Talk:2014 Donbas general elections

The article states that the election on Nov. 2 violates the Minsk protocol. I don't see that.

The Minsk protocol never stated that New Russia is a part of Ukraine.

http://en.ria.ru/world/20141009/193857326/Elections-in-Donetsk-Luhansk-In-Line-With-Minsk-Agreements.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The protocol specified that the Donbass special administrative region elections would be held in accordance with Ukrainian law, and be held along with local elections across Ukraine in early December. RGloucester — ☎ 16:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

New Russia is an independent state. It is not part of Ukraine, therefore New Russia does not act in accordance with Ukrainian law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.83.8 (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The leaders of the member states of Federal State of Novorossiya signed the Minsk Protocol that stated that they had agreed on holding elections along with local elections across Ukraine in early December. No the Minsk deal did not say that they are a part of Ukraine but it also thus said that they promised that they would be holding elections along with local elections across Ukraine in early December.

By the way we are not interested in your personal opinions; Wikipedia is not a forum and it is also not a BATTLEGROUND, and personal opinions that do not contribute to better Wikipedia articles might be deleted if they are nothing more then disruptive editing. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is point number 9 of the Minsk protocol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_Protocol. New Russians do not recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics as part of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Therefore, the November 2 election in no way contradicts the Minsk protocol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.83.8 (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a point we could contest under the Wikipedia protocol known as original research... and extremely WP:POV original research at that. You've already been asked to read WP:NOTFORUM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The Minsk Protocol is not a treaty. It is not binding, it's more a memorandum of understanding. Treaties generally have to be ratified by parliaments. It wasn't even signed by the president of Ukraine, but by Kuchma, a former president. The Minsk Protocol also stipulated that there would be a ceasefire, however hostilities resumed within hours after it was signed by both sides. 82.169.103.207 (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, what do you have against providing the Russian side of the story? I put in a link to a Russian source arguing that the Minsk Protocol was not violated and interestingly suggesting/indicating that there was agreement for the elections to be held by 3 November. Why was this removed?Tobeortobe (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The "Russian position" is already in the legitimacy section. However, it has been proven false, as the OSCE, which organised the Minsk talks and protocol, issued a statement confirming that the Ukrainian position was correct. RGloucester — ☎ 02:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks RGloucester. The OSCE statement is dated 31 October, it was made prior to the "elections". Its reference in the Legitimacy section makes it appear as though it was made after the "elections". I suggest that this needs to be corrected. Any explanation for the "to be held by 3 November" understanding with with the Russian government left the Minsk meeting? Tobeortobe (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the explanation is fairly obvious. RGloucester — ☎ 04:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Change Article Name

Just a suggestion. The two self-declared People's Republics make up the confederation Federal State of Novorossiya. On that note shouldn't the article's name be Novorossiya Parliamentary Elections, 2014 instead? sol-nemisis 18:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The elections are not for the Federal State of Novorossiya parliament (I am not sure if that parliament has ever had a session, but it is claimed it exists as a separate unit that has nothing to do with the parliaments of the confederal members), but for the parliaments of the Donetsk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic. These elections have nothing to do with the Federal State of Novorossiya since it is not an election for the parliament of this thing.

The name Donetsk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic parliamentary elections, 2014 would make some sense.

Besides it seems that the separatists who hold power now are not interested anymore in the Federal State of Novorossiya... It is clear that the biggest supporters of this federation, Pavel Gubarev and Oleg Tsaryov, are sidelined (Gubarev was even a victim of a murder attack). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We can't use "Novorossiya", because it is a POV name, firstly, and because it is not New Russia that is having elections. What's more, as Yulia says, it is not even clear if the "Novorossiya" idea is still in force. The present title is the best because it is based on neutral geography, and is commonly used in the media. It also is consistent with Donbass status referendums, 2014. Whilst Yulia's proposed title makes sense, it completely lacks WP:CONCISEness. RGloucester — ☎ 20:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the title remaining as is. Yulia's title makes sense in the context however, per WP:TITLE, it's unnecessarily complex per WP:CONCISE. Sources are most certainly referring to it as being the 'Donbass' elections. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Donbass is a convenient descriptor, is neutral, and is used by both the Ukrainian and separatist parties. That's why I think it works well for War in Donbass, Donbass status referendums, 2014. The original titles of these were "in Donetsk and Luhansk", but that's not concise at all, and quite clunky. Donbass works well, and is used by sources. We should take advantage of the fact that we have a WP:CONCISE term that is well-recognisable. RGloucester — ☎ 22:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree about that, but what about "parliamentary"? Seems the elections included voting for the chief executives as well as the parliaments. W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that it isn't clear what the "chief executive" is called in either Republic. Zakharchenko, for instance, has been ruling as "prime minister", implying a parliamentary system, despite ruling like a president. We could change it to "Donbass elections, 2014", but that seems a bit vague. RGloucester — ☎ 21:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Not especially - avoidance of undue specificity is not vagueness. But we could perhaps add "separatist" after Donbass - that's used by sources as well, and makes more clear that we are not concerned with the whole of Donbass, only the part under separatist control. W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That seems somewhat more dangerous. RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't understand. It's not the only possible solution, of course, it was just off the top of my head, but what "danger" do you have in mind? W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So any other suggestions? It seems clearly wrong to include a superfluous "parliamentary" in the title, when the content of the article consistently indicates that the "parliamentary" election is only half of what we are talking about. W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

