Talk:Luhansk People's Republic/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 2 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Luhansk People's Republic → Lugansk People's Republic – Re-proposing to change "Luhansk" in the title of this article to "Lugansk" as per WP:RUSSIANNAMES. The name of the Lugansk People's Republic is a Russian name, and it's English translation should be taken from Russian. While it may be appropriate to have Luhansk and Luhansk Oblast using Ukrainian transliterations due to their de-jure status as parts of Ukraine, the LPR is an entity which exists as a rejection of Ukraine and has used Russian as it's only official language since 2020, and it should be transliterated as Lugansk. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 02:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Fully agree to make the name change. Currently there is already an article with that name and I cannot move the page. I'm not familiar with these things.--Mhorg (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

No opinion but the opening argument is invalid. The entity undoubtedly has a WP:COMMONNAME. One should investigate what name is this. Romanization (not transliteration) only applies to the situations when there is no COMMONNAME.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose  “De jure status” and the “official” language of a Russian proxy have nothing to do with it, but the LNR is de jure in Ukraine whose de jure official language is Ukrainian. RUSSIANNAMES is not a guideline, it doesn’t say that all Russian names are to be romanized (hello, “Moscow”), and neither Luhansk nor the LNR are Russian: they are in Ukraine, named after the Luhan river wholly in Ukraine, likely from the Ukrainian root луг, luh, “meadow.” The rationale is completely invalid and unrelated to Wikipedia guidelines. But that is all academic: an actual relevant guideline is WP:COMMONNAME, and a Google Books Ngram shows that the current title is used 2.7 times more in sources. —Michael Z. 15:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per common name arguments above—blindlynx 16:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. As mentioned, "Luhansk People's Republic" seems to be the common name. And I usually see it at written as this in English-language sources rather than "Lugansk People's Republic". Mellk (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very clear common name in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose very clear WP:COMMONNAME in English sources. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. — Czello 21:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Google Ngrams Additionally, since 2019, the 'luhansk' variation is most likely if anything grown in use in english sources. Cononsense (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2022 (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.

Map?

With the capture of Severodonetsk surely we need to update the map of the LPR? Considerable territorial gains have been made, unless someone is waiting to see if the entire oblast is captured — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corridor92 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Correction of status according to Ukrainian side

Currently described with “[…] Ukraine's legislation describes the territory controlled by the LPR as part of the "temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine", […]”

Wikipedia article [1] clarifies that regions under Russian occupation are considered by Ukraine as “certain areas of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts [that are under Russian occupation], therefor my suggest to change the description to: “[…] Ukraine's legislation describes the territory controlled by the LPR as part of the "certain areas of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts [under Russian Occupation]" (abbreviated as "ORDLO") […]” as it is more describing of Ukrainian government position on the matter, as well as pointing out popular abbreviation “ORDLO”, that Ukrainian officials use to refer to the LPR. SovietLampa (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Also called certain areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions and abbreviated CADLR by the OSCE (example). —Michael Z. 20:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Luhansk Oblast fully occupied map change

According to the battle of donbass page on Wikipedia russia controlls the whole of the lugansg Oblast can someone please change the map — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4A43:427F:C9D7:D995:EAD6:3B9A:728E (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The map is problematic because the LNR has no recognized borders or even official ones of its own. It is a situation map showing Russian occupation, and not an orientation map showing LNR. A neutral map would show DLNR territory occupied between February 2015 and February 2022 and the Minsk line of contact (and might be useful if it showed some geographic context like cities, rivers, etcetera). —Michael Z. 20:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Lugansk not Luhansk since it is Russian official language not Ukrainian

It is Lugansk in Russian and Luhansk in Ukrainian, official language of Lugansk People’s Republic is Russian. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Please review the naming guideline WP:TITLE, and the talk archives of this page where the spelling was discussed multiple times. —Michael Z. 13:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

So we're just going to deny the people of Lugansk the correct spelling of their country, because of the political opinions of a few prominent Wikipedia editors? What about national sovreignty? We use the ridiculous "Kyiv" spelling that the Neo Nazi Maidan government insists on, should we not extend the same courtesy to the independence activists of Lugansk? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B08B:967A:3D4E:4C28:D7AB:56F6 (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it is the policy to use WP:COMMONNAME and in English sources it is most often spelled as "Luhansk". "Kyiv" spelling became 'insisted' by Ukrainian government in 1990s and "Kiev" was used on WP until 2020. Of course there are people 'insisting' on using "Odesa" and "Chornobyl" but there is the policy. Mellk (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

It was called Kiev everywhere until 2022 although yes that "spell it Kyiv" site has been around for a while. I see what you mean about the common name rule, I suppose it is the same story with Turkey vs Turkiye. Although I heard that was because Wikipedia considers the CIA world factbook a more reliable source than the UN, which is an insane policy created by insane pro-amerikkka shill administrators. But this honestly brings up a larger discussion of policy. Is it still "the most commonly used name" if the reason it's commonly used is because it's astroturfed by the media trying to sell a narrative? Let's be real, would "Luhansk" be the most common spelling, instead of the correct "Lugansk", if it wasn't being shoved down our throats by the anti-Russia media? I guess we just wait a couple years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B08B:967A:3D4E:4C28:D7AB:56F6 (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Russian, please stop your discussion

This is the end https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/07/13/the-president-likes-him-and-has-for-a-long-time Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Russian or LPR territory?

@Volunteer Marek: I know my edit summary probably sounded like I was editing based on the Russian position, but it was not meant that way. There is agreement in sources that this territory is no longer under Ukrainian control, and Ukraine has acknowledged its full withdrawal from the territory. The issue at hand I was trying to address is whether the territory recently captured should be regarded as belonging to the LPR (within the context maintained throughout the article, of course, that this is not recognized but the situation on the ground). As far as the Russian government is concerned, there is no conflict with the LPR position that it's theirs. And since this is a country article, not a war article, the article should reflect that Russia and the LPR, who are jointly in control of this territory, regard it as LPR territory. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 20:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of your edits was to construct and prop up the fiction that LNR is an independent state which is only receiving some aid from Russia. That’s POV. The territory is occupied by Russia. Volunteer Marek 21:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

No, that was not my intention. Considering that I added that the LPR is a puppet state to the infobox [2], I don't think that's a reasonable accusation of you to make. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I realize there's a lot of tankies to watch out for on these articles (I've had to deal with some of them myself and they are not pleasant), but I assure you I am not one of them. Inevitably, since we have decided to have this country article on Wikipedia, we will have to provide some information about the structure of the "government" they have established. Let's not be so aloof that we forget to have those conversations :) . ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, the main issue is the difference between descriptors such as "within LPR controlled territory" and "within the borders" of LPR. The second one suggests that it is a legitimate entity. Volunteer Marek 22:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see any difference between those statements in terms of legitimacy. If it can be interpreted that way, I have no problem with going with your preference there. I thought the argument was that there *are* borders of the LPR, but that they are only the Minsk Agreement ones. I thought a distinction was being drawn between areas that have been under LPR control since 2014 and recently-captured joint Russian-LPR areas, which didn't seem meaningful to me. I must have misinterpreted that. I certainly have no desire to imply any of this is legitimate. President Assad endorsing it is pretty much the opposite of legitimate. I simply want the article to reflect that the area under de facto control is now the full area they claim as theirs.

As far as the map, I think simply showing the whole Luhansk Oblast as the "location of the LPR in Europe" is appropriate, since it is already noted these are not legally-recognized borders, and the LPR is not a functioning independent entity, but the location is still encyclopedic. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a source that supports this map as “location of the LPR in Europe.” Russian and LPR leaders have made contradictory statements as to their claims.

@Dark4tune reverted deleted a {{cn}} tag without adding a reference with the summary “Removed a citation needed tag, as the area is controlled by both Russian and LPR forces.” I can make no sense of that.

Whatever the map represents must reflect reliable sources, and since this is not plainly stated nor uncontroversial, it should be referenced. —Michael Z. 23:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The claim to my understanding has been to "Luhansk". Luhansk Oblast has been around for a long time with its current borders. Also, immediately after the last village in the Oblast was captured, the LPR and Russia claimed the whole LPR had been "liberated" (I tried to add sources for this and the Ukrainian withdrawal but they were removed), which strongly suggests the Oblast is their claimed territory. Maps in RS tend to show the Oblast rather than a separate map for the LPR. Can you provide evidence that the LPR and Russia have made conflicting claims as to the territory? That would certainly be a problem for us but it's seemed to me they've been in lock step so far. If more specific claims have been made, we should examine them in detail. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tartan357, I’m not sure what source you’re referring to, but you appear to have attributed to the Russian MoD a twitter statement by Roscosmos quoted in a Guardian about flags in space. Sorry, but a tweet by supposedly a different country’s space agency that “strongly suggests the Oblast is their claimed territory” is not good enough, and it doesn’t trump what’s actually seen is reliable sources: every map during the last several years and up to this week in news and academic sources shows the territory behind the Minsk line of contact, typically labelled “controlled by Russian separatists” or the like.

This map is just the map of Luhansk oblast. If there is a reliable statement indicating the Russians or their proxies now claim Luhansk oblast, then show a map of “Luhansk oblast” and state that.

