting is WP:UNDUE for the lead is because it was a minor incident, and because the scope of this article is centred on the referendums themselves, as opposed to anything else. That incident had no real effect on the referendums, and hence it really doesn't need to be blown out of proportion in the lead. RGloucester — ☎ 22:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Control versus actuality

MVBW, the referendums were held on the status of the oblasts, which is exactly what the BBC report says, not on the status of the so-called republics. The referendums were intended to deal with all territory claimed by the DPR and LPR, i.e. Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, not just the territory that they controlled. RGloucester — ☎ 19:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous reference to "pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine", rather than the anti-Russian pogroms that triggered the independence movement.

The ridiculous reference to "pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" in the opening paragraph should be replaced with a reference to the anti-Russian pogroms that ignited the independence movement. For example, 42 people died when anti-Russian fascists burned down the Trade Unions House in Odessa on 2 May 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/02/ukraine-dead-odessa-building-fire https://www.dw.com/en/the-odessa-file-what-happened-on-may-2-2014/a-18425200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathewMunro (talk • contribs) 23:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Flag of the Donetsk Republic (Organisation).svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Donetsk Republic (Organisation).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Citation 26 removal.

The video has been removed by the author from youtube. 96.91.86.121 (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2014-05-08. Протесты в Донецке 001.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)