My personal suggestion is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. There is no good alternative that I can think of. RGloucester — ☎ 23:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

But it is broke. The present title implies that the article is about only one half of the elections that it actually is about (misleading casual readers into thinking either that the other half is covered in some other article, or that there were only parliamentary elections held as opposed to any other sort). I'm also becoming less comfortable with using "Donbass" as the name for the region(s) that these elections covered - it was specifically about the rebel-held regions within Donbass, presumably other parts of Donbass took part in other (Ukrainian) elections in 2014. How about "Elections in the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, 2014" (or if we think Donbass is precise enough, then "Elections in Donbass, 2014" or "Donbass elections, 2014"). Retaining "parliamentary" once we've realized it's inaccurate seems bizarre. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't know if it is inaccurate or not, because if they are prime ministers, as they have been before, the elections would still be called "parliamentary". We need to wait until we know what their post is called. Reliable sources call this area the Donbass. It is precise enough, certainly, to know that it refers to this election, and not the Ukrainian election. RGloucester — ☎ 14:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

So if we don't know if "parliamentary" is accurate, we shouldn't include it, right? There's no loss in omitting it. In any case, even if the chief person is going to rule as a prime minister, he still isn't a parliament, so his election can hardly be called parliamentary (and we use "parliamentary" specifically to distinguish the parliamentary part of the election from the chief person part). W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've made it "Donbass general elections", as that could apply to both executive or parliamentary elections without failing WP:CONCISE. I stole the idea from the French Wikipedia, as that's what they've decided to use. RGloucester — ☎ 15:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That's an improvement, anyway. I'm still not clear what's wrong with simply "elections", which would be even more in line with WP:CONCISE. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There are going to be municipal and regional elections across Ukraine early December, that's why. This allows us to disambiguate from those. RGloucester — ☎ 16:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Foreign observers

Seems some people removed[1] a table listing foreign observers, claiming a "total crap source". However, per WP:SPS, self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter. Shekhovtsov is a published expert in European fascism and the far right[2], and what is not factual about his blog entry[3] regarding the foreign observers present:

• Was the Belgian fascist Luc Michel not involved in organising the attendance of these foreign observers?
• In what way is the table inaccurate, did any of those people mentioned not attend, or their listed political affiliations inaccurate?

Unless there is some kind of gross factual error, there is no justification in claiming that this self published source by an established expert in fascism is unreliable. --Nug (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, are you using his own website to establish his reliability? That's a pretty big failing on your part. Use mainstream reliable sources, not crap blogs, experts that don't appear in those mainstream reliable sources, or otherwise bunk nonsense. RGloucester — ☎ 05:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you unable to comprehend WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"? You claiming that Shekhovtsov isn't an expert in the far right and that he hasn't been previously published by reliable third-party publications? Or is it an issue of his apparent ethnicity that is a problem for you? --Nug (talk)

Uh, I don't know whether he is an expert or not, given that you've not provided any verification in mainstream reliable sources as to whether he is or isn't an "expert". I don't even know what his ethnicity is, and I don't believe in the concept of ethnicity, so you're hardly likely to get me to go down that line. Please read WP:V. If there is no way to verify the information, it cannot be printed. There is no way to verify this information, and it doesn't appear in reliable sources. Therefore, it cannot be printed. RGloucester — ☎ 06:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You kidding? Anton Shekhovtsov is:

• a member of the editorial board of the academic journal Fascism: Journal of Comparative Fascist Studies[4]
• a Fellow of the Radicalism and New Media Research Group (University of Northampton, UK)[5]

But don't take my word for it, according to the source Analysing Fascist Discourse: European Fascism in Talk and Text (p319)[6]:

"Anton Shekhovtsov received his PhD in political science in 2010. His academic interetst include but are not limited to radical right-wing parties, the European New Right, interwar European fascisms, sacralization of politics and far-right music. Shekhovtsov has published articles in these areas in Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Patterns of Prejudice, Europe-Asia Studies, The Russian Review, Religion Compass, Ab Imperio and other journals. He is also co-author of the Russian-language book Radical Russian Nationalism: Stuctures, Ideas, Persons (2009) which surveys contemporary Russian ultranationalist parties, organisations and groupuscules. Shekhovtsov is also general editor of the Explorations of the Far Right book series which is being launched atibidem-Verlag (Stuttgart)."