If reliable sources show a different map of “Russian-controlled areas” or “separatist controlled areas,” then present that,

But there is no cited map of “Location of the LPR in Europe” in WP:reliable sources, so I am tagging that map until one appears. —Michael Z. 00:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Here are some current maps:

• Institute for the Study of War (July 7)[3][4] Map shows “Russian-controlled Ukrainian Territory before Fubruary 24” and “Assessed Russian-controlled Ukrainian Territory.”
• New York Times (July 1):[5] various maps show “(Extent of) Russian advance,” “Previous Russian advance,” and “Russian advance since May 13,” “Russian-controlled areas,” “Occupied areas,” superimposed over Donetsk, Luhansk, and Donbas.
• New York Times (July 7)[6]
  • Location map shows settlements, Luhansk (oblast), Donetsk (oblast), Donbas, Ukraine, Russia, but no DLNR.
  • “Map provided by NASA” shows “Previously occupied by Russia” and “Newly controlled by Russia”
• Washington Post (July 7)[7] shows “Separatist-controlled area since 2014,” “area held by Russia-backed separatist before Feb. 2022,” “Russian-held areas and troop movements,” superimposed over location map of Ukraine with Donetsk and Luhansk cities or oblasts.
• Christian Science Monitor (July 6)[8] map shows “Area of Russian control” superimposed per map of Ukraine with Donbas oblast boundaries.
• The Guardian (May 15)[9] “Russian-controlled territory, 26 February,” “Separatist-controlled area,”
• AFP (July 5)[10] “Zone controlled by separatists before Russian offensive,” “Assessed Russian controlled,” etc.

Got tired of transcribing, but here’s more of the same:

• Aljazeera July 7[11]
• BBC July 4[12]

The fact is the DLNR are not real countries and do not have borders. Their constitutions are vague and the Russian government’s and Russian proxies’ claims morph constantly for negotiating and propaganda purposes. There is a state of war, territories occupied by the Russians with the participation of their proxy forces are changing constantly, and all that reliable sources are willing to say is what was occupied for seven years and what is occupied this week. In fact the trend since the open invasion is away from labelling territories “separatist-controlled” to “Russian-controlled” or “Russian-occupied.” —Michael Z. 01:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

What the sources establish is that both Moscow and the LPR claimed that the LPR was fully "liberated" once they took the last remaining town in the Oblast. That tells us their territorial claim is to the Oblast. The maps you listed are not really relevant to the country article we're discussing here; they have nothing to say about the territorial claims of the LPR, they are maps of the whole war. These are the passages I quoted:

From Russia:

Together, Russian troops and a Russian-backed separatist militia 'have established full control' over the city, a statement from Russia's defense ministry said. It represents 'the liberation of the Luhansk People's Republic,' the statement said, using the separatists' name for the self-proclaimed breakaway state.

From LPR:

Leonid Pasechnik, the leader of the Russian-backed self-proclaimed Luhansk People's Republic (LPR), declared the Luhansk region 'liberated.'

So we have (confirmed by Ukraine and other sources) that Lysychansk, the last city in the Oblast under Ukrainian control fell. Then, both the LPR and Russia tell us that represents the full claimed territory of the LPR being captured. If the argument you're making is that the claims may change, that is reasonable, and we can get rid of the map altogether if you are not satisfied that the borders are clear enough. But the claim from the LPR and the Russian MoD about having the full territory is there, as I said it was. And Ukraine has confirmed their withdrawal from these positions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This article can quote the claims.

Please include links when you quote sources. Your quotes are from articles originating in NPR[13] and CNN.[14] Both have maps that don’t support the map currently in this article.

I concur that the map should be removed, and I shall do so. —Michael Z. 04:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say it should be removed, I said we can remove it if that's what you want. The sourcing basis is not strong enough for me to stop you from removing it if you think that is necessary. However, I would encourage the application of common sense. Both the maps in my articles note they are from prior to the 2022 invasion, so are not relevant here. There is no requirement that our map be sourced to another map. It can be sourced to text. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dark4tune again removed some tags with an edit summary “Where are these reliable sources?” They are above, in my comment beginning with “here are some current maps.”

Please don’t delete valid “citation needed” tags, but find the citations instead. If you can’t do that, the statements don’t belong in Wikipedia.

And better to check the talk page and participate in a good-will discussion there than in pointed edit summaries during an edit war. —Michael Z. 14:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I realise that Wikipedia attempts to stay up to the minute, on topics. But when that topic is an ongoing war? things change rapidly, sometimes back-and-forth. Recommend restoring the page to its status quo & wait until the smoke clears or the war ends. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Well from what I have seen it appears that User Mzajac tries to influence the objectivity of multiple wikipedia pages concerning the Ukrainian-Russian conflict to one-sided views. In regards to the current discussion, the fact that a state is partially-recognised does not mean that its article will not include a map with the territory it currently controls (and/or claims). NickTheRipper (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the latter portion of your statement. But I would caution you against casting aspersions on the motives of a regular contributor on an article talk page. That is not helpful here, and such accusations should be kept to WP:ARBE. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@NickTheRipper, maps and their labels need to follow WP:RS as much as everything g else here. I’ve surveyed news sources above, and none of them support the map and label you are endorsing, nor your unsupported statement about control and claim.

Why don’t you just cite a map source instead of slagging me in comments? —Michael Z. 05:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand which of the two you dispute. 1) LPR claiming Luhansk Oblast as its legitimate territory or 2) LPR controling all of Luhansk Oblast (thus all of its claimed territory). NickTheRipper (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reference in the article that supports either statement?

As to 1) I believe Moscow and its LNR puppet have made vague and multiple contradictory claims, so please survey them and not just pick one; and 2) Russian forces, for about a week now, control all of Ukraine’s Luhansk oblast, so that does not mean that a map of Luhansk oblast is “location of the LPR in Europe,” and saying so is WP:OR. Neither illegitimate claims nor area of control in the middle of a war is “location of the LPR in Europe.”

The infobox should reflect current sources. The map should include the stable occupied territory of the last seven years, and it can include territory occupied by Russian forces and their proxies this week as well. It should also include context, so occupied DLNR and Crimea should be indicated, and if the current military situation is included then all of Russian-occupied Ukraine should be indicated, as practically all sources do.

There is no such thing as a stable border of the LPR according to reliable sources, and the “location map” should not pretend there is. The map should not be used as a way of turning cherry-picked claims plus the momentary Russian military situation into “location” as if this were a real country. Doing so violates WP:NPOV. —Michael Z. 18:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that we should show two maps. One map should be of the LPR and its claimed territories, whereas the other map should be of the wider Russian occupation of Ukraine. The status quo of the LPR in this article should be depicted as a constituent part of the wider Russian occupation of Ukraine. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources for maps of “the LPR and its claimed territories” or “the status quo of the LPR”? My point is that sources do not define this so it is not encyclopedic information. In fact the Russians have hedged their bets over eight years, so one can’t even consistently demonstrate Russian and separatist claims. —Michael Z. 17:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, not really, I can't. In that case, we should just have a map of the Russian occupation of Ukraine. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I.e. We need a map like the one in the infobox of this article. 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

1) I don't see how LPR claimed anything else than Luhansk Oblast as it's territory. 2) LPR is recognised by 2 UN members and not recognised by 191. That means that for them it is de jure non existent. However its de facto existence from 2014 is not up for dispute. The fact that it is a puppet state of and totally dependent on Russia doesn't mean that it doesn't exist (if that's what you are trying to say). Also, many states/puppet states were formed during wars so "in the middle of a war" doesn't mean anything (if you consider the war as having started in 2014). Btw I don't know what a "real country" is supposed to mean according to you as if Wikipedia is going to contain only these "real" (?) ones. NickTheRipper (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

We’re talking about maps. There is no reliable source giving a map or description of the boundaries of LNR claimed territory, much less a “location of LPR.” Reliable sources give “separatist-controlled territory before February 2022,” and they give “Russian-controlled territory” since, so that is what our maps should show.

Yes, Wikipedia should cover the DLNR. No, it should not fabricate maps of its boundaries, which are not only unrecognized, but completely undefined. —Michael Z. 19:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This is demonstrably false even if we restrict ourselves to using Western sources. Here's Financial Times showing the territory controlled by LNR in 2014 [15]. Alaexis_¿question? 19:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

So, those borders, as shown in a December 2014 FT Magazine “Life and Arts section” article are the ones you want to appear here? I object.

Is that the best source? Is it a good one? No. I produced a non-cherry picked survey above. Please show us something worth our time. —Michael Z. 22:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

You said "there is no reliable source giving a map or description of the boundaries of LNR claimed territory" and I need just one example to show it's not true. I don't suggest to use this map.

I think it's pretty much impossible to say for sure who (LNR or Russia directly) governs the formerly Ukrainian-controlled part of Luhansk oblast now. When it comes to the map and its caption I think we should say that LNR claims the entirety of Luhansk oblast and update the caption later when we have reliable sources reporting on the situation on the ground. Alaexis_¿question? 14:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That map does not show DLNR claimed territory. It shows territory occupied by combined Russian and proxy forces ca. December 2014. You are wrong about your example.

LNR claims the entirety of Luhansk oblast: citation needed.

There is no “governs.” The region is a war zone for over four months. The infobox location map, if included, should show stable information as shown by sources, which I’ve demonstrated above. The article could also show a campaign map, like the ones in the invasion and related battle articles, but that is not infobox material. —Michael Z. 22:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

There are pro-Ukrainian (that is western) and pro-Russian sources. I'm pretty sure I understand very well which of the two you consider "reliable". I would suggest to search for info about the LPR on the opposing side's sources. I say "you" because unfortunately I cannot help very much here as I do not know Russian compared to (I guess) you. Btw it is called just "Russian-controlled territory" because the Russian and Russian-backed forces have been mixed up in the whole area of operations. Also, LPR even if it was not recognised by anyone in the world (which it is apparently) does not mean that it doesn't have boundaries so please drop these arguments. I am trying to be as objective as possible so please don't be so obviously one sided and try to do the same. NickTheRipper (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

User:NickTheRipper, no, WP:reliable sources are determined as per our policies, for example WP:RSP, not by your WP:battleground definitions. If DLNR have defined borders, please provide some sources. It’s that simple. I’ve shown everyone here some respect by spending time researching sources and posting the material above, and all you’ve done is refuse to assume WP:good faith with accusations against me above (for which I await a retraction and apology), and try to convince us to adopt a WP:false balance or just use bad sources.

