Talk:Luhansk People's Republic

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2023

Add (see International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic) after the text about recognition by Syria and North Korea Trzb (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is already linked both in the lead and under the relevant section header, there's no need to put it there too. Actualcpscm (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring 2

Hi @Eduardog3000. Please respect WP:BRD, and respond to reverts by going to discussion. This article is subject to contentious editing guidelines as the subject is in Eastern Europe, and to WP:GS/RUSUKR. Kindly don’t continue edit-warring,[1] and get consensus for any edits here. Thanks.  —Michael Z. 13:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Like I said in my edit: The official name is in Russian, which means it translates to Lugansk. The articles you mentioned use the Ukrainian name hence Luhansk. This article's title is based on WP:COMMONNAME, but the title in the infobox is supposed to be the official name. Again, see Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast where the common name Ukrainian spelling is used in the title, but the official Russian spelling is used in the infobox. --eduardog3000 (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

According to the template docs at Template:Infobox settlement: “name / optional/ This is the usual name in English.”

Furthermore your logic is unsound, because Luhansk and Lugansk are both alternate translations of the same name, which translate to Russian Луганск and Ukrainian Луганськ. You’re mixing up details of the etymology of their respective spelling with what they are. The one we use by consensus is the article title spelling.  —Michael Z. 15:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"Luhansk" is the translation of the Ukrainian Луганськ, "Lugansk" is the translation of the Russian Луганск. "Luhansk" is not a valid translation of the Russian Луганск as г is pronounced with the /g/ sound in Russian. Ge (Cyrillic) says it is generally romanized using the Latin letter g or h, depending on the source language. Romanization of Russian shows only g as a possible romanization of the Russian г. The US Library of Congress and British Ministry of Defence agree.

As for which name goes on top. The precedent is the official name. See any country article, as well as articles for other Russian republics such as Chechnya, Ingushetia, North Ossetia–Alania, etc. Common name as article title, official name in infobox. --eduardog3000 (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

And Луганськ is the Ukrainian translation of Russian Луганск, and vice versa. Translation is not romanization (or transliteration). Please don’t confuse the discussion by mixing them up.

The official name is Луганская Народная Республика, and its romanization is Luganskaia Narodnaia Respublika, among other versions. But as I said, the name field is for “the usual name in English.”  —Michael Z. 19:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Translation still involves romanization if there's no actual English word to translate to. Neither Lugansk nor Luhansk are English words, they aren't translated past changing the adjective form to noun form. It still has to be romanized after changing "Луга́нская" to "Луганск", and the only correct romanization of Russian г is g.

And again, precedent on other pages says otherwise. Most importantly, the article for every other Russian republic that uses the common name for the title has the official name in the infobox. Also, the template does have an "official_name" parameter. eduardog3000 (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Gaining consensus means convincing other editors.  —Michael Z. 04:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I can see a few reasons to use the "g" spelling for the article about the LPR.

• There are more google scholar hits 1,460 vs 1,190
• This is how they themselves write it ([2] is the website of the LPR administration of Lughansk)
• This is the language of the majority of the inhabitants of the LPR Alaexis_¿question? 16:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Page through those results. The first search includes page after solid page of Russian-language results.

How does any of that relate to our guidelines? How does any of that fulfil the requirements of the template docs? It doesn’t.  —Michael Z. 19:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Very directly. WP:NCGN says that the widely accepted name should be used generally - in this case the two options are pretty close even though there are more google scholar hits with "g." In the absence of such name the guideline says that we should use the official name. Obviously there is no such thing as the official name of LPR in Ukrainian as Ukraine does not recognise this entity. This leaves us with "G" again. Alaexis_¿question? 05:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The widely accepted common name is Luhansk People’s Republic. You can see near the top of this page that this has been discussed three times in move requests where consensus consistently preferred this article title, which is what belongs in the infobox according to the template docs.