But I get it, you think a list of foreign observers and their political affiliations published in the Daily Mirror is more reliable than a list of foreign observers and their political affiliations published by an authority on fascism, right? --Nug (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no. I think that, if he was truly an expert, The New York Times or the BBC would consult him, and report his findings. Given that no reliable sources have done that, his blog post is unverifiable. RGloucester — ☎ 13:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Shekhovtsov is widely quoted in the press, for example:

• The Montana Standard (sourced from Associated Press):

"But Anton Shekhovtsov, an expert on radical parties in Europe, said that the proportion of rightists represented in parliament has.."[7]

• The Jewish Daily:

"Anton Shekhovtsov, an expert on the European far right, said that Ukrainian nationalists do differ from.."[8]

• Wirtschafts Blatt:

"der ukrainische Rechtsextremismusexperte Anton Schechowzow (Shekhovtsov)…"[9]

• Il Foglio:

"Anton Shekhovtsov è un professore ucraino che lavora in Austria e studia l'estrema destra nel suo paese, in Russia e generalmente in Europa."[10]

Ma Forza Italia anche ha supervisionato queste elezioni e non è né un partito di estrema destra, né un partito di estrema sinistra (è centro-destra) in Italia. È uno dei 3 più grandi partiti in Italia, insieme con il Partito Democratico e il Movimento 5 Stelle (che non è anche un partito estremista, si tratta di un partito anti-corruzione e di un partito euroscettico che ha simpatie sia in sinistra o in la destra)Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2014 (GMT)

There is no requirement in policy that people be deemed experts specifically by The New York Times or the BBC. The Wirtschafts Blatt article explicitly discusses the foreign observers, so referring to Shekhovtsov's blog regarding the identity and political affiliations of these observers is valid. --Nug (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No, but there is a requirement that information be verifiable, and that reliable sources be provided. None of papers you mention are of a particular quality, nor are they particularly "wide". Also, more importantly, none of them have to deal with this particular information. If you can find a preponderance of reliable sources that mentions this information, fine. However, if you can't, it is unverifiable. RGloucester — ☎ 20:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"None of papers you mention are of a particular quality", now you are making stuff up. The Montana Standard published an article written by Associated Press, WirtschaftsBlatt is Austria's premier financial newspaper. Your claim Associated Press or WirtschaftsBlatt isn't high quality appears to be bordering upon WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. And you obviously don't read what I write, WirtschaftsBlatt actually discusses these observers listed on Shekhovtsov's blog:

"Auf einer Liste, die der ukrainische Rechtsextremismusexperte Anton Schechowzow (Shekhovtsov) am Samstag in seinem Blog veröffentlichte, werden 33 internationale Wahlbeobachter genannt. Darunter ist der frühere Nationalrats- und EU-Abgeordnete Stadler (ehemals FPÖ und BZÖ, zuletzt "Die Reformkonservativen" REKOS). Der nunmehr als Jurist tätige Stadler war am Samstag und am Sonntag bei Pressekonferenzen in Donezk als Vertreter einer bisher unbekannten "Assoziation für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa" (ASZE) aufgetreten. Er war am Wochenende für die APA telefonisch nicht zu erreichen.

Unter den Beobachtern in den "Volksrepubliken" fanden sich nach der APA vorliegenden Dokumenten mit dem ehemaligen EU-Parlamentarier Fabrizio Bertot von der Berlusconi-Partei Forza Italia, dem Belgier Frank Creyelman vom rechtsradikalen Vlaams Belang und dem Polen Mateusz Piskorski von der radikalen Bauernpartei Samoobrona zumindest drei Personen, die bereits jetzt schon auf einer ukrainischen Sperrliste standen. Sie waren bereits nach ihrer Beobachtung des Krim-Referendums, das im März die russische Annexion der Halbinsel legitimieren sollte, vom SBU mit einem Einreiseverbot belegt worden.

Sanktionen gegen weitere damalige Beobachter, darunter auch gegen Johann Gudenus und Johannes Hübner von der FPÖ sowie Stadler waren im August von den ukrainischen Behörden geprüft worden."

Associated Press is of high quality and its articles are widely published, while WirtschaftsBlatt deals explicitly with these foreign observers. --Nug (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Nug. I'm against using Shekhovtsov's material unless it can be verified by reliable sources. I know he's the sweetheart of some editors, 'but he's actually an extremist' whose works should be regarded as politically simplistic and notably WP:BIASED, therefore attributed intext only if consensus deems it to be of value to the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

why are you pointing to this 'but he's actually an extremist' as evidence he is an extremist? it just says he ' is editor of the Explorations of the Far Right book series at ibidem-Verlag and European Fellow at the Radicalism and New Media Research Group, University of Northampton, UK. ' Sayerslle (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Try scrolling down the page and reading the articles he's written. Do I need to provide a comprehensive list of articles/research by him in order to give you a sense of his specialised interests (read as not widely held views)? As already noted by RGloucester, the fact of his being an academic is not disputed (yes, he can be found via Google Scholar), but there's no indication of his being regarded as an expert by anyone. Academics publish work in obscure, specialised 'scholarly' publications and give conference papers. They are even known to publish entire books. This does not, ipso facto, make everyone in the entire academic world someone whose opinion is esteemed. Any evidence that "Eurozine" is a highly regarded publication? One look at their About us page only gives a mission statement and confirms that it the publication exists. Beyond that... well, you've really had to scratch around to find small time publications where he's been called an 'expert'. As for using an op-ed blog piece: nope. I'd like to see some more acknowledgements that he's considered 'expert' enough to merit the inclusion of anything from a blog he's written regarding the subject of this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Branding Shekhovtsov an extremist because he has an academic interest in the European far right is just bizarre, if not a WP:BLP issue. And who introduced "Eurozine" into this? Let's quote the Washington Post:

"Anton Shekhovtsov, an expert on radical parties in Europe, said that if Svoboda fails to exceed the 5 percent barrier, there would likely be around 11 members of parliament in total from far-right parties."[11].