The point isn’t why you speculate that it’s called “Russian-controlled territory” in reliable sources: it’s that it’s called “Russian-controlled territory” in reliable sources. And we publish maps based on them, not on deductions from your speculation which constitute WP:original research. —Michael Z. 22:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources according to ...you? Who defines reliable sources? We define them. Through research and talk. There is no list of "reliable" sources. Also spamming WP: articles doesn't help either. NickTheRipper (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

My “spam” above literally includes a list. —Michael Z. 22:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"LPR claims and controls the entirety of Luhansk Oblast"

In the lead of the article, it says that Luhansk People's Republic "claims and controls the entirety of Ukraine's Luhansk Oblast". Now, while I don't think it can be disputed that LPR claims Luhansk, I think it is a bit of a synthesis to say that the LPR controls the entire Luhansk Oblast. Indeed, I would say that it is actually the Russian Federation that controls most of Luhansk Oblast (especially outside of the pre-2022 line of contact). The idea that LPR controls this territory exclusively, without Russian involvement, is dubious to say the least. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It is indeed original research and synthesis. Volunteer Marek 19:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Reworded. I assume the intent was to communicate that Russia considers it LNR territory, but that should be stated directly rather than passed on uncritically. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 20:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Excellently done. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

I've already added the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to the formation timeline of the Luhansk People's Republic, and I've also mentioned the invasion in detail in both the lead and the foreign relations/recognition section. (Albeit without too many sources at this point in time.)

The reason for this is that I believe that the invasion of Ukraine as a whole (bearing in mind that Donbas was the first stage of the invasion of Ukraine) has polarised public opinion in the international community against Russia. In the past, I believe that a lot of countries were indifferent to the situation in the Donbas, not diplomatically recognising the DPR/LPR but also not particularly enthusiastic about helping Ukraine take back the territory either, and not particularly willing to stand up against Russia on behalf of the Ukrainians.

After the 2022 invasion, the international community has been shocked to the core by the absolute brutality of the Russian state, government, and military against the Ukrainians, especially given that in the "information age", so much footage of the invasion has been broadcast around the world for everyone to see in real time.

The invasion of Ukraine is therefore absolutely critical to the political statuses and political formation timelines of both the LPR and DPR. It is also important to mention that Russia officially recognised these two statelets only three days before launching the invasion. As such, it's pretty difficult to argue that these two events are not directly connected. Furthermore, Russia's leader Vladimir Putin cited the "Ukrainian brutality" against LPR and DPR as one of the main reasons for launching his invasion of Ukraine. Further still, the LPR and DPR militaries have been fighting hand-in-hand with Russia against Ukraine in the war, so both of these two statelets are direct co-belligerents. On top of this, the territorial situations of the LPR and DPR have changed as a consequence of the war, at least at the time that I'm writing this comment; the LPR and DPR are claiming (parts of) the new territories that have been occupied by Russia during the war.

This is my reasoning for going into so much detail about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in my recent *bold* edits to the article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

'frozen conflict' in the lead

There is no source supporting the wording in the lead. The reference in the body quotes opinion of a Ukrainian politician about the result of alleged elections. We need an another reference or the words should be removed from the lead or the context explained. Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It can be improved. My understanding is it remained a “low level conflict,” with the tempo controlled by the Russian side, but never actually frozen. Some sources point out that over half the 14k killed occurred after the end of the “active phase” in February 2015. —Michael Z. 13:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the few words from the lead. Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I was the one who originally added that sentence. I have no major objections. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Establishment timeline + Administrative divisions

I've removed both the 2022 invasion AND the Russian recognition from the establishment timeline. The only reason for including the former was in order to provide context for the latter. If one of them is to be removed, then both of them are to be removed. Simple. Now, I have an enquiry about the first two events in the timeline. How is it the case that the LPR was established *before* the independence referendum took place? Logically, if the referendum was legitimate (which, I don't think it was anyway, but I digress), then the referendum should have taken place *before* the state itself was established. So, to me, the first "established" event doesn't make sense and should be revised.

As for the administrative divisions, if we can't even agree on the LPR's administrative divisions before the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, then how can we agree on the LPR's administrative divisions after the 2022 invasion? Has anyone been able to identify "official" documents that explicitly outline the claimed borders of the LPR? At the present time, we can barely establish the territories that the LPR controls, let alone claims. The main issue with identifying the territories that are controlled by the LPR is that it can easily be argued that Russia actually controls all of the territory that the LPR seemingly occupies, as I've mentioned in the section "LPR claims and controls the entirety of Luhansk Oblast" above. So, clearly, there's no point in trying to identify which territories the LPR actually occupies, and it is indeed a more fruitful pursuit to figure out exactly which territories the LPR claims. According to what I've read, the LPR seems to claim the entire Luhansk Oblast, but it's not entirely clear whether this is official or not. But I'm pretty sure that the LPR doesn't ONLY claim the territories that it controlled prior to the 2022 invasion. That seems unrealistic. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

In reply to myself, I've watched the videos that were cited, and it does seem pretty clear that the separatists had declared the "establishment of the LPR" on April 27, before the referendum had even taken place (which highlights just how much of a farce this entire situation is). With that being said, I believe that this event is better described as the "Declaration/Declared" or "Proclamation/Proclaimed", rather than as "established". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Further in reply to myself, it seems that the "independence referendum" event is also inaccurately described. The actual question in the referendum was "do you agree to the establishment of the LPR?" ("yes" or "no"), which had already been proclaimed two weeks earlier. Indeed, this means that the voters were being asked to agree to the establishment of the LPR which had already been proclaimed, rather than to support the establishment of the LPR in the future. So, by definition, this was not actually an independence referendum. I've changed the description to "consensus referendum". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac - Looking at the establishment timeline for Taiwan (aka the Republic of China), the first detail that stick out to me is that the timeline is actually described as "formation" rather than "establishment". The word "formation" doesn't simply mean "how does a country gain territory and legitimacy?" but also "how does a country lose territory and legitimacy?". I think this is the part that is confusing you in particular, since you were the editor who (I think, mistakenly) challenged the notion that the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine should be a part of the establishment timeline. The invasion was actually in the timeline in order to provide context about the formation of the LPR, rather than to somehow legitimize its formation. The problem with your synthesis of the timeline is that you think it should only include positive events, whereas I believe that it should include both positive and negative events, i.e. events supporting the LPR's creation and events negating the LPR's creation. In Taiwan's formation timeline, there are both events supporting its creation (e.g. republic declared) and events opposing its creation (e.g. loss of UN representation). So, I think you really need to consider these details. Otherwise, we can be pedantic about half of the contents of this article or more, because a lot of it can be misinterpreted in a similar manner. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

That is interesting g food for though and I don’t disagree. And your latest edits look good to me. But ultimately, things listed as establishment or formation events should be ones that reliable sources say are such. —Michael Z. 03:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The "Luhansk People's Republic" in the topic of this article does not exist

The "Luhansk People's Republic" in the topic of this article does not exist. The article should get deleted and the contents moved to some article on Russia's efforts to take over a part of Ukraine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, it obviously does exist - it's just a puppet state, which is what the article says. — Czello 08:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not even a puppet state. People are trying to create or get acknowledgement for a (puppet) state, via various methods, including via making a Wikipedia article title which presumes / implies that it exists. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This should be renamed to Russian occupation of the Luhansk region of Ukraine and then efforts to create the puppet state can be covered within that article. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not some kind of unique situation. We have articles for other states which have not enjoyed widespread recognition and/or have been described as puppet states, like Independent State of Croatia (alongside World War II in Yugoslavia) and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Alaexis_¿question? 16:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is not necessarily a puppet state. Indeed, it can be described as a client state of Turkey, but implying that it's a puppet state means that you believe that the native Turkish Cypriots do not at all desire any kind of self-determination. From what I can tell, the dispute between Turkish and Greek Cypriots is actually fairly genuine, even though the creation of the TRNC with the assistance of Turkey was illegal (or at the very least, it was an unnecessary escalation of an already dire situation). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Puppet state --> A fake state created by an expansionist empire to control a region that belongs to another country.

Client state --> A weak but independent state that relies heavily on a patron state in order to remain independent and structurally viable.

The difference: A puppet state has no genuine desire for self-determination, and it is nothing more than an extension of a larger empire that controls it. On the other hand, a client state genuinely desires independence for itself, but it is just too weak to attain this on its own without the help of a nearby superpower. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I have often wondered whether the DLNR articles should be merged into a single Eastern Ukraine separatists or Donbas separatists article. Much of the content in these two is identical, and what differentiates them is a few statistics and a raft of factoids that aren’t supported by reliable sources. I am sceptical that either one independently meets basic WP:notability requirements. Is there a single book about the eight-year-old “Luhansk People’s Republic”? —Michael Z. 16:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about book-length treatments but there are plenty of research articles about DPR judging by google scholar results. Alaexis_¿question? 16:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO. The main issue is the wording of the title which implicitly states that what the Russians are attempting to do has already happened. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

In how many is the main subject the LNR itself?[16] —Michael Z. 17:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

About a dozen in English if you add the Russian spelling (Lugansk) and exclude the words "Donetsk People's Republic". Btw I don't think it's a good idea. Even in an article about LPR you're likely to find some mention of DPR. Alaexis_¿question? 17:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Good catch: better search with Luh/gansk. But, for example, a paper on “representation of the mechanism of innovative development of agricultural enterprises” does not attest to general notability of the LNR. One paper treats it as a subject of propaganda and its conclusion casts doubt on it as an independent concept and identity. A copy of the LNR constitution is not a secondary source, and several look dubious as independent or reliable sources. —Michael Z. 17:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine War: Armed Formations of the Donetsk People's Republic will be published soon [17]. It's not about Lugansk People's Republic but it shows that books are being written about individual republics. Alaexis_¿question? 20:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

That’s about an armed formation and not a republic, and slightly WP:CRYSTAL since it’s not in print. But okay, you’ve proven that in principal someone could write a book about the LNR. That only proves that in principal, the subject could hypothetically pass WP:N in the future.