Obviously there is no such thing as the official name in English.  —Michael Z. 14:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Mzajac. Panam2014 (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer the Lugansk romanization per the above comments, but the most common name is actually Luhansk Bedivere (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of People's Council of the Luhansk People's Republic into Luhansk People's Republic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not really much of anything in the People's Council article after three years, seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. I think this could be easily merged into the "Government" section of the main LPR article. HappyWith (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - per nom. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - There’s literally nothing there except a restatement of the name acting as definition.  —Michael Z. 12:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment - @Mzajac:, AfD was closed as a merge. Can you help me doing that, thanks in advance.--iMahesh (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@IM3847, do you mean this one? Someone should formally close it first. Maybe post a request at WP:CR. Or do you mean a different one?  —Michael Z. 23:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Its volume is very small. Parham wiki (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - per nom. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't speak Russian, but there could be enough material to expand this article and even create articles for their lawmakers. Bedivere (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Please demonstrate significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Currently, the article has none.  —Michael Z. 14:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  In a pseudo-dictatorship such as that of the Russians (and including, per se, this pseudo-republic) that is surely going to be difficult. I still think a neutral article could be made up from the available, albeit probably biased LPR sources. Bedivere (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  WP:5P2 is one of our pillars and WP:NPOV is a content policy. Neutrality is one of the reasons WP:WHYN for the notability requirements. What you propose would be non-neutral by definition, and I think this is non-negotiable.  —Michael Z. 17:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. Let me add from WP:N: if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  I am aware of the policies, I have read them many times. I have just opined on the issue. I can live with you not agreeing with me, of course, and this is fine. These institutions and lawmakers exist, for sure; my approach would be to have an article on them. There might be independent sources, but as I said initially I don't speak Russian, can't help much with it. I hope both of you have a good day and I hope that you could understand my point, even if you disagree with it. Bedivere (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  They are fake institutions and pantomime lawmakers created by Russia to fool people with the objective of controlling Ukraine. This is why reliable sources don’t take them seriously enough to cover them. The exercise has turned into genocide. Pretending they’re real is gullible and harmful. I hope you understand my point.  —Michael Z. 04:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• Strongest oppose. Merging a parliament into a country is absurd. There's nothing wrong with stubs – read Wikipedia:IMPATIENT. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  It says “an article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion”

  Calling this subject a country is absurd.  —Michael Z. 04:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support - Everyone else opposing here is insane. I swear, this article is so stubbly, it is terrible. Merge, please. Wheatley2 (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, as the topic is covered in scholarly articles (INTERNAL LEGITIMACY AND GOVERNANCE IN THE ABSENCE OF RECOGNITION: THE CASES OF THE DONETSK AND LUHANSK “PEOPLE’S REPUBLICS”, Constitutional Orders of Non-Recognized Entities in Georgia and Ukraine. Can Facade Constitutions Ensure Adequate Protection of Human Rights) and by the media (Rossiyskaya gazeta reporting on the election results). This article can certainly be expanded. Alaexis_¿question? 10:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  The first two do not give WP:SIGCOV of the subject. The third is non-neutral media subject to a dictatorship: the small print right at the bottom of the page says it’s registered with the Kremlin’s censor Roskomnadzor.  —Michael Z. 22:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Rossiiskaia gazeta is an organ of the Russian government: it is not a neutral source and therefore not a WP:Reliable source suitable for use as a reference. I suggest you also become familiar with WP:Neutral point of view. As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful: Help:Introduction.  —Michael Z. 05:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  The second article has chapters "Historical Background and Current Status Quo of the Legal Systems of the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples’ Republics" and "Constitutional Orders of the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples’ Republics" (pp. 110-119) which discuss the formation and role of peoples' councils, so it constitutes significant coverage.

  I'm not sure I understand your point re Rossiiskaia gazeta. If you're saying that we cannot use anything published in Russia (and by extension 15-30 countries with a similar or worse press freedom situation like China, Egypt or Turkey) then it clearly contradicts the Wikipedia practice. If you're saying that we shouldn't use it because it's the government newspaper, then it's fair enough, but other media outlets also report on the elections, even RFE/RL-affiliated currenttime.tv [3]. Alaexis_¿question? 07:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  The second article is not about the subject. Going by the section title you named, it doesn’t have a section about the subject, either. Maybe you should consider writing an article about the Constitutional orders of the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples' Republics, because this source doesn’t treat Russia’s DLNR proxies as two independent subjects, much less one of their Potemkin institutions as one.

  RG is similar to TASS: see WP:TASS. If you claim it’s not, please let’s get a consensus on it at WP:RSN.

  Re: “other media outlets also report on the elections,”: the subject is not the Russian-imposed sham elections, which are covered in other articles like 2014 Donbas general elections and 2018 Donbas general elections.

