Talk:People's Council of the Donetsk People's Republic/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Supreme Soviet"

Soviet is the Russian word for "council". In English the word "Soviet" has to do with the USSR. Outside of that context, I think "soviet" would just be translated as "council". So the NYT probably is wrong by calling it "Supreme Soviet". This Russian source refers to it as "the Supreme Council", not the Supreme Soviet. [1] --Stan2525 (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but English-language reliable sources refer to it as the "Soviet". In fact, the name of this body is exactly the same as the Soviet Union body. This was a conscious decision on the part of the people who established it, which is why it is translated exactly the same. As an example, please read this article. I can provide many more sources, for example, this BBC article, this VICE article, this article from the Voice of Russia (disproving your comment about "Russian sources"), this article from The Daily Telegraph, this article from The Guardian, and many more. RGloucester — ☎ 00:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is it categorized as a legislature? Those terrorists do not even know whether they would be part of Ukraine or Russia. Plus, there is no such nation as DPR. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

We deal with pragmatic realties on the ground, not value judgements. Reliable sources refer to it as such. RGloucester — ☎ 14:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If your standard is applied here, then why isn't the Federation Council (Russia) article entitled the Federation Soviet? Also, "Supreme" translates as "Верховный" in Russian, while the DPR clearly uses "People's" which translates as "Народный". [2] --Tocino 08:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what WP:OR you come up with. The preponderance of English-language reliable sources use "Supreme Soviet" for this body, and so do we. Other bodies don't matter. RGloucester — ☎ 14:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You are perpetuating factually incorrect information, and citing months old articles from May [3], June [4] , and July [5] when the situation was still in flux does nothing to support your claim that "Supreme Soviet" is used in "preponderance". The few relatively recent sources that you cite make no mention of the People's Council officially calling itself the Supreme Soviet, rather they suggest that "Supreme Soviet" is informal, its even in lower case letters in your Guardian source [6]. --Tocino 07:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't read The Guardian's capitalisation rules, but that's not because it is "informal", it is because its style recommends lowercase for many things that we normally use uppercase for, such as "Nato" for "NATO". The New York Times article cited in the article is from the day of the election, and uses "Supreme Soviet". There is no "People's Council". In English, it is called the "Supreme Soviet" in line with reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 13:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Only three of the recent sources use "Supreme Soviet" and all three of those articles are writing about a Soviet theme. And none of them say that "Supreme Soviet" is the official name. --Tocino 10:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no English-language official name, because they don't speak English. Regardless, we don't go by "official names", we go by what's used in sources. It isn't just "three sources". It is many more, and you can't discount the earlier ones either. RGloucester — ☎ 14:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact, having looked at the constitution, it is called the Supreme Soviet. Please see this page, and look at the constitution provided. It says "Верховный Совет Донецкой Народной Республики", or "Supreme Soviet of the Donetsk People's Republic". RGloucester — ☎ 19:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I've read the full document now. Originally, there was a "Supreme Soviet". This body existed until the elections, and adopted the constitution, at which time the "People's Soviet" was established. The present body is the "People's Soviet", and hence I've moved it. RGloucester — ☎ 20:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no media use this term "People's Soviet", only "People's Council" AsharaDayne (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Not true. No one in the western media uses "People's Council". In fact, they usually use "Supreme Soviet", as it seems they have no caught on to the change, which is somewhat obscure even in their own documents, which sometimes refer to it still as the "Supreme Council". If you go through the "laws" that they've passed, you'll see this. Given that they chose to translate the word as "Soviet", we must respect the translation used in sources. RGloucester — ☎ 13:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the OP - we don't call the Ukrainian legistlature the Supreme Soviet, despite the term Rada being also a comparable term to "soviet" or council. Many of the english-language sources that use the term "soviet" seem to be using it to elicit a negative emotional reaction exploiting the historical baggage of the term "soviet". BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 20:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

That's because Ukrainian legislature doesn't use term 'soviet' in its title, and it isn't the WP:COMMONNAME in the English language (and, no, 'rada' is a far older term which does correctly translate as 'council', and is not comparable to 'soviet'). Conversely, 'People's Soviet' is used for the DPR. It is not Wikipedia's role to engage in original research because users don't like the terminology used by reliable sources. Do you have any English language RS to back up your assertion that 'soviet/Soviet' is not used? You are stuck on the 'negative' and 'emotional baggage', but haven't actually pointed to any alternative common usages. Please be reminded that this is an article talk page, not a forum for airing personal opinions: it's function is develop and improve content based on policies and guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Nsdnr.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead change suggestion

This source https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/28167484.html has been suggested by @Mellk as reliable independent source with significant coverage on the subject.
So I'm going to use source's intro paragraphs -
– «Парламент» группировки «ДНР» располагается в захваченном здании Донецкой областной администрации и является абсолютно декоративной структурой. В «народном совете» сосредоточен весь абсурд, свойственный неподконтрольным территориям. Первыми вопросами, рассматриваемыми «депутатами» в 2014 году, были следующие: где будет «столица» сепаратистов и является ли вновь созданный «орган» «парламентом» группировки «ДНР» – или всей «Новороссии». В силу активных боёв в Славянске в 2014 году многие были убеждены, что «столица» боевиков должна находиться именно там, а не в Донецке.
- and change the lead based on this source to something like the following -
The People's Council[1] (Russian: Народный Совет, romanized: Narodny Sovet), formerly the Supreme Council (Russian: Высший Совет, romanized: Vysshy Sovet), is the regional parliament of the Donetsk People's Republic, a disputed entity annexed as a federal subject by Russia from Ukraine in 2022 during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.[2][3][4] The "parliament" is in fact an absurd and mock structure, according to bloger Stanislav Vasyn. Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

"The "parliament" is in fact an absurd and mock structure, according to bloger Stanislav Vasyn" is an oxymoron. It can't be 'in fact' and 'according to one person's opinion'. Something like "Widely unrecognized internationally", seems better. JeffUK (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Well Widely unrecognized internationally, while true, is not what the source says; however could be included with other sources given.

How about we remove "in fact"? And give better translation for абсолютно декоративной структурой. В «народном совете» сосредоточен весь абсурд, свойственный неподконтрольным территориям? Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced information

@UnixBased: You restored unsourced claims which I previously removed. According to WP:V, all information on WP must be verifyable. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Can you please tell me why you restored the claims ? Also: Please don't mark potentially controversial edits as "minor". Rsk6400 (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: a source. Panam2014 (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Not reliable. See WP:RS . Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The source exists. You wanted proof of the number of deputies. There is no question of using the non-neutral information of the article but to limit oneself to the factual. I open an RfC. Panam2014 (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

You had proposed to delete this article because of no RS coverage Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People's Council of the Donetsk People's Republic :) and I still think you are right Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert: but the article have been kept. So there are no reason to delete factual information. Panam2014 (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I have no opinion and no preference on this particular issue. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This is improper use of the {{rfc}} tag - there has been no WP:RFCBEFORE and the statement is not neutral. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

If we have no reliable sources for the number of members, that is a strong indication that the number is not notable. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That was my point in article deletion discussion. With reliable sources available on the subject, nothing meaningful could be written. Attn. to @Liz. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)