But the question is, is there a single book in print on the Luhansk People’s Republic as main subject? —Michael Z. 00:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Very good point there. I have also commented in the article "list of states with limited recognition" that Donetsk and Luhansk PRs behave almost as a single unit. Nominally, they are separate, but functionally, they are basically two constituent parts of a single unit. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Among all of the separatist or otherwise unrecognised republics around the world, I think Luhansk and Donetsk are two of the most universally understood to be largely built on fabricated foundations. For starters, the Donetsk and Luhansk republics have only existed since 2014, which is relatively recent. This is especially when comparing them to the other post-Soviet breakaway states, which have all existed since the 1990s. Notably, the 1990s was not just a period when the de facto states were established but also when all of the normal sovereign states were established, including both Ukraine and Russia themselves. So, the fact that regions like Artsakh and Abkhazia broke away during that time period is not particularly unusual considering that the entire Soviet Union was fragmenting into many pieces at the same time. Artsakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and even Transnistria all have histories of some kind of separatism. On the other hand, the entire concept of Donetsk/Luhansk separatism was invented by Russia in the post-Cold War Era. There was no such sentiment prior to this period, which lends doubt as to how much of a grassroots movement it really is. Indeed, certain leaders within the Luhansk/Donetsk separatist republics are expatriates from Russia itself, so they are the definition of a fifth column inside of Ukraine, committing treason on behalf of their Russian puppet masters. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

One should also pay close attention to the fact that, in the context of Russia's artificial separatist narrative about Donetsk/Luhansk, they have manufactured an "Uti possidetis juris" framework with which to demarcate the boundaries of the so-called republics. The boundaries of the republics are deemed to align with the provincial borders (oblasts) of Ukraine itself. This theory leads one to suspect that Russia intends the same fate for Ukraine's various other oblasts. If Russia ever gets to opportunity to do so, expect to see a "Kharkiv People's Republic", "Kherson People's Republic", and "Zaporizhzhia People's Republic" in the future. It doesn't really make sense that the individual provinces of Ukraine would each want to become separate independent countries from one another (as opposed to simply changing the entire regime of Ukraine to being pro-Russia), but logic doesn't matter when you have nukes, apparently. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The point is that it is a possible future entity which the Russians are trying to force/talk into existence which the majority of the world considers to be non-existent. Wikipedia should cover it as such. An article title which implies otherwise should not exist. North8000 (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

What about the title "implies otherwise"? We have articles on Tamil Eelam and Ambazonia (among others), and neither article suggests they are actual countries. WP:NHOAX even allows notable hoaxes under their titles as long as they are "described" as hoaxes. Explanation of what the subject is goes in the lead. The title is only for identification purposes. WP:POVNAME reinforces that the most common name for the entity should be used even if it contains non-neutral language. Change the lead if you feel it is inaccurate, but the only reason to change the title is if there's clearly a more common title. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam and Ambazonia are actually both infinitely more plausible and genuine as independent states than Donetsk and Luhansk are. I mean, does anyone actually look at Donetsk and Luhansk and think "yep, two absolutely normal, independent countries"? It is plain as day that Donetsk and Luhansk are simply the two newest Russian provinces, lagging a little bit behind Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014, at the same time that the Donetsk and Luhansk republics were declared independent. Indeed, I would personally not bat an eyelid if either Tamil Eelam or Ambazonia actually become independent countries. On the other hand, both of my eyebrows are raised when it comes to the present situation with Donetsk and Luhansk. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The poor oppressed Russians, who possess... the biggest country on the entire planet. Literally right next door. This is part of why I don't really believe the narrative of "Russian minority needs protection from UkroNazis". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Do not cast aspersions on my motives. I have not spoken of "UkroNazis" or "poor oppressed Russians". I have merely addressed the concern that we cannot have an article with this title. The point is being a puppet state or even an imaginary state does not prevent an article if the subject is notable. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I've not cast any aspersions on your motives. I merely pointed out that the Donetsk and Luhansk republics are imaginary, so they should be treated differently from any other apparent secessionist republics. Donetsk and Luhansk were fabricated by Russia in the 2014 invasion, alongside the "Republic of Crimea", which Russia annexed shortly after it had been established. It is indeed insulting to Ambazonia and the Tamil Eelam that you would compare Donetsk/Luhansk to them. In Ambazonia, for example, people have died fighting for their right to exist. On the other hand, in Donetsk and Luhansk, the militias there are fighting to subjugate Ukraine to Russian imperial rule. These are two very different scenarios. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's keep personal opinions about the merits of different separatist movements out of this. Whether their motives are righteous has no bearing on whether they get an article (WP:RGW), what matters is the level of discussion in sources and political impact. Neither Ambazonia and Tamil Eelam exist (nor do they have any international recognition), yet they are undoubtedly encyclopedic topics because they are heavily-discussed in sources and highly relevant to the political situations of those countries. Coverage of the LNR and DNR is pretty crucial to understanding that attempted Russian subjugation of Ukraine; I don't get the argument that we should just delete articles and pretend this isn't happening. The article can be restructured heavily, but no compelling reason has been put forth for deletion. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 20:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The article title does not imply or legitimize existence more with this article than it does with the Unicorn article. It is the task of the article proper to discuss these matters (by speaking of mythical creatures or quasi/puppet states). Hagman (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem occurs elsewhere in Wikipedia. The situations are things like trying to create / rename an entity based on a viewpoint, or via working at coining a term, or an article that is really about a term but appears to be about the entity. Then covering the created "entity" as an entity (starting with the article naming) vs. what it actually is is inherently 100% POV'ish. This material needs to get covered under a different title or article. North8000 (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe you have hit the nail on the head. This article should really be about "The Russian occupation of Donbas", and the "Donetsk & Luhansk People's Republics" should be regarded as "Proposed sovereign states within the territory of Russian-occupied Donbas". The fundamental problem with this article is that it is assuming that the "Donetsk & Luhansk People's Republics" already de facto exist because they apparently have control of the territories that they claim. Indeed, it is actually Russia who has de facto control of the territories that are claimed by Donetsk and Luhansk. If anything, this classifies Donetsk and Luhansk as "de facto Russian-annexed territories", even though they haven't yet been de jure annexed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

For a reference point, just look at the Republic of Crimea. Crimea is in a very similar situation to Donetsk and Luhansk, having declared itself independent from Ukraine (in a campaign that was directly orchestrated by Russia, mind you) at the same time that the Donbas republics did. The only difference is that Russia officially annexed Crimea immediately after its declaration of independence, whereas Russia instead decided to keep the Donbas republics as a "snack for later". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping us from completely restructuring the article, changing the first sentence to something like "the LNR is a proposed breakaway state in Eastern Ukraine established as a puppet by the Russian government to justify its invasion" or something like that. Nobody has explained why the title implies it's a functional sovereign state. We can and do have articles on proposals, hoaxes, etc. as long as they are notable. And the LNR/DNR are crucial to understanding the pretext for the invasion. I agree it looks a bit too much like a polished country article (though I think that is more due to naïve editors being excited by the chance to build a country article from the ground up than anything politically insidious), and needs a massive overhaul. Perhaps removing the infobox would help. I would also support merging the LNR and DNR articles into "Luhansk and Donetsk people's republics" since much of the information is the same. Under our guidelines, though, the title is rarely a means of resolving concerns about the neutrality of an article. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 20:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

These are all great proposals. I believe that the Donetsk and Luhansk republics should still exist as independent articles in terms of entities that "nominally exist". However, the title of the combined article could be something like "Separatist republics in Donbas". If the DNR and LNR aren't notable enough as individual entities (separate from one another), then they can both be included with the aforementioned article under subheadings. Don't forget also, as I've pointed out above, that Russia also seemingly intends to create new separatist republics in the other areas that it is occupying. It has occupied nearly all of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia (Mariupol's province), as well as a significant portion of Kharkiv province (but not the city itself). If Russia can manage to get the ball rolling, in the near future, we may see the establishment of new PRs for at least Kherson and Zaporizhzhia (but not Kharkiv). Presumably, after these two imaginary states spring out of nowhere, they will potentially be eligible to be added into this aforementioned article under their own subheadings. All of these PRs are part of the same Russian-backed campaign to divide and conquer Ukraine's provinces. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I think every experienced Wikipedian understands that chances that one of these articles (DPR or LPR) gets deleted, or that the two articles get merged, are exactly zero. Not just small but zero. It is up to you guys if you find entertaining to continue discussing it, just wanted to say what the result of this discussion would be. Anybody who does not believe me is welcome to AfD or open a merge request. Ymblanter (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You are correct, which is why you see me pushing back on the idea of attempting deletion or an RM. Restructuring the article is much more practical; there is a cohort of Wikipedians that cares a lot about having these articles at the current titles, but does not have strong opinions on their content. I think a merge is unlikely to be successful (this may change if more republics are formed in the scenario Jargo has described), but stating where I'm personally willing to go is important to finding common ground. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps this problem can be mostly fixed by wording changes. Remove wording that refers to it as an existent state. Use wording that treats it as a term of something that proponents are trying to create or talk into existence. An example on how to do this is Gay agenda A substantial article, and nowhere does the artile refer to "gay agenda" as an existent entity. North8000 (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

With the Donetsk and Luhanks PRs, there are only a few concrete details that we have to work with.

1) The DPR and LPR both proclaimed their independence/sovereignty in April 2014. Referendums were held a few weeks later, asking the citizens of the occupied areas to agree or disagree to the proclamation of the two PRs.

2) Ukraine lost control of the pre-2022 DPR and LPR territories in 2014. <-- It is unclear whether the territories ever came under direct DPR/LPR rule or were simply occupied by Russia and only became nominally parts of the DPR/LPR.