  This line of argument is advocating a WP:FRINGE POV by misrepresenting sources that we can easily evaluate. It is not normalizing some obscure academic position. It is a disruptive waste of time and attention.  —Michael Z. 13:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  How is this body different from Golan Regional Council or Assembly of the Republic (Northern Cyprus) which are also located in disputed areas? Alaexis_¿question? 06:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  The possible problems of other articles are totally irrelevant here. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t know about those. I doubt that RS say they’re the same. Perhaps it’s only different in that RS don’t give it SIGCOV per GNG, for whatever reasons. Please argue about how the subject fits our guidelines, not about what suits your personal model of the world that leads to your desired result. —Michael Z. 14:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Support After 3 years, no real content or sources. North8000 (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Per my various arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People's Council of the Donetsk People's Republic; remains largely the same in this case in my view. Curbon7 (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  A year later, that article is full of unreliable sources and still likely cannot satisfy GNG.  —Michael Z. 13:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support Doesn't warrant a stand alone page, especially with the lack of sources. Scu ba (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support and recommend this discussion's closure with a consensus to merge. Cheers, Dan the Animator 05:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Closure request Please note that I just posted a closure request at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Merger_discussion_about_People's_Council_of_the_Luhansk_People's_Republic. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I love inconsistency. Why would the Donetsk one be kept and the Luhansk merged when they are functionally the same? In fairness, this PM does have more participation than the Donetsk AfD. Curbon7 (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  There are many cases of articles on some but not all of a class of things. Donetsk is bigger and was always more important to the occupying Russians. But I see only a single source that might constitute SIGCOV of the subject cited in that article, and maybe its existence isn’t justified either.  —Michael Z. 20:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Phrasing

Propose that instead of "internationally unrecognized republic of Russia" we say, "region of Ukraine that is occupied and recognized as independent by Russia". Otherwise it sounds almost like Wikipedia recognizes it? Stoptheprop (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Girkin and Prigozhin have openly stated what they’ve been up to in Ukraine since 2014, why are we still using terms like "breakaway"? Stoptheprop (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the general idea. But the two Russian-controlled proxy republics were technically “separatist” and “breakaway,” but this alone is often badly misconstrued as meaning they were Ukrainians that wanted independence. Russia no longer claims DLNR to be independent.

To improve the definition, we need to collect good citations from recent (post-“annexation”) academic or expert analysis sources, not news reporting. Part of the difficulty is that since it has become clear they had been fake, many sources don’t use these legitimizing names, or refer to them individually, but refer to these territories as “Russian-controlled before February 2022,” etcetera.  —Michael Z. 18:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the current wording "an internationally unrecognised republic of Russia in the occupied parts of eastern Ukraine's Luhansk Oblast." Lugansk Peoples's Republic is not a region of Ukraine (unlike Luhansk Oblast) but a different entity. Alaexis_¿question? 18:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. It’s exactly Luhansk oblast, a geographical region in Ukraine, renamed by the Russians that have not been able to fully occupy its territory. Are you going to claim that the annexed “Kherson oblast of Russia” is not a region of Ukraine but a “different entity” too? Did you know the Kremlin also has a Kharkiv oblast “entity”, with an occupation “governor” and unelected “prime minister”?  —Michael Z. 13:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Please remember that WP:CIVILITY is one of Wikipedia's policies.

Ontological discussions can be fun, but I'll just note that we have a lot of examples of multiple entities covering the same or overlapping pieces of land (Quneitra Governorate vs Golan Heights Regional Council, Famagusta district vs Gazimağusa District, etc.). Alaexis_¿question? 13:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac Nonsense. Nothing is similar between the two administrative units except the territory. Everything else – starting from emblems, offices, officials, legislation in force, currency in use, etc., are different. See, this article is not about land – it is primarily about an administrative structure, which in this instance forms part of the overall administrative structure of Russia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

True enough in a sense.

One article is about an oblast of Ukraine: a constitutional and well defined region of Ukraine existing for eight decades. The subject includes its geography, history, demographics, economy, transport, education, etcetera.

