Talk:Donetsk People's Republic/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RfC: War faction or country infobox?

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.

---

For the past several weeks an edit war has been going on over the infobox on this page. A faction of editors are attempting to change the infobox from the country/geopolitical organization infobox to the warfaction one. The relevant discussion regarding this was obscured by taking place in a thread with an irrelevant title here Talk:Donetsk_People's_Republic#The_DPR_is_comparable_to_ISIS_now, in which it is apparent no consensus was reached. In an effort to began dispute resolution i am requesting comment from previously uninvolved editors. Do you belive the country/geopolitical faction infobox should be used for this article (as it is on pages of other territorial administrations like Rojava, Somaliland, and France, or do you think the warfaction infobox should be used as it is on pages such as Real IRA and Al Nusra Front?XavierGreen (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I support using the Country/Geopolitical Faction infobox as it is used on virtually all wikipedia pages concerning administrations of territory including states such as the United Kingdom, unrecognized states such as South Ossetia, and defacto administrations that have not declared independence like the Republic of Serbian Krajina.XavierGreen (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - You're WP:FORUMSHOPPING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm using the dispute resolution process, something which you seem to generally ignore.XavierGreen (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The infobox has been changed by a shift in power and those who have changed the infobox as they know they have no consensus , use fallacious arguments of alleged unpublished work to spend consensus. This is not collaborative. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Since it has been several days and no previously involved editor has commented it is still clear to me that there was never and still is no consensus to change the infobox to the warfaction type. In the interest of following the dispute resolution guidelines i am opening up a Third Opinion Request, since its obvious to me that any edit i make on this page will get reverted as things stand now.XavierGreen (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the 3rd opinion request does not cover disputes between more than 2 editors, so i have opened a dispute resolution request here [[1]]XavierGreen (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Has it even occurred to you that no one has responded because it is not an RfC issue? Your attempts to restore the 'geopolitical' infobox have been reverted by multiple editors, and you have not demonstrated any RS attesting to the DPR or the LPR as being understood to be anything resembling states, and that the Minsk Protocol II, if fulfilled, means that they must withdraw any claims: particularly their military presence. It's not an RfC issue: it's a reliable source issue. Your WP:CRUSH tactics are nothing short of disruptive WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There have been plenty of editors working on the article since you started pushing this, and no one is interested in changing the current infobox, nor to join in on having to engage with your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Now, because you haven't had any responses here, you're WP:FORUMSHOPPING yet again by trying to start up a dispute resolution procedure. What there is to be said on the subject has been said already... we've got virtually a whole page dedicated to the discussion immediately above. Drop it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And that discussion above clearly showed that there was no consensus to change the infobox from Country/Geopolitical Organization to any other infobox (including the warfaction one). If you had even bothered to read my comments in that thread it would be crystal clear that whether or not the DPR and LPR are states is entirely irrelevant as to whether the Country/Geopolitical infobox is used (micronations use the same infobox, ect). You are the one who has ignored the dispute resolution process and has resorted to edit warring here and apparantly on other pages as well in an attempt to assert your point of view over a variety of pages.XavierGreen (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Stick with the original warfaction infobox. This is way more similar to ISIL than it is to the CSA or the Republic of Biafra. Reliable sources, with only a tiny fraction of exceptions, do not treat Donetsk as a state, even a temporary one, and it is not internationally recognized as such. Siding with calling it a nation right now would be WP imposing a view from inside, taking a biased stand, and trying to predict the future. What there is, is an armed conflict and claims being asserted. The dust is still being kicked up, and is nowhere close to settling yet.
  PS: Trying multiple dispute resolution steps is not forum shopping; our DR system is a bit dysfunctional and hard to navigate; various forms of it have particular odd rules about what kinds of disputes they will take. Firing off a bunch at the same time in hopes one will give you the answer you want is forum shopping, and so it having one conclude against you, then pursuing the same goal in another. Being told "we can't help you, go somewhere else" and going somewhere else isn't forum shopping. Now that the RfC is on, this is and should remain the forum for resolution. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)]]

@SMcCandlish: How, then, would you characterise XavierGreen's opening a DRN on this infobox issue (after having received a WP:ARBEE DS alert notification, and immediately after coming out of a 36 hour block for edit warring various articles, including this article)? I'm finding it extremely difficult to continue assuming good