3) Ukraine lost control of the rest of LPR (Luhansk Oblast) and a bigger portion of the DPR (Donetsk Oblast) in the aftermath of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine up until July 2022 so far. <-- It is again unclear whether Russia or the DPR/LPR is the primary occupational force in both the pre-2022 DPR/LPR territories and the entire Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. It is also unclear exactly what territories/borders are claimed by the DPR/LPR.

Overall, based on this analysis of the formation timeline of the DPR and LPR by me, we can see that (1) it is unclear what territories the DPR/LPR claim, (2) it is unclear exactly how much of the DPR/LPR territories are controlled by the DPR/LPR as opposed to Russia, (3) it is clear that the two PRs declared independence/sovereignty at a definite date, regardless of the legitimacy, and (4) it is clear that Ukraine has lost control of the territories that are claimed by the DPR/LPR and are under Russian occupation, regardless of whether these territories are actually parts of the DPR/LPR or not. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I've also forgotten the detail that Russia, North Korea and Syria have officially recognised the sovereignty of the DPR/LPR. South Ossetia and Abkhazia have also recognised the DPR/LPR, but they don't really count because they are breakaway states (they are only important to a very small degree).

It is not clear exactly what Russia, North Korea and Syria have recognised. Maybe those three countries can point us in the direction of an official map, outlining the official borders that are claimed by the DPR/LPR. That would be very helpful indeed, and it would solve one of our main problems, that being that we don't even know the exact borders that are being claimed by the DPR/LPR. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Russia regognized DPR and LPR in the administrative borders of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts, respectively. This is in the text of the law and there are also plenty of sources reporting this in February. Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Right, then I'm not sure why this has been opposed by @Mzajac. I too was under the impression that Russia had recognised the DPR and LPR within the borders of the entire Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Which law, enacted by what entity, is that referring to, and where can we read the text? Which reliable secondary sources say so? I have reviewed relevant documents cited in this article, and elsewhere, and can’t find anything of the sort. —Michael Z. 15:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

An article by Moscow Times back in February 2022 says it, although this article itself doesn't necessarily cite reliable sources. Meanwhile, there are certain primary sources that seem to support this. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Which article says what? This is controversial and primary sources are self-contradictory. Please provide reliable secondary sources. —Michael Z. 17:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Moscow Times is actually an independent Russian newspaper, not a Russian-state newspaper. The name is a bit misleading, but I've reviewed it and it seems to be an oppositional group.

This is the article in question: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/02/22/russia-backs-ukraine-separatists-full-territorial-claims-a76526 Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You mean this one?[18] It quotes Putin lying about the content of the LNR constitution. It doesn’t say what the borders are. —Michael Z. 17:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Putin's position is still an official position from one perspective. "Putin lying" isn't really a convincing argument when this entire facade has probably been orchestrated by the man himself. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Zelenskyy’s position is an official one from another perspective. Let’s base the location map on his statements. This is a waste of time. The DLNR have no officially defined borders, multiple contradictory territorial claims, and a foreign military occupation that just openly stated it’s planning to conduct régime change and occupy and annex as much of Ukraine as it can.

There are no official borders in this mess. The location map should reflect maps in reliable secondary sources.

Whatever concrete changes you are proposing, spell them out with proposed text and citations, because this is just chat going round in circles. —Michael Z. 18:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

If there are no defined borders of the LPR and DPR, then both articles should be deleted. Is that what you are proposing? Because you seem to be saying that we have (1) no borders, and (2) no control. If the DPR and LPR simultaneously lack borders and control, then this means they theoretically don't exist. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

This one says that Putin stated that Russia recognized DPR and LPR in the administrative boundaries of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts. This is clearly a reliable source, and Putin certainly has the authority to make such statements. Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that source is good enough as a citation, although it's in Russian. I will add it to the intro of the article now. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay. And as I said, that is not a secondary source attesting to the borders. It is quoting an unreliable source who recently changed his position. It is what borders he says he recognizes now, not what he recognized for eight years, and certainly not what reliable sources consider the borders to be.

RS consistently refer to these as the administrative borders of Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts,[19] not as borders of any republics. —Michael Z. 14:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Describing the DPR and the LPR as a "de facto state" (Luhansk entry)

I've created a talk section about this topic over at Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#Describing the DPR and the LPR as a "de facto state". The same reasoning applies for both the DPR and the LPR. Essentially, I am arguing that the DPR and LPR don't actually qualify as de facto states, despite being officially recognised by Russia, North Korea, and Syria, because they don't actually exercise effective sovereignty (control/governance) over the territories that they claim. I am arguing that Russia is the supreme sovereign over the territory that they claim, which makes them primarily puppet states of Russia rather than true independent de facto states. The articles "list of states with limited recognition" and "quasi-state" are also important to this discussion. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Luhansk PR map

I believe we should present two maps in the infobox for the Luhansk People's Republic, or otherwise have two maps laid on top of each other. One map needs to show Luhansk PR's borders between April 2014 (or February 2015) and February 2022. The other needs to show Luhansk PR's most recent borders after February 2022. With that being said, the new borders need to have the disclaimer "controlled by both Russia and the LPR", because it seems pretty evident at the moment that the LPR does not exercise full authority over these territories as opposed to Russia. The reason for showing the old borders of the Luhansk PR is that most reliable sources have depicted the LPR in this way for the past 6-7 years because that's how the borders looked throughout that time period up until 2022. Most reliable sources have also depicted the pre-2022 borders as the "pre-2022 front lines" of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Obviously, the front lines have changed since then, but the original front lines are still noteworthy. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The exact same applies to the Donetsk People's Republic (Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#Donetsk PR map). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this approach makes sense, at least in the short term, until LPR is annexed by Russia, conquered by Ukraine or somehow stabilises in the new borders. Alaexis_¿question? 05:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Image file page for the current map of the Luhansk (Lugansk) People's Republic

Some crazy stuff is currently happening at the image file page for the current map of the Luhansk People's Republic (called "Lugansk" in that link) --> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Location_of_Lugansk_People%27s_Republic.png. The map has two versions, and different editors keep switching them out for one another. At the moment, the current info-box of the Luhansk PR is displaying one version of the map from the outside, but another version of the map when you click on the image to enlarge it. Also, the outside version is warped. Someone has suggested at the image file page that we should split the two image files apart and present both of them at this page. One of them shows the full Luhansk Oblast overlaid onto the pre-2022 LPR front lines, whereas the other shows the Luhansk Oblast's location in Europe. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Right. Seems an editor overwrote the original location maps with maps showing only DPR/LPR, in violation of Commons guidelines and against the filename. I've restored one of the images. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Under the command of Russian officers

@Alaexis removed the text stating that DLNR forces were “under the command of Russian officers” with the edit summary “I don't think anyone disputes they are subordinated to the Russian forces but I don't see any mention of Russian officers leading D/LNR militias in your quote).” Say what?

Short excerpts from the three cited sources (there’s a bit more on this in the first source):

1. From the battalion level up, Russian officers now command the separatist units, with former local commanders sometimes acting as deputies. As a result of the reorganisation, major DNR players like Zakharchenko and Khodakovsky have lost control over most of their large, well-armed personal forces. Some local leaders say that since reorganisation, even their access to former military units is limited. A politician and brigade commander told a recent visitor he had difficulty travelling to the front line: Russians were in command, and access was “complicated”. (p 8)
2. The 8th CAA also reportedly commands the separatist units in the Russia-controlled regions of eastern Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk). (p 2) – “Commands” necessarily involves officers, and in the 8th Combined Arms Army they are Russian officers.
3. The 8th CAA was reestablished in Rostov region at the end of 2016 with the 150th Motor Rifle Division and two corps in occupied parts of Donbas under its control.[20]

(Incidentally, it’s technically command, not leading. Leadership is conducted by senior NCOs and junior officers at the lowest section, platoon, and perhaps company level.)

I can only guess that Alaexis missed or completely misinterpreted this text in the three sources. There is no reason not to restore my original text, which is unequivocally supported. —Michael Z. 15:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think we just need to make sure that the wording reflects what the sources say. You wrote "militia formations ... were under the command of Russian officers." This can be understood as if all the officers are Russian which is not what the sources say (and probably not what you meant). The ICC article is quite specific saying that "From the battalion level up, Russian officers now command the separatist units." We already say that the militias are subordinated to the Russian forces, so further details should probably be added to the Military section. Alaexis_¿question? 19:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for breaking it down: that is helpful. So I analyze this as two things:

1. The two army corps are subordinate to the 8 CAA.
2. Russian officers command formations and units in the corps, at the corps, divisional, brigade, and unit (regiment/battalion) levels.

The previous wording was accurate, although not perfectly clear and possibly understating how much foreign military pervades the command structure. It can be clarified as:

Both LPR and DPR's militia corps fighting in the invasion are reportedly subordinated to Russia's 8th Combined Arms Army, and commanded by Russian officers within the upper levels of their ranks.

Yeah, the “Military” section needs to be completely rewritten based on reliable sources. —Michael Z. 21:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, the ICC report dates to 2016. There were at least two local brigade level commanders in 2022: Alexander Khodakovsky [21] and Olga Kachura. Alaexis_¿question? 20:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you implying that indicates that the Crisis Group report is wrong because not every single commanding officer was a Russian officer? Firstly, there may have been exceptions.

Maybe it is the case. But that source does say “with former local commanders sometimes acting as deputies,” and I suspect these acting deputies may have been nominal commanders, because, obviously, the Russian state was denying they had any soldiers in Ukraine at all (except when they weren’t, as when Putin admitted “people in the military sphere”). Khodakovsky had been trusted to hold the post of “defence minister” for a while, and he may have been an exception.