Is that good enough for you, or is it still a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? --Nug (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

How is this a BLP issue? This isn't an article on Shekhovtsov, so don't try and veer away from the issue at hand by invoking policy irrelevant to the use of his personal blog. I'm looking at the calibre of the blog which reads as a highly coloured, unacademic piece of POV. Anyone who uses more quotation marks than do I is having a rant, not presenting a thoughtful discourse in his capacity as an academic. Do you actually consider this to be acceptable for the purposes of Wikipedia? I've checked the rest of his blog (and the other blog he writes) and it is not academic, nor would he be able to pass it off as being anything more than a personal rant if presented to the academic community. For the purposes of this article, I consider it off-bounds. Please don't misrepresent this as a simplistic case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT because I'm predisposed to the opinion that your content push is based on "I just like it", and that it smacks of WP:TROJAN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly Forza Italia is neither far-left nor far-right. The other observers seem to be quite far-left or far-right (if I didn't miss any). I'd prefer that these elections would have been supervised by either (for instance) the Carter Center or the African Union, since Carter is a very honest person with an outstanding integrity, and the African Union is independent concerning to this issue. The CIS-EMO could be also a possibility, since they are not so pro-Moscow as one might think (given the nature of the elections that they have supervised, also outside the former Soviet bloc). By the way, who are Alexander Kofman, Yuri Sivokonenko, Oleg Akimov, Viktor Penner and Larisa Airapetyan? I haven't seen information about them. Are they pro-Ukrainians or pro-Donbass (or pro-Novorossiyan, whatever you prefer to call them) Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2014 (GMT)

No one knows who they are. As this article says, they are "generally unknown" in Donbass and elsewhere. They certainly are not "pro-Ukrainian", I can tell you that. RGloucester — ☎ 23:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

By the way, SYRIZA, in Greece (which has been ahead for a long time in the polls) is very critical about the Ukrainian policies in Donbass. And it's neither a hard-line Soviet-style communist party, nor it is (obviously) any kind of far-right party (it's the opposite). [12] Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2014 (GMT)

@RGloucester: You can't tell if they're pro-Ukrainian or not if you don't know who they are!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2014 (GMT)

Why would a "pro-Ukrainian" participate in an election that "pro-Ukrainian" people view as illegitimate? Does that make any sense? What's more, reliable sources make it clear that such participation would be impossible in the current Donbass political climate. RGloucester — ☎ 23:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

To counteract the pro-Russian or pro-independence positions! Obviously! Though I emphasize the fact that Forza Italia being monitoring the elections, amongst many others, is not enough to guarantee the fairness of these elections. I'm for self-determination under fair and independently scrutinized supervising, but Forza Italia is not enough. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2014 (GMT)

If you think these were the type of elections where there was a possibility of "counteracting" the "pro-independence" or "pro-Russian" positions, you are quite mistaken, and perhaps deluded. RGloucester — ☎ 00:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mondolkiri1:Back on track, the discussion is actually regarding the use of this blog in order to insert this content into the section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Oh, my dear Iryna!... Blogs are not reliable sources! I'm still not aware of all the Wipedia rules, but something I've is that blogs are not reliable sources! Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I have here some sources from non-English speaking newspapers (neither they're Ukrainian or Russian-speaking newspapers): [13] (Corriere della Sera - Italia/Italy), [14] (Folha de São Paulo - Brasil/Brazil), [15] (El Mundo - España/Spain), [16] (Le Monde - France), [17] (Público - Portugal). Well, these are sources from neither anglo-saxonic or Ukrainian or Russian media. I hope those will be useful, since the anglo-saxonic sources, because of geopolitical interests have so far, disappointed me a lot.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2014 (GMT)

@Iryna Harpy: Calling Shekhovtsov an "extremist" as you did on this article talk page is very much a violation of WP:BLPTALK, and your claim that his work is "politically simplistic and notably WP:BIASED" is without foundation, you have no source to back these assertions.

On the other hand I've presented two Associated Press sources that calls him an expert on radical parties in Europe and the respected Austrian source WirtschaftsBlatt directly discusses the blog of "Rechtsextremismusexperte" Anton Shekhovtsov[18] and the more notable people listed by Shekhovtsov. That same blog[19] is used as the source for the list of foreign observers in this article[20]. Per WP:SPS, self-published expert sources (i.e. blogs) may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter. Shekhovtsov is acknowledged as an expert in European fascism and the far right by Associated Press and other sources.

