Jump to content

Talk:Donetsk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleDonetsk was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 29, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 1, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 2, 2018.
Current status: Delisted good article



Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2023

[edit]

Remove the Russian name of the city because Russian has no official status in Ukraine since 2018. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also:
  1. Remove Kulemzin from Mayor row in infobox. He wasn't elected in accordance with Ukrainian law, so, he's not a Mayor at all he's just a head of occupational city administration assigned by a head of separatist unrecognised Donetsk People's Republic Alexander Zakharchenko.
  2. Remove occupational website from the infobox and put the archived version of the real website of the real Donetsk mayor.
  3. Replace Russian Demonym "Donchyani" by Ukrainian "Donechanyn, Donechanka, Donechany".
UA0Volodymyr (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis Then also put word "occupational" in website row. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The official status is irrelevant in this case. We have a Russian name there because the population is predominantly Russian-speaking (and was historically as well). Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. HouseBlastertalk 23:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done I just removed the website, since we can hardly call the internationally not recognized one "official". I also added "installed by Russia" instead of "de facto", because I've never seen the term "de facto" applied to Russia's minions in Ukraine. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The guy was actually installed before the annexation, and whereas we understand that he could have not been installed without Russian approval, we still do not add a qualificator to say Guatemalan presidents from the 1960s "installed by the United States". Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
USA didn't military occupied Guatemala. Russia did with Donetsk. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Involvement of the US in Guatemala in the 1960s was similar to the Russian involvement in Donetsk prior to 2022. Ymblanter (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In Guatemala there was a CIA-backed coup d'état, in Donbas direct invasion of Russian citizens lead by FSB and GRU under the guise of pro-Russian local people, especially in anti-Maidan unrest and in Sloviansk and entry of regular Russian troops into the territory of Donetsk oblast. Those are not completely same things. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not completely the same, but comparable. Ymblanter (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not comparable, because in any case USA didn't rule Guatemala directly, unlike Russia DPR and LPR. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure you can always find a difference and say it is crucial to support your cause, but I do not think we have consensus for the change at the moment. Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The real official website just doesn't exist since 2014. I proposed to place archived version of website before creation of DPR. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In case of Famagusta the website of the Greek administration-in-exile is active. Some entities that are located in the occupied part of Ukraine maintain their websites, for example Luhansk oblast's http://loga.gov.ua/ and they definitely should be mentioned. I'm not sure that the archived site from 2014 would be useful to the reader, though. Alaexis¿question? 11:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

There is a requested move at Talk:Donetsk City that may interest editors of this article. Thank you. HappyWith (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian

[edit]

The infobox says that Donetsk is a Ukrainian city. However, the city is de facto annexed by Russia. I think we should follow the infobox template of Sevastopol to state that it is de facto Russian and de jure Ukrainian. Luwuyi (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have RS that it is "de facto annexed by Russia" ? Rsk6400 (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it doesn't make sense that the fact that the city is now occupied by Russia is buried in the 4th paragraph of the lede. I would suggest adding "that is occupied by and has been annexed to Russia" to the first sentence. Many RS say that these territories were annexed, e.g., DW [1]. Alaexis¿question? 10:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DW makes no obvious distinction between Donetsk & Luhansk (formally annexed by Russia in 2022, and de facto controlled by Russia since 2014) vs. Kherson & Zaporizhzhya (formally annexed by Russia in 2022, but de facto still controlled by Ukraine). Crash48 (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, neither should we. Not sure I understood your point. Alaexis¿question? 10:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alaexis, the MOS:LEADSENTENCE should only give a short definition, so we should not get into details there. If we add something like "annexed", we should also add a qualifier like "illegally annexed", or "annexed in violation of international law", or "annexed after a sham referendum". So: Better leave it as it is. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can be concise and still inform the reader about important stuff. What about

Alaexis¿question? 20:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the "within the internationally recognised borders of Ukraine". It's a city in Ukraine, that is occupied by Russia. Simple. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Alaexis¿question? 20:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By me, too, but "annexed" without a qualifier doesn't seem necessary. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In case of Golan Heights we use the term de facto annexation. It's also used by some sources for Donetsk and Lugansk. Alaexis¿question? 08:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but there are more sources calling it by the names I suggested. And there is also MOS:LEADSENTENCE: Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that the fact that Donetsk is on Kalmius river is more important that it's been annexed to Russia? Why did your remove the mention of the occupation? This part isn't disputed.
Could you provide data supporting your assertion that "there are more sources calling it by the names I suggested"? Alaexis¿question? 08:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The annexation was a show event based on a sham referendum, the river has been there since before humanity existed. I removed the occupation because it was me who inserted it and I didn't want to edit war in favour of my own changes. But if you agree and since the idea was Super Dromaeosaurus', that seems to be consensus now. Regarding "more sources": That was just my impression based on what I read. I said that in order to show you that "de facto annexed" is an arbitrary selection from many possibilities. My choice is none of those possibilities. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a selection from many possibilities. Obviously we cannot add all the terms used to describe it to the lede. My term is used by RS *and* is used by Wikipedia when describing territories having a similar status, so it has the benefit of consistency. If you believe that the majority of RS use another term when describing it, please provide some evidence.
The referendum can unlikely be described as completely free and fair, but that does not invalidate the fact that now the residents of the city have Russian passports and live according to Russian laws (like previously mentioned Golan Heights and unlike Afrin which are occupied but have not been annexed by the occupying power). Alaexis¿question? 18:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alaexis, I don't see consensus here for your recent change and I think the points I raised are not meaningless. Feel free to seek dispute resolution. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the wording suggested by another editor as a compromise, so it's you who is reverting against consensus. Alaexis¿question? 22:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is gross WP:BALANCE violation and gross misinterpretation of sources and violation of MOS:LEAD.
MOS:LEAD says the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. Which part of article is summarized with "Federal subject: Donetsk People's Republic" and "Country: Russia (de facto)"?
WP:BALANCE says Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources and An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject. Where are sources equating "Country: Ukraine" and "Country: Russia"? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2023

[edit]

I request that in the country section Russia be added as (De facto) while Ukraine is put as (De jure) LegendaryChristopher (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox?  Not done, because there was an RFC on this topic, where it was decided that de facto control should not be put in infoboxes of populated places in the context of wars like this one, since it messes up the metadata when bots read the parameters of the infobox, among other reasons. HappyWith (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where was that RFC, and why "de facto" control is being presented now in the infobox? Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been the better part of a year and I don't edit much in this topic anymore so my memory is hazy, but from some searching, I'm pretty sure I was referring to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 179#RFC: Occupation in infobox for localities affected by the ongoing military conflict. As to why the "de facto" control is now in the infobox anyway, it's because of this edit by user Alaexis, which didn't appear to address previous consensus. You could ping that user and discuss if you object to the change. HappyWith (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donetsk&oldid=1233753492"