I’m just speculating, and you’d need more information. Specifically, reliable sources that contradict these sources. —Michael Z. 21:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's wrong. It was published in 2016 and describes the situation then. I don't know if something has changed or not since then. There are at least two local senior commanders but I don't know if it's an exception or the rule. It would be good to find more up-to-date sources, but in their absence the most we can write is

“ By 2016 Russian officers commanded the separatist units from the battalion level up. The former commanders, some of whom retained substantial personal security forces, sometimes acted as deputy commanders. ”

Details like this belong to the Military subsection. Probably Khadakovsky should me mentioned in the DPR article. Alaexis_¿question? 08:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Recognition and change of the description.

Currently described as “[…] is a breakaway puppet quasi-state located in Ukraine, […]”. With recognition of independence from now 2 countries (Russian Federation and Syrian Arab Republic) that are members of United Nations, suggestion should be made to change description to “is a breakaway partially recognised state in Eastern Europe” with inclinations of being [puppet regime] and nature of being [pro-Russian separatists] being moved in another section of the article.

Currently this article’s intro is heavily biased compared to other breakaway states, Kosovo for example, which description is “Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a |partially recognised| state in Southeast Europe.”

SovietLampa (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

International recognition of Kosovo, though not universal, is very far away from the international recognition of DPR/LPR. There is no way the mention these are occupied parts of Ukrainian territory must be omitted from the lede. This is how they are referred to by all reliable sources. Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Er, I would strongly object to that claim. By all accounts, Donetsk and Luhansk are considered to be puppet states of Russia, more so than any other disputed territory that Russia is involved in. For example, there are indeed some sources that describe Artsakh as a Russian puppet state, but in reality, the situation is more complex there. Even in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria, the situation is not exactly black-and-white with regards to these territories being Russian puppet states or not. On the other hand, in Donetsk and Luhansk, it is clear that they are unequivocally puppet states of Russia. There is not another more appropriate way to describe them. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This isn’t really a matter of personal belief on how far away said recognition gets. These entities are recognized as states by 2 members of United Nations, they are by the fact are partially recognised.

It doesn’t matter is it 97 countries recognizing it (like in case of Kosovo) or just 2 (like in case of LPR and DPR) and therefor their description should be changed to partially recognised countries. Them being occupied territories or not is another topic and has nothing to do with how international law views recognition of statehood SovietLampa (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not a matter of personal belief, this is a matter of how reliable sources report the issue. There are no reliable sources not calling them puppet states / occupied territories and zero reliable sources calling them independent partially recognized states. In the case of Kosovo, there are plenty of sources calling it independent / partially recognized state. Ymblanter (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Donetsk and Luhansk are currently recognised as sovereign states by three UN member states. However, this recognition from these three countries does not automatically render Donetsk and Luhansk NOT puppet states. If anything, it reinforces the idea that they are puppet states, given that the main state that has recognised them, i.e. Russia, is also the main state that is marching into Ukrainian territory alongside them with its military forces. And North Korea is not exactly a paragon of virtue; North Korea itself is practically a client state of Russia and China. The Syrian central government is also effectively itself a client state of Russia. And South Ossetia too is a client state (quasi-state) of Russia. So, three Russian client states and the Russian occupiers of Ukrainian territory have recognised Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states... What's new? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is a an official governmental document [publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001202202220001?ysclid=l52awharu448236851] that confirms the fact that at least one member of United Nations Organization considers Luhansk People’s Republic as sovereign independent country. I do not suggest removing puppet state / occupied territories status, I am suggesting changing international status from unrecognized state to partially recognized one. Let’s not go WP:MARG on this matter, your argumentation is not neutral at all. SovietLampa (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

For obvious reasons we don't consider Russian government documents to be reliable, and we certainly don't allow them to take priority over independent sources. — Czello 10:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Acording to wikipedia criteria to be a country in the list of states with limited recognition:

"The criteria for inclusion mean that a polity must claim sovereignty, lack recognition from at least one UN member state, and either:

satisfy the declarative theory of statehood, or be recognised as a state by at least one UN member state.

Donets and Lugansk peoples republics meet this criteria, so why are not called states with limited recognition? If they are not considered lets change the inclusion criteria in the wikipedia page for states with limited recognition. DrYisus (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Ultimately what label is given to these states comes from what sources call them. Anything else is WP:OR. — Czello 18:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Is not original research, there are plenty of RS (bbc, the guardian etc) that say Russia and Syria recognised DPR and LPR. So if you are recognised by at leadt one UN country you are a state with limited recognition. I think is ok call this countries puppets of russia, but also they are partially recognised countries. And they should be called this way.DrYisus (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

No, this is original research. BBC does not call them partially recognized countries, they call them at best puppet states. Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying BBC said they are. I was talking about the definition. If you are recognised by one UN states you are partialy recognised, by the proper definition of the term. Why are we arguing this nonsense?DrYisus (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Because it's WP:OR. We need sources that explicitly call them partially recognised. We can't use that label ourselves based on our own interpretation of what it means. — Czello 13:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It's actually a synthesis to say that these two states are "partially-recognised states" on account of being recognised by a few countries. Even though we can objectively see that they have been recognised by these three countries, there are no reliable sources that describe them as a "partially-recognised state". At best, Donetsk and Luhansk can be described as "partially-recognised quasi-states". I don't think there is necessarily an objection to the descriptor "partially-recognised", but the descriptor "state" is particularly problematic. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You are correct in that the Wikipedia article itself has problems. The problem with describing Donetsk and Luhansk as "states with limited recognition" is that they might not necessarily qualify as "states" per se, even though they are recognised as such by a well-established sovereign state, that being Russia (and also Syria and North Korea). There's a very strong argument to be made that Donetsk and Luhansk are not in fact (sovereign) states but are instead quasi-states. This means they are something resembling a proper state, but they lack the necessary characteristics to be fully described as a state. In my view, Donetsk and Luhansk are still quasi-states, which is how they have been classified on Wikipedia all the way from their creation in 2014 up until their recognition from Russia in 2022. After being recognised from Russia, they were promoted by Wikipedians to the status of "de facto state", even though nothing tangible has changed in their day-to-day sovereign activities, outside of the recognition from Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus isn’t called a quasi-state puppet.

This seems like a heavily biased article. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, that's because the sources for Northern Cyprus call it a "de facto state". The sources for this article call it a "breakaway puppet quasi-state". As always, Wikipedia goes with what the sources say. — Czello 13:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus is a heck of a lot older than Donetsk-&-Luhansk, not to mention significantly more legitimate. According the TRNC's Wikipedia page, its history of foundation stretches from 1974 to 1983, and it has effectively been an independent state since then. Indeed, Northern Cyprus has actually engaged with the Republic of Cyprus on an almost state-to-state level basis, particularly during negotiations on the joint future of the island. The issue became especially pressing after Cyprus was admitted into the European Union, and then it became the EU's problem to try and help to resolve the dispute. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

For obvious reasons we don't consider Russian government documents to be reliable, and we certainly don't allow them to take priority over independent sources. — Czello 10:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is it “obvious”? You are disregarding the entire side of the story for some “obvious” only to you reasons. And question of “independence” of given sources is not up for Wikipedia to discuss, it is a question of propaganda theory and most of the sources already are coming from Armed Forces of Ukraine (and government of Ukraine therefor, and likelihood of them being independent is low), which, given how vital the subject is for them, is highly unlikely to give any “unbiased” opinion or position.

Russia is a big player in the events described in the article. Tossing their position away for “obvious” reasons screams how biased your position is.

Here[publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001202202220001?ysclid=l52awharu448236851] is, again, an official governmental note that has governmental number that can easily be accessed by online archives to confirm the fact that one UN member considers LPR a sovereign country. It is not “obvious” to neutral side on why Russian sources are not represented or not considered sources at all. SovietLampa (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Because Russian government documents are largely propaganda. We don't base claims of state recognition on Ukrainian government documents for the same reason. Whatever label we give to these "Republics" has to represent what the majority of independent and reliable sources are calling them. — Czello 13:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any proof to back up your claim that "Russian government documents are largely propaganda" or is that simply your opinion? 203.37.56.58 (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I've revised the lead to replace "puppet" with "Russian-supported" to avoid the WP:Contentious label and a WP:NPOV issue in the introduction. Note also per Wikipedia guidance on the lead, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view[.]" Finally, it is important to note that the sources did not properly support the "puppet" label -- the Washington Post article was only an opinion piece, and the FT article did not say Luhansk People's Republic *was* a puppet, rather it was claiming that *Putin's goal* was to create a puppet. "Russian-supported" is accurate and avoids these NPOV and poor sourcing problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JArthur1984 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, all of the Wikipedia's "reliable sources" call it a puppet government. But half of them also were sharing Call of Duty footage and saying he was a real life hero of the Ukraine, "the Ghost of Kiev." So what's really "reliable" exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.97.248.215 (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

If you think there are any sources you think shouldn't be included that are, you should take them up at WP:RSN. — Czello 19:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the legal status of the Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples’ Republics

The RfC on the legal status of the Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples’ Republics is here Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Puppet state is not a form of goverment

A new section should be added called status where puppet state is included with their form of goverment in the form of govement section

It is like this for all historical puppet/client states why should it be any different 86.115.120.246 (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what exactly is being proposed. Puppet statehood is a form of governing by a foreign power. —Michael Z. 17:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The info-box clearly says that the LPR is a "unitary presidential republic" nominally, but a Russian puppet state in practice. This seems to be clear enough. We don't need a whole new section to indicate this. It may as well be a POV-fork. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Recaptured territory

Map needs to be updated to reflect the fact that Ukraine has retaken territory in Luhansk Source: https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-11 TheThighren (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2022

This paragraph in the summary has to be updated, for the original reads, "On 4 September, Ukrainian forces launched a counteroffensive in eastern Ukraine and recaptured small parts of Donetsk Oblast and are currently battling for Lyman. Ukrainian forces also pushed through the stalemate at the Luhansk Oblast border and most notably recaptured Bilohirivka while engaging LPR Forces in Lysychansk."