What exactly is the problem with the list of foreign observers published by Shekhovtsov, is their listed political affiliations somehow inaccurate? Are you seriously claiming Shekhovtsov is biased in stating Belgian Luc Michel is a fascist? It is just a statement of fact. Sure Shekhovtsov may liberally use the term "terrorist" when referring to the DNR and LNR, but that doesn't diminish the factual accuracy of the list of foreign observers and their political affiliations and that term isn't used in the text[21] in any case. --Nug (talk) 08:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Anton Shekhovtsov also published the article in The Interpreter Magazine, which is frequently linked as source in other articles, if that helps: Fake Monitors “Observe” Fake Elections in the Donbass. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Iryna, maybe you're confusing the fact that Shekhovtsov studies extremism with him being an extremist himself. He's not (in fact, reading some of his stuff he looks fairly square in the center to me). The Interpreter source could possibly be used. Volunteer Marek  16:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Volunteer Marek, I'm not confused as to his area of specialisation. I'm not disputing his being correct, but I'm concerned with the calibre of this blog piece and the fact that he cannot be characterised as a moderate. I have no doubt that there will be an abundance of better written analysis soon (including him if the media has truly picked up on him as being an expert). My concern is with this article and the knowledge that, unless it's written with care, drawing in the POVers who will start edit warring, slapping on POV tags on this article and disrupting the entire process of its being written. In response to Nug, we only just went through something similar on the VIPS article which I've seen through as being WP:COATRACK and have to get back to cleaning up now that the coatrack content has been rejected by admin closure. If you try to introduce potential coatracks here, you're just opening this article up for serious disruption. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Russian-speaker required

Anyone around who can read Russian? This is the official DPR website. It has the full election results. Google translate isn't working that well. Take a look, and see how many votes were counted as invalid. RGloucester — ☎ 20:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

According to me, it's 43,039 invalid, 969,644 valid. Though I'm quite sure I'm not the most competent Russianist around here, so someone else should take a look. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Is that referring to the presidential or parliamentary elections? RGloucester — ☎ 21:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be both. The numbers for both of the component elections add up to less than the number of valid votes, so presumably "valid" means valid for one or both of the components, and "invalid" means valid for neither. But as I say, a more competent Russian reader should verify this. W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I supposed that means that current set-up, which places all the invalid ballots in the chief elections box, is wrong then? RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry, it's my counting that's wrong. Let me take a look again. - OK, sorry, the numbers in both cases do add up to the number of valid votes. Hard to believe (unless the election rules said that you had to vote validly in both polls for your vote to be valid in either), but that seems to be what that page is saying. W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Just confirming W. P. Uzer's interpretation. Nothing about the process is clear. It'll take more comprehensive analysis by other sources to ascertain what the process actually was. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not important what is typed there, since

1. top secret is that nobody ever counted that data

2. it can be edited at any moment

3. nobody is responsible for its correctness

4. there was no independent observers there

5. nobody can verify it in any way

6. it is unlikely that we will obtain any reliable data in the future

7. article 71 of Ukrainian Сonstitution guarantees free election, public, equal and direct suffrage and private voting. However, all of this 'details' do not even worse mentioning in this situation.

8. Yes, the 'number of bullets' is 370000 more than 'number of voters' and sum of 'valid and invalid bullets'. Who cares?

This problem is more general and going out of the scope of this discussion. Shishkin (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

RT

Are we really using RT as a source for these elections. Has Wikipedia just given up on being balanced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.173.104 (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Russia Today isn't a good source for most of things, but if there is one thing they are good for, it is for reporting what the DPR and LPR say. They are useful for providing the DPR and LPR claimed results of these elections, in that way. RGloucester — ☎ 20:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That is perhaps a good point. Although I don't think RT is even doing that particularly well.

Here's a extract from the Wikipedia article

Lugansk People's Republic.... 'According to LPR central election commission head Sergei Kozyakov, voter turnout was greater than 60 percent.[12] He said that more than 630,000 people had cast ballots in the elections. '

The reference was Russia Today, check the text of the RT article [12]: "Meanwhile, 102 polling stations for approximately 1.5 million voters were open in Lugansk. In Lugansk, the overall turnout exceeded 60 percent, according to the head of the Central Election Commission in the LPR, Sergey Kozyakov. He added that by 8p.m. local time, nearly 630,000 residents had come to cast their votes." (Those numbers don't seem to check out with each other )

If there's another source backing up that kozyakov quote, let's use it but lets not rely on RT articles which aren't even internally consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.173.104 (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I have seen RT bagged out repetedly. What do you base you misstrust on?Tobeortobe (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Deathening silence. I was thinking that RT is no more biased than other news services. I looked at the reporting of MH17to test my theory. The "trusted sources" so commonly quoted in Wikipedia performed very very poorly. RT showed itself to have a Russian perspective but excellent reporting nevertheless. I think as close to unbiased as one could get in this world. After this study I suggest that RT be used a source in preference to BBC, DW, NYTimes, Reuters ... Tobeortobe (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record, WP:RSP says There is consensus that RT is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated along the lines of the Daily Mail. Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation. —Michael Z.