The subject of the other is Russia’s illegal occupation of varying parts of Luhansk oblast for much of a decade and the civil-military administration that runs it for the Kremlin. Indeed it is not about the land: but Russia defines it as having precisely the same geographical boundaries, despite not controlling them, and the article should include that information. It is exactly analogous to articles about Russian occupation of Crimea and of Mykolaiv oblast, which vary in the amount of material but not in conception. The article should not content-fork information about Luhansk oblast, and some of that should be trimmed from it.  —Michael Z. 17:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No, the subject matter of this article is not "illegal occupation": it's an administrative structure operating within the framework of Russian Federation. That the land claimed by the said structure is contested and/or has been captured by force, is secondary (the fact must be mentioned under History or Geography sections but it's by no means the subject matter). See for instance Tibet Autonomous Region. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

An oppressive, armed administrative structure illegally operating on Ukrainian territory within the foreign framework of the Russian Federation, with systematic torture, massive war crimes, forcible population transfer, incitement to genocide, and credible evidence of genocide. Some will disagree with your opinion on what is secondary.  —Michael Z. 04:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Other than this @Mzajac since you are an admin, I suspect that Stoptheprop might be a sock of 0lida0. Now why I suspect is this.

• Revision as of 13:21, 9 October 2023 by 0lida0.
• Revision as of 14:43, 15 October 2023 by Stoptheprop.

Both want the same version. Although Stoptheprop has only one edit (except talk page) but his stance looks a bit Pro-Ukranian/Anti-Russian just like 0lida0. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Since I’m involved in the discussion, I suggest you take it to WP:ANI for action. As the user’s edit in question was accomplished by hitting the “undo” link, I don’t think its content alone can be construed as proof of sock puppetry or not.

And I think that labelling Wikipedia users as “Pro-Ukranian/Anti-Russian” is unadvisable. It smacks of WP:BATTLEGROUND, associating the criminal aggression of the dictatorial Kremlin with all Russian citizens, all Russian emigrants, all ethnic Russians, and certain editors as individuals or as a supposed interest group, as if they were a single actor sharing the same goal – a view that is itself in line with some groups’ propaganda objectives. (In general, I prefer to use the more specific pro-Kremlin in other contexts, and I believe that opposing the goals of the dictatorship in Russia is a very pro-Russian view and is not specific to Ukraine.)  —Michael Z. 15:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac I shall act on your advice and use my words more carefully. Regarding the sock thing, I think you have a good point. I shall wait to see if something more comes up. Thanks for this. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 16:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

thank you for this - not enough people recognize that opposing the Kremlin can actually be a very pro-Russian stance Stoptheprop (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Stoptheprop we are widely using it on every pages. This is the line noone has a problem. Because it clearly clarifies that it is "an internationally unrecognised republic of Russia in the occupied parts of eastern Ukraine's Luhansk Oblast". This is how the international community sees it. The same pattern is followed in number of pages like Luhansk/Donestk Peoples Republic or Hero of DPR. We have to write everything with a neutral point of view not as we think how it should be. If we want to add our view we need to get a consensus. And this was written according to the consensus achieved on pages mentioned above. If that decision is to be changed then it needs to be discussed on a wide range. Till then I am restoring the previous version on Hero of LPR page. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t completely agree. Russia has announced the “annexation” of two territories it fully occupies, another four it only partially occupies, but it also has occupation administrations with governors and even a “prime minister” for Kharkiv and Mykolaiv oblasts (see Russian temporary administrative agencies in occupied Ukraine#Russian administrative agencies by Oblast), where there is respectively little and no Russian military presence. The international recognition of all of these “subdivisions of Russia” is exactly the same: zero.

The “pattern” that is followed in some of these article, especially about the two “republics,” was set by news media in 2014 and later, which are still widely cited in these articles but should be largely replaced with citations to up-to-date academic sources. The media at the time still hedged on the “pro-Russian separatists” characterization which is outdated: since the open invasion, most sources now label the pre-2022 occupied areas as under de facto Russian control or Russian occupation before February 2022.  —Michael Z. 14:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

And many articles about ornamental institutions like anthems and medals of the two fake republics are not encyclopedic because they do not meet WP:GNG. E.g., Hero of the Luhansk People's Republic has one source about a related event, and one that is Russian government propaganda. Likely no independent source exists giving the subject significant coverage, and the article should be nominated for merging or deletion.