But now since Ukraine recaptured Lyman, therefore it has to be updated as---

Between 4 September and 1 October, Ukrainian forces launched a counteroffensive in eastern Ukraine and the subsequent Second Battle of Lyman when it recaptured all the northern part of Donetsk Oblast north of Sieverskyi Donets River and the adjacent Sieverskyi Donets Forest Park in Luhansk Oblast, opening the door to advance eastward toward Kreminna, Rubizhne or northward toward Svatove. Ukraine also liberated Bilohirivka in mid-September while engaging LPR Forces in Lysychansk area. Bf0325 (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done, though at some point we need to address the issue of the lede being too long.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Annexation

The LPR has not ceased to exist yet because the Duma has not signed the treaty and Putin has not approved of the Duma's eventual signing of the treaty. The article for Lugansk People's Republic (Russia) should also be deleted. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Lugansk People's Republic (Russia)c is already nominated for deletion, you are welcome to give your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lugansk People's Republic (Russia). Concerning the treaties, I guess you are right, but for practical purposes, it is going to be annexed, and since users will come en masse to add this info it is probably easier just to relax and wait (or otherwise we would need to fully protect the article until the next week). Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it a bad idea to protect the article, given the amount of people who keep adding "was" a week before they should without reading the page history at all? AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s not going to cease to exist next week either. If it is renamed, and reliable sources start using that name, then we should rename this article. Content forking shouldn’t be used to get around a consensus article title. —Michael Z. 05:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The annexation treaties have been published as part of the Russian constitutional court’s rubber stamping of them (sorry I don’t have a link). Apparently ratification is still required, but the treaties state the annexation is effective as of the signing, on September 30. (Putin’s signature put “Russian land” under the feet of advancing Ukrainian soldiers.)

The language implies that all four are to be made federal subjects: Kherson and Zaporizhizhia oblasts, and Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics. They are to continue to be run by Moscow-appointed civil–military administrations until elections of governors in late 2023.

I don’t see a reason to create new articles for DLNR. There is no “was,” as they continue to exist, only with different claims by their leaders in Donetsk, Luhansk, and Moscow. —Michael Z. 17:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/10/2/7370061/ 38.54.101.62 (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

” What is meant by such wording is currently not clear.” Volunteer Marek 12:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The Duma approved the annexation today. The LPR no longer exists. RadomirZinovyev (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Source. Volunteer Marek 12:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not even correct. Tomorrow the upper house has to vote as well, and then putin has to sign. And it is not even clear what are the borders of the entities they are about to annex. Ymblanter (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

LPR has been annexed by russia and should be described In the past tense as well as put a 2014-2022 below the name as has been done to the DPR page. 2604:3D09:407F:FEF0:4B2A:6C2A:B1B7:8BCB (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s supposedly “annexed” but it hasn’t been dissolved. —Michael Z. 17:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Short description

See Talk:Donetsk_People's_Republic#Short_description — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Y — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 14:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Economy, GDP?

I know that East Ukraine was/is the most industrialized part of Ukraine. Granted I don't know how much anymore since the government shellings. But what is the region producing? Are they still producing minerals or machines? Are they still exporting to within Ukraine or to outside of Ukraine?

-G

Split article

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.

---

We should split this article in two: one for the Puppet state from 2014-2022, one for the current Russian republic. WikiManUser21 (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose  Why? It’s one subject: the same organization, same people, etcetera. Its history remains the same history. I don’t see any justification per the guidelines at WP:SPLIT. —Michael Z. 17:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Related: Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#Split article. —Michael Z. 18:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lugansk People's Republic (Russia).

  Panam2014 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Not needed at this moment. Segaton (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per the deletion discussion. These are not two meaningfully distinct topics.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, there is a lack of reliable sources to separate it into two eras even with many articles about the annexation. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, but pls improve the article by adding "Republic of Russia" in the infobox. WikiManUser21 (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2022 (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.

Terrorist designation

@Mzajac: (this also includes Donetsk People's Republic) nowhere in the body or citations provided does it say that other states viewed them/designated them as puppet states or terrorist organizations. Only Ukraine designated them as terrorist organizations so the current wording is incorrect. Mellk (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless by "others" it refers to sources and not states. But I am assuming states because these sources cannot designate terrorist organisations. Mellk (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if the republics have been designated as terrorist organizations but pretty much all the individuals and organizations and militias involved with them have been [22]. Volunteer Marek 04:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Well I suppose that can be mentioned in addition but I only see in that press release sanctions for destabilizing territorial integrity rather than terrorist designations. Mellk (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the wording is vague and can be improved, but I restored “puppet state” because this term is used by other sources, analysts, etcetera, and equivalents like “proxy,” etcetera, by many more. That they were political proxies and not independent is widely accepted as fact, including by states, although it’s not like there’s such a thing as “designated puppet.”  —Michael Z. 13:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Mellk, your edits to the lead have been, for lack of a better term, bad. Sure, you've got maybe some legitimate concerns with regards to the "terrorism" and "puppet states" descriptions. But your general edits to the history paragraph were not helpful; indeed, they actually lowered the quality of the article. The lead is supposed to be a summary. It's also supposed to not be a SOAPBOX; mentioning the basic details is what it's supposed to do; nothing UNDUE should be added. And the second paragraph should not contain superfluous information that has already been mentioned, e.g. the city of Luhansk being occupied, or the involvement of Russian-backed separatists, both of which were already mentioned in the first paragraph. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Separatists seizing government buildings, militias etc were already mentioned in the previous version so if you mean that version was also "bad", then sure, whatever. Mellk (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the previous version was not the best. There is an even older version of the article from when I edited, which whilst also not perfect, was in my opinion better than that one. The current version seems good. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

In fairness to you, Mzajac's recent edits have been around equally problematic as yours. These things are worded in a specific way for a reason; there's a lot of nuance that I guess some editors are missing because they aren't taking the time to properly comprehend exactly what they are reading. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I suppose this also partially reflects on the information being not super easy to comprehend in the first place. The pre-existing information is (except for one sentence that I just recently removed) accurate, but the wording might be a bit too technical for readers to understand at the first glance. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

And I would imagine Russian military support would be important enough to mention but OK, if you want to remove it then fine. Mellk (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's already implied that the separatists are supported by Russia with the term "Russian-backed". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"Russian-backed" simply implies that Moscow supports them but does not show what kind of support this is. The fact that Putin sent his own troops and commanders shows direct involvement. Mellk (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but at this point it's semantics now that Russia has outright annexed the two republics. We can delve into more detail on the exact history of Russia's military interference in the Donbas region in the body paragraphs (which, I'm sure we do already). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Official language

There isn't an official language in the settlement info box. There are sources already in the article are and . For (Russian) sources, I found Maybe the language-related things could be added to a subsection for language in Geography and Democraphics? Akalendos (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Subsection for Static War Period

A lot of the sections are big on such a long article, but I think the current formatting of the section called Static War Period is too much: there is too much text for one section and/or not enough subsections. I'd say it's more the second one. Some ideas for how to add subsections would be by year for how much text there is, like so: 2015, 2016-2017, (Suspension of Passports), and 2020-2022. Just some thoughts, Akalendos (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Russian occupation of Luhansk Oblast into Luhansk People's Republic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In this discussion, editor considered the question of whether to merge the article Russian occupation of Luhansk Oblast into this article. Editors in support of the merge offered a variety of reasons in support of merging, including that the presence of two articles spreads out information between them that would be better covered in a single article, that the two topics overlap substantially in terms of their scope, and that a merger would be able to be easily conducted in a manner that preserves the section relating to territorial control during the ongoing war in Ukraine. Those in opposition provided arguments that the information about control of settlements was necessary and warranted its own article, that both topics were notable, and that a merger could be taken to erase the existence of the LPR (or the related DPR) from Wikipedia as standalone de facto entities. Some editors agreed that a merge should take place, but would prefer that this article be merged into the article on the occupation. Editors attained a rough consensus to merge during this discussion.

Editors in support of the proposed merger offered a variety of arguments in support of their position. The nominator (and many others) argued that the coverage of territorial control, while warranting coverage on Wikipedia, would be better covered in this article rather than in a standalone article. The page that was proposed for being merged, per those in support of the merger, lacked a large amount of content and constituted a content fork from a larger topic article that was not warranted. At least one individual in support of the merge argued that there may have been reasons to keep the two articles separate in the past (such as before Russia's annexation of the LPR), but that ensuing events have removed any valid reasons to keep the two articles separate. Some individuals agreed that there should be a merger, but advocated for the title of the merged article to be that of Russian occupation of Luhansk Oblast rather than Luhansk People's Republic, and therefore opposed the merger proposal as stated while agreeing that a merge should occur.

Those in opposition to a merger argued alternatively that the occupation was notable in its own right or that the breakaway states deserved articles in their own rights separately from articles on the de facto Russian-annexed polities. For the former, editors in opposition to merging the two articles frequently brought up a desire to maintain the coverage of control of settlements during the war, though those in support of a merger responded that this coverage would be maintained in a merged article. With respect to the latter, those in support of merging the two articles argued that the breakaway polities are sufficiently continuous with the current polities administered by the Russian Federation that a separate article is not required.

While a majority of those in this discussion supported the merge as proposed, the outcome of discussions are not determined by a vote, but instead are ascertained by examining the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Even so, through that lens, there is rough consensus to merge Russian occupation of Luhansk Oblast into Luhansk People's Republic in a manner that preserves coverage of territorial control during the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine.

There was also substantial discussion that the outcome of this requested merge would logically apply to a merger between the article Russian occupation of Donetsk Oblast and the article Donetsk People's Republic. Merge notices were added on the relevant pages, pointing to this very discussion, where editors found a rough consensus that the outcome here should match that of the DPR article. As such, there was appropriate notification regarding this merge discussion to the two Donetsk-related pages, and this discussion attained rough consensus to merge Russian occupation of Donetsk Oblast to Donetsk People's Republic in line with the principles of this discussion.