WP:UNDUE

This "foreign observers" bunk has essentially nothing to do with this election. It is a bunch of crackpots playing games, that's all. One of them even admitted as much. Having this giant list of assorted people is totally WP:UNDUE. This article is not about random foreign observers, but about the elections themselves. The article was much more balanced prior the addition of this list, which has more attention placed on it than the election itself. That's not to say that this "delegation" cannot be mentioned, and it was previously. However, this giant list is totally inappropriate minutiae. RGloucester — ☎ 16:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think one should only leave names of notable people in the list who have their WP articles (i.e. Alessandra Mussolini), mention them only briefly (something like people, A,B and C took part as "observers" in these "elections") and explain per sources why their participation was controversial: (a) they did not really serve as observers, but only briefly visited a few voting stations; (b) Ukraine is going to declare them persona non grata, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This was exactly why I was firmly against using the Shekhovtsov blog (which is reproduced verbatim as the article in "The Interpreter" and attributed to him exclusively). They've covered their backsides by reproducing his blog article, therefore they are not liable for his opinion. For the purposes of Wikipedia, using the one source and his opinions (whether he be an 'expert' or not) as the basis of character assassination is not acceptable: read as WP:BLP violation. These observers would have enough of a profile to have any number of sources to draw from as to who and what they are. Nevertheless, as already pointed out by RGloucester, it is not to be taken seriously (especially if they knew they were only there as some form of lipservice to the process) and it wouldn't have mattered a jot to to anyone as to whether the RF recognised the elections as legal per the Minsk Protocol. As for his credentials, there have only been a handful of RS touting him as being such. Give it a couple of days and the media will have pulled out dozens of 'experts' who will be saying essentially the same thing a little more subtly. Why is everyone rushing to jump the gun on this article as if their lives depended on it? We're WP:NOTNEWS and shouldn't be trying to chase the story ahead of RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

it just tails off the article - its not in the way - its not doing any damage to the article really is it ? - Russian television apparently (ria novosti for eg ), captioned them as OSCE according to the blog article! - - its part of the story of the propaganda, -its just a list at the end of the article saying who these monitors were and should stay imo. Sayerslle (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It is degenerating the article, taking it from the realm of the encyclopaedic into the realm of the tabloid. RGloucester — ☎ 23:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

what tabloid gives a flying f about this ? about who the fake monitors were? 'encyclopedic' means , to educate in the round 'en kuklos paideueiv' something like that, - hardly what tabloids are about Sayerslle (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If the information provided is false, or if it is unverifiable, then it isn't information at all. Only tabloids publish unverifiable bunk. RGloucester — ☎ 04:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

the hitler diaries was the broadsheet 'times' wasn't it, so it isn't 'only' tabloids - - alessandro mussolino is photographed as there in this report mashable.com - and here's Ewald Stadler ewald stadler - I very much doubt it is false but I know the wp rules and I haven't found much RS reporting on these fake observers its true - the list certainly isn't essential of course I'd just rather it stayed - why is it called 'general' elections btw? general in Britain means the whole country doesn't it? 'Donbass elections 2014' would be better maybe. Sayerslle (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It highly concerns me that the only "Alessandro Mussolini" that we have on Wikipedia is the long dead father of Benito. Did he rise from the dead and march to Donbass? RGloucester — ☎ 14:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

here he is on RT - forza italia in donbass - and the mashable article hes the bloke wearing the same shirt and pullover - your skepticism is a bit paranoid maybe? - anyhow the fascists from the 30s rising from the dead and marching again - yes, that is the whole problem maybe - 'fascisti carogne tornate nelle fogne' (notforum I know)Sayerslle (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Terrific. Now that I've seen him I somehow feel that I know everything about him even though we still don't actually know anything about him. Your logic confounds me: it's a BLP violation for me to want to be assured that Shekhovtsov hasn't just been picked up as being an expert because his blog conveniently fits what a handful of sources would like to say (including some minor league anchor woman who wants to climb the corporate ladder by demonstrating that she can be a 'serious' journalist), yet a long list of names and unsourced aspersions as to who they're connected to (all naughty, untrustworthy people, of course) and the nature of their involvement is based solid research and vital information for the reader, therefore we have solemn duty to stick it in the article and there couldn't be any BLP issues. If RS make mistakes it imperative that we should do the same. Pardon my scepticism and paranoia, but all I'm seeing is a gung ho attitude and WP:CHERRY. I'm not fond of making the facts fit a preconception because that is exactly how the yellow press works. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is a 'solemn duty' to keep it - i'd prefer it to stay rather than not. but its not sacred text, certainly not - its like apocrypha, not canonical, it sheds a kind of sideways light on the scene. Sayerslle (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand your position, but the RS haven't stopped coming in by a long shot... nor has the next step been taken. We're already getting the rhetoric straight from the RF horse's mouth: "respect" for the outcome of the elections and "recognition" of the status of the breakaway states have been separated. There's plenty in the way of sideways light being shed, and I have no doubt that there will be more in the way of RS regarding the overseeing of the elections without resorting to the introduction of this blog. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've been following RS for further references to Shekhovtsov as being a recognised 'expert' on which to hinge a section on. I haven't encountered any further such references to him, nor any interviews seeking out his opinions. While some of his referenced articles, conference papers, seminars (or whatever they are) have been used in other articles in tandem with other academics whose field is European politics, they are not blog rants reproduced in Interpretermag verbatim. Is there any further evidence that his blog is enough to hang an entire section on? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I already told this to Iryna Harpy in my Talk Page, but maybe it's better to summarize it here. The observers were a mix of far-right politicians (which I find very regretable), far-left politicians, but also several (probably most of them) with moderate political positions, including anti-Putin social-democratic politicians from Russia (A Just Russia) and the pro-European Serbian Progressive Party, and Forza Italia, regionalist and moderate eurosceptic parties, so on. To give Shekhovtsov such as importance is at least comparable to give the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity open letter to Angela Merkel the same importance. And the inclusion of the group of former CIA (I guess it was CIA) professionals was rejected and I understood such rejection when a controversy arose about the inclusion of it in the article concerning to the Russian military intervention in Ukraine. So why should one be granted a paragraph and not the other? Apart from other reasons that have already been exposed.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think it undue at all. Observers are part and parcel of elections and the political complexion this group of observers is notably controversial, judging by the number of sources quoted above. Sure, the section could be better summarised and perhaps only list the more notable members, but I don't think it should be removed altogether. --Nug (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If this will be a grave for Russia, I can assure you, this will be also be a grave for Israel, I promise you