Even the DLNR republics themselves were rarely ever treated as separate subjects, typically lumped together as “Russian-backed militants” or whatever.  —Michael Z. 14:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

you don't appear to be neutral in terms of your stance either - I notice you have a strong focus on maintaining pages that serve to prop up Russian symbols of administrative control in occupied Ukraine. Stoptheprop (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps adding that is in an area that is internationally recognized as being a part of Ukraine? North8000 (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It's already written in the very first sentence "an internationally unrecognised republic of Russia in the occupied parts of eastern Ukraine's Luhansk Oblast." Alaexis_¿question? 13:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

My idea went a bit further than that. North8000 (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Please note that I just started WP:Articles_for_deletion/Hero_of_the_Luhansk_People's_Republic and WP:Articles_for_deletion/Hero_of_the_Donetsk_People's_Republic. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

this is a good call, I'm a little concerned about the influence Shaan Sengupta has over maintaining pages that bolster Russian propaganda aims - among them, this phony "award". You already know my position on how the article should open - I still think we should state that it is "an area of eastern Ukraine that Russia recognises as independent" - or something to that effect. Stoptheprop (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Stoptheprop It seems that your information is either not correct or you want to peddle it your way. Russia no longer recognises those parts independent. It officially annexed those parts in NovemberSeptember 2022. You might want to read Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. Will help you better understand the situation. And I neither anyone has any influence on Wikipedia. It is just the policies which are being followed. And also there is no need to reply to every comment made by users in the discussion. People already have seen and know your point. You can chill out a bit and let everyone else put forward their suggestions. Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic. Then some admin (preferably un-involved) will decide. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 03:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

(The declared “annexation” was September 30, 2022.)  —Michael Z. 04:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

My bad. Thanks for the correction. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Russia's claims to have annexed them do not mean that they have been annexed. You are repeating Kremlin propaganda, whether intentionally or not. However, we can say "an area of eastern Ukraine that Russia claims to have annexed" - like I said, something to the effect of what I already suggested. I don't believe that you have specific influence over Wikipedia (or indeed over how I interact with it), I noted that you were influential in the creation and maintenance of specific pages about Russian symbols of control / administration in eastern Ukraine. Stoptheprop (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

They have been annexed. This is precisely how annexation looks like. You get your army in, you order a legitimising exercise (e.g., a fake referendum), and then you announce that the land has become part of your country. You administer it as yours henceforth. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Russia claims that the boundaries of these territories extend into areas that are actually under Ukrainian government control. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/23/russia-ukraine-international-law-occupation-armed-conflict-and-human-rights Stoptheprop (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Stoptheprop It seems you don't know the meaning of annexation. You said Russia's claims to have annexed them do not mean that they have been annexed. The word annexation itself means that it is forcible acquisition and assertion of legal title over one state's territory by another state, usually following military occupation of the territory. So it is not like Russia claims to have annexed but it is more like Russia has annexed. Learn the meaning of the word annexation. And also let me tell you that we follow Neutral point of view here. Following which it is clearly written that Russia unilaterally annexed those regions through internationally unrecognised sham referendums. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

As you said that Russia claims that the boundaries of these territories extend into areas that are actually under Ukrainian government control. This is also well defined in articles. That's the reason it is written as On 30 September 2022, Russia announced the annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, despite only occupying part of the claimed territory. This is again the truth and NPOV. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, "Russia announced the annexation. It doesn't say Russia annexed those oblasts. You are weirdly emotionally invested in Russia's successful annexation of these territories. Stoptheprop (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Stoptheprop Please see Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts it first para say On 30 September 2022, Russia, amid an ongoing invasion of Ukraine, unilaterally declared its annexation of areas in and around four Ukrainian oblasts – Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia. The boundaries of the areas to be annexed and their borders were not defined; Russian officials stated that they would be defined later. None of the oblasts were fully under Russian control at the time of the declaration, nor since. If limited to the areas then under Russian control (about 90,000 sq km or 15% of Ukraine's territory) the annexation would still be the largest in Europe since World War II.

Now for you comment- I am not a follower of Putinism that I will be emotionally invested. You are noone to decide what's weird or something. And I would suggest you to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks the next time you reply. Be careful with your words and avoid making these comments. This is a discussion about what's right and not what you and I think. I shall put it to rest here. Only if you too do so. Otherwise I shall be more than happy to continue this at your or my talk page because going forward from this point has got nothing to do with this discussion. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

our perspectives are of equal importance provided neither of us is compromised by undeclared interests. all the best to you. Stoptheprop (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)