As always, consensus can change, and future move discussions may be fruitful in settling future disputes relating to the naming of the merged pages. Editors are reminded to remain civil and of the presence of WP:GS/RUSUKR, which restricts the ability to participate in internal project discussions (such as move requests) to those who are extended-confirmed. (non-admin closure) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

---

The "Russian occupation of Luhansk Oblast" is synonymous with the Luhansk PR, since Russia has annexed the "people's republic" anyway. The "occupation" article basically just consists of the list of control of settlements excerpted from the overall territorial control page. I don't really see why it should exist as a standalone article.

These arguments should probably apply for the corresponding articles about Donetsk Oblast too. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Support  There’s no standalone article here, and the occupation of Donetsk oblast article is even thinner.  —Michael Z. 03:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Support Quinnerwinner12 (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment - If we merge the articles, then there should be a section about territorial control in this article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Support, incorporating the information about the territorial control. Alaexis_¿question? 10:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Support merger. Information not already covered should be added. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose we need article about the process of occupation. Panam2014 (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Don’t know what you’re referring to. The eight-year history of the DLNR is literally the process of occupation. From the arrival of Gubarev, Girkin, Borodai, and other Russian agents in April 2014, their military losses, the invasions by Russian forces in 2014 and 2015, the Minsk agreements and seven-year trench conflict, fake referendums and elections, the 2022 recognition, invasion, weird “annexation,” increasing stacking of Russians in the “republic governments,” Russian control of their militias, etcetera. If someday there’s an article section that’s too big and needs to be broken out then we can do it, but that is not the case now.  —Michael Z. 16:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I have added merge notices to the respective DNR and occupation articles.  —Michael Z. 16:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Wasn't totally sure how to do it myself. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Even if they no longer exist, LPR/DPR existed and there should be an article about them. Where are the sources that say that these entities were occupied by Russia? Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The proposal is to keep the DLNR articles, while rolling the respective “occupation” articles into them. Of course they exist; they are merely claimed as part of Russia instead of claimed as independent or claimed as separatists in Ukraine. There are countless sources that say much of the DLNR claimed territory is occupied by Russia. The latest ISW update and its map, for example.[23]  —Michael Z. 18:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

These breakaway states no longer exist, that's the point. The articles should be kept as a matter of historical record. That Russia is occupying Ukraine I do not dispute and that is dealt with already in Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine as the Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblasts. Those are the occupied areas not the historical entities. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The DLNR are not and never were real states, nor were they sovereign nor independent. They were and continue to be Russian-controlled organizations for administering the Kremlin’s influence and occupation in the respective parts of Ukraine. The same people were running them before and after the September 30 “annexation.” Anyway, I don’t think that question is salient in the merge. The DLNR articles are mature and should remain. The DLNR occupation articles have little or no encyclopedic information and lack a reason to exist, especially in light of the existence of the main “occupied territories” article you just linked to. They should be merged, which essentially means deleted with any valuable references salvaged in other articles.  —Michael Z. 22:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

which essentially means deleted. Now we agree. The confusion here is that it is said that Russia attempted to annex LPR/DPR which is not the case, Russia purports to annex the Oblasts (as well as other Ukrainian territory) following LPR/DPR abandoning their attempt to secede from Ukraine and accede to Russia, that the physical objects are the same is neither here nor there, the legalities are distinct. Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The word "annex" apparently implies "by force" (as seen in discussions at Talk:Republics of Russia), so, in the strictest sense, Russia did not annex the DPR/LPR, but rather incorporated those entities mutually, as these two entities desired to become part of Russia (nonetheless, the Ukrainian oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk, which the DPR/LPR were themselves occupying, were indeed unilaterally annexed by Russia at the same time). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

That was never unclear. By definition a WP:MERGE concludes with “replacing the source page with a redirect to the destination page.”

You summary of the “distinct legalities” is a personal interpretation that I have not seen supported by reliable sources.  —Michael Z. 16:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

If the (legal) position is that DLNR are not and never were real states then Russia did not annex them, they purported to annex Ukranian territory. Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. I don’t see how any of it encourages us to keep the two “Russian occupation of . . .” non-articles. I am still confused about what you are actually against: no one is proposing deleting the DLNR articles, only the “occupation” ones.  —Michael Z. 18:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

We agree, in the sense that the occupation articles are in effect deleted (because already dealt with elsewhere). If this is just a method of deleting them via redirect without an AfD, that's fine with me. Selfstudier (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Support - I suspect that the occupation articles were originally created because the DPR and LPR originally only occupied around 1/3rd of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblast respectively, whereas the rest of the occupied territory was occupied by Russia, not by the DPR and the LPR. However, subsequently, the distinction between the DPR/LPR and Russia has been lost after Russia's annexation of these two self-declared entities. I support the merger of these articles on this principle. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Doing the reverse would be better. The topic of this article is an fake invention as a part of the occupation. Covering the occupation under the title of the fake invention would be backwards. North8000 (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Even if they no longer exist, LPR/DPR existed and the articles should remain as a matter of historical record. LUZ Y FUERZA (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC -3)

That's not what the proposal is. I am proposing we get rid of the Russian occupation of X Oblast articles, and merge them into the LPR/DPR articles. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

An AfD is possible because fork of material covered elsewhere. Or just redirect them to the main article Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine which has sections for Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblasts. This article seems the wrong target. Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Support The "Russian occupation of Luhansk Oblast" page seems to simply be a tracker of territorial control in the area with some marginal background information, it seems to better serve a purpose within the main "Luhansk People's Republic" article, where it can easily be given its own section. RealKnockout (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Support This article doesn't need to be here, there's no content besides territorial control and a map. 🍁 DinoSoupCanada 🍁 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose you should need to know about Control of settlements - Jjpachano (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

That section is an excerpt from Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Good point! In fact, if we wanted to make any changes to this article, we can at least rename "Russian occupation of Luhansk Oblast" to something like "Territorial control of Luhansk Oblast during the Russo-Ukrainian War", because this is exactly what the article is about. Thanks for the comment and the inspiration! SleepTrain456 (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

That would be a WP:CONTENTFORK, as all the territorial control information in the "Russian occupation of X Oblast" articles is excerpted verbatim from Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War. WP:CFORK states that [c]ontent forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles [...] are to be avoided. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for reminding me! If that page will survive, it will not be for that reason! SleepTrain456 (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: Both (even if the Donbas republics are unrecognized) are clearly notable and need articles. Moonraker (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Support: The pages contents can be added into a section on this article.

The article also doesn't have a lot of information and it is unlikely that there will be more in the future. FusionSub (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Support: There's not much content on this article, and so it simply spreads out information which would be better in the LNR article. It was a good idea to start this article, however it has served its purpose, time to merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luganchanka (talk • contribs) 16:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose At the moment, we don't know what would be the outcome of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War. If Russia wins, this terriory would become a Russian republic, the rest is history. If Ukraine wins, this territory would become a Ukrainian oblast, the rest is history. History is written by the winners. Right now, we should keep both articles separate so our readers are getting the best possible information from both sides. 2001:8003:913E:5D01:A8B9:ED90:71B6:143D (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

That's WP:CRYSTALBALL. If it later becomes necessary to split it up, we can just do that then. HappyWith (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I wrote above that I didn't object if this is just deletion via redirect but if it is an actual merge of material then I do object. If that is the case, I think the occupation articles should be afd'd because they are a fork (already dealt with elsewhere) and if this article needs expansion it can de done in the usual way. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It basically is deletion via redirect. Looking at the actual content of the "occupation" articles, there really isn't anything that doesn't exist in the "People's Republic" articles, so a "merge" would basically be what you're describing. HappyWith (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, so we pretend we had a deletion discussion and the result was "redirect" to target with reason to keep track of related page histories. Then just do it, there seems enough support here. Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Support: per nom - Jjpachano (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment If this doesn't fly I propose the IMHO more logical merger. Luhansk People's Republic into Russian occupation of Luhansk Oblast. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I can see a good rationale for that, but you’re going to get a lot of opposition.

Another idea is to pare down the DLNR articles to just the individual political theatre, and merge the meat into a single parent article Russian-controlled separatists in Ukraine, which is how most sources generally deal with them, and analogous to the article about their militias (now Russian army corps) Russian people's militias in Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 15:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to disappear the LPR article (its creation and subsequent demise is of interest/notable, DPR as well) whereas I can see good reason to do away with the superfluous occupation article. If we want to refer to the "Russianness/occupation" of LPR, it can just be added in the usual way, if indeed there is anything more to add. Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 20 February 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.

Edit warring

Hi, @Kashmiri. 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. Kindly undo your revert-revert,[24] and justify the original edit here. Thanks.  —Michael Z. 23:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Area

There should be an area section on the infobox so people can know how big it is. In fact, it is 8,377 sq km. Add area section? 2601:280:4F81:4490:D12B:EB0F:BFC0:F19E (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source ? Rsk6400 (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Russia often implies it constitutes all of Luhansk oblast, but has never defined its borders. Like Putin’s Russia,[25] it ends nowhere, and so has no limited area.  —Michael Z. 20:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd easily be able to edit the add the area of LPR if i had an extended-confirmed account. But as an anonymous, i'll have to log in and do as much edits as i can. 2601:280:4F81:4490:F413:8A17:63EE:2C52 (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Not without citing reliable sources, you wouldn’t.  —Michael Z. 08:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah, i also have to put a reliable source here. Thanks for reminding me. 2601:280:4F81:4490:F413:8A17:63EE:2C52 (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

A reliable source for what? An area of something that doesn't exist / exists only in the minds of some Russians? North8000 (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Flag

Didn’t they have a far more complexed flag? Should that be included? 165.234.101.97 (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This is the current official flag. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)