And I don't won't wonder any distress for Russia or Israel. I'm from a peaceful country, country, Portugal. We have had a long history with Muslims, Jews, Russians and Ukrainians. We have nothing against each any of them. But I personanally have something against rats that want to destroy human civilization, like you, fundamentalist Jews, Jihadists, Evangeliststs, Nazis, National-Bolsheviks, Salafists, Malema's admirors, Modhi voters in In India, Anti-Semites, Kamikhazes, Admireres of Pat Cobdell, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Tamil Tigers, Kim Jong Un fanatics, Army of the Lord in Uganda, Tea Party of USA, Interahamwe, Nazis, Andrew Jackson, Cortez, Pizarro, Gengis Khan, Qin Shi Huangdi, Timur Lang, David and Saul, Atitilla, Alexandender the so called Great, and Nero, Constantine (the (the founder of of Christianity), Mohammed (the founder of of Islam), and nameless roman and nameless others founders of religiouns.... I have to spare Ashoka, the founder of Buddhism, and Lao Tse, the founder of Taoism, and Confucious, the founder of Confuciuninism... Moses I can't say a thing since I don't do't know if if he existed and what he said was not really vert positive. I'm agnostic. I'm hoping that something better will come! The future of religion is not over! Do you agree, Iryna Harpy? Sorry, In my last posts I might not be be in mine best perfect state of of mine. I have deffects. But I have a high consideration for you you., no matter what! Greetings, Iryna!Mondolkiri1 (User talk:Mondolkiri1}

Russian Government believes that Minsk agreement was for elections between 19 Oct 3 Nov

This is an important historical point! Why not have it in? Why are people deleting my edit? Russia claimed that the agreement in Minsk was for the elections to be held between 19 October and 3 November. Tobeortobe (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

References

It says that the Russians believed as much in the "legitimacy" section. The OSCE confirmed that this position was incorrect. RGloucester — ☎ 04:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not in the "legitimacy" section. Furthermore the first line in this section is false. There is no mention in the text of the Minsk Protocol that elections were meant to be held in early December. And furthermore the OSCE is not some sort of authority on the matter, their interpretation was just their interpretation and what is referenced here is their statement prior to the elections. This "Legitimacy" section needs serious corrections.

Compliance with the Protocol is a matter of opinion as the date was not written down in black and white. "Counter to the letter" is untrue as there is no mention of specific dates in the "letter", as for "spirit of the Minsk Protocol" this is a matter of opinion: certainly the shelling of school kids was not in the "spirit" of peace.Tobeortobe (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a "matter of opinion". The OSCE organised and moderated the talks. They know what they're talking about, as it is their job to enforce compliance. RGloucester — ☎ 03:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect, Tobeortobe, that you're confusing interpretation by direct interest groups as presented by their WP:BIASED media with the interpretation of the OSCE. No WP:ADVOCACY please. The OSCE are perfectly qualified to recognise who is playing dodgeball without presenting the rules by which the interest groups are playing dodgeball in the content of the article. See WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Please address the remaining concerns which I raised above.

1. Rssia's claim 19 October - 3 November is not in the "legitimacy" section.

2. The first line in this section is false. There is no mention in the text of the Minsk Protocol that elections were meant to be held in early December.

3. What is referenced here is the OSCE statement prior to the elections.

4. OSCE "Counter to the letter" statement is untrue as there is no mention of specific dates in the "letter".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobeortobe (talk • contribs) 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I addressed all of these 'concerns' above. Please read the policies I've pointed out to you, then read the paragraph of the section bothering you so much again (not forgetting to read the reliable sources cited in the text). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Iryna, with all due respect you have not addressed any of the concerns. Please reply to each point separately.Tobeortobe (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Just because there was no mention in the Minsk agreement that any elections would be held in November, it doesn't mean that the Minsk agreement prevented any elections. What are are people afraid? The the electors would confirm Alexander Zakharchenko (a Ukrainian) and Igor Plotnitsky (also Ukrainian) as the leaders of the separatist movement in Donbass? But they had implicitly already been confirmed by the Ukrainian central government, while signing the Minsk Agreement! Were people afraid that they would have to jail 2+ million Ukrainians for voting in these elections? I wonder why! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a mention of elections in the Minsk Protocol. It specifically said that the elections in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts would take place in accordance with Ukrainian law, specifically the law on special status. That law specified that elections would take place in early December at the same time as local elections across Ukraine. The separatists flouted this commitment, which is why the special status law was revoked. It was rendered meaningless by the actions of the separatists. RGloucester — ☎ 14:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Systematic bias

