Talk:2014 Donbas status referendums
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2014 Donbas status referendums article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Luhansk status referendum, 2014 page were merged into 2014 Donbas status referendums on 13 May 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Infoboxes
editAn Rfc on the inclusion of "Infobox multichoice referendum" into 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine was closed on 9 January with a consensus that the boxes should not be included, see Talk:2022_annexation_referendums_in_Russian-occupied_Ukraine/Archive_1#RfC_on_the_inclusion_of_the_below_infobox's_for_the_results_of_the_referendum. Since this article is about a pretty similar case, I think the same should apply here. So I was bold and removed the infoboxes. I don't think anybody should restore them without explaining the differences between the events covered in this article and those in the other one. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Want to add in following info
editI like to add in the following edit. That for the polling in Donetsk that; 72.5% said that if given the chance, people of Donetsk was polled to vote for entry into the Customs Union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. But only 9.4% supported entry into the European Union. Reason why I think it should be included into wiki article, because such a true fact would show the background that people in Donetsk wanted to be part of Russia's economic sphere but not the European union economic spheres. One editor said it was not relevant to the topic but I do not agree. So I opened this chapter to discussfairly on the matter.49.186.90.34 (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I said so. Why should something that was not even on the ballot should be relevant ? This article should not be an arbitrary selection of details from primary sources, but should follow reliable, secondary sources. "Background" is exactly what should be provided by secondary, preferably academical sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I wanted to be helpful and add what I feel is a highly relevant fact. It's like the only question in the polls that gives an indication on whether the people in Donetsk leaned towards Russia or European union. However you say it's not in the ballot question in the referendum hence irrelevant. So I guess I can agree with that and won't contest your reverting, as I find that to be a valid enough reason. Thanks for the reply. 49.186.90.34 (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Bothsidesism
editThe article reflects a false balance because it consists largely of attributed quotations. The fact is that expert consensus assesses the “referendums” as not meeting democratic standards, fraudulent, and illegal. The article should say so in so many words. —Michael Z. 15:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)