By now, I've deleted a paragraph in this article that is clearly influenced by the Systematic Bias in Wikipedia, and I've discovered that Wikipedia itself is aware of that! Read this (from Wikipedia itself): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias. Thanks for reading (whoever from you reads it, I've been very disappointed about Wikipedia, namely English-speaking Wikipedia). Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Systemic bias" is NOT a policy, NOT EVEN a guideline, it's an essay. It is no excuse to remove well sourced info from the article. WP:RS and WP:NPOV trump the "Systemic bias" essay. You might as well link to WP:DUMB. Volunteer Marek  08:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, fine, then, let's assume the geocentric cosmology of the Middle Ages! That's a quite good idea! And a good argument to excuse all the official Ukrainian abuses in Donbass, as it has been usual! Fine!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble figuring out what it is you're talking about. Volunteer Marek  10:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, the English Wikipedia is a geopolitical circus, I've got it

I'm not going to interfere more here! This is completely biased towards the Anglo-Saxonic interests. I feel compelled now to support the right of self-determination of Russian-speaking majority regions in Ukraine! Through other means that don't include Wikipedia. I naively believed for a while that there could be some balance here. But I've realized that the English Wikipedia is as bad as covering the issues as RT is! Good bye! I'm just sorry for Iryna Harpy, since now I know she's the only honest person I've met in these articles (and Ekograf). Not RGloucester, not any pro-Ukrainian establishment (maybe more pro-American military complex or pro-Eurocrats) neither pro-Russians that have nothing to do with Donbass! From now on I won't be either pro-Ukrainian nor pro-Russian (as I wasn't). I'll be pro-Donbass and I'll tend to be for the Freedom Fighters! Through other means!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Need for reliable sources

There is a need for reliable sources about the international observers. And I'm not meaning the Interpretermag which, apparently is based on blogs! I supportt the right of self-determination of any people, but here, based on reliable sources.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE, again

Can someone explain to me why we are listing numerous minor figures here, and their associations? These people don't even have Wikipedia articles. This article is about the election, not about these people. Can someone also explain why the Freedom Party of Austria is being termed "neo-Nazi"? They may be far-righters, and they may be populist, but they are not "neo-Nazi", and their article does not describe them as such. RGloucester — ☎ 06:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Nug, your Washington Post article doesn't seem to exist. The link gives a 404 error. RGloucester — ☎ 06:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As already explained to you, observers are part and parcel of elections, and the political complexion of these observers in this case is notable according to the sources. The narrative is that middle of the road observers such as the OSCE wouldn't touch the elections with a ten foot barge pole, so these separatists had to find somebody to lend legitimacy, and found Creyelman, Stadler and company, who aren't "minor figures" in far-right circles. As for the Washington Post link, obviously the content was moved. It's the same link used in the previous discussion above, which presumably you examined at the time. It was originally written by the Associated Press. --Nug (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't verify what it says if the link is dead. Please find the content, so it can be verified. Where is the citation for referring to the Freedom Party as "neo-Nazi"? I agree that it is notable that these far-right organisations observed the elections. However, listing non-notable individuals is WP:UNDUE. RGloucester — ☎ 16:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Dang, don't know what happened to that Washington Post article, but I found another from The Moscow Times that says essentially the same thing, so I'll fix up the text. And I'll only list notable individuals, i.e. those that have a Wikipedia article. --Nug (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 21:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this right?

so-called "elections" Something about that just seems a little off too me. BlueworldSpeccie (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a well supported quote, therefore does not contradict WP:WORDS: specifically WP:SCAREQUOTES. The only alternative for the lead would be an unnecessarily long, convoluted explanation of why they were characterised as being "so called" (which is addressed in the body of the article). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright. It just seemed a little harsh but if it is in the source then...BlueworldSpeccie (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, BlueworldSpeccie, whether it can be construed as being positive or negative, it follows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. While our polices and guidelines may appear to be superficially unfair, they've evolved over many years under the ever-critical eye of the community and are, IMHO, pretty good. They may not always suit our perception, and you won't find a regular editor who isn't frustrated by the constraints, but narrative lines shouldn't reflect our own POV: something which is as disparate as every individual contributor. Utopia is in the eye of the beholder. Being able to follow protocols despite ourselves is the litmus test of good editing skills. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the origin of this issue was a series of edits by a wayward editor. The edits inserted labels that were not supported by RS, and which ran counter to WP:LABEL. I've now removed these changes. RGloucester — ☎ 01:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donbass general elections, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20141103192620/http://lugansk-online.info/news/na-vyborah-v-lnr-bolshinstvo-golosov-nabrali-igor-plotnitskii-i-obshchestvennoe-dvizhenie-mir-luganshchine to http://lugansk-online.info/news/na-vyborah-v-lnr-bolshinstvo-golosov-nabrali-igor-plotnitskii-i-obshchestvennoe-dvizhenie-mir-luganshchine

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 12 September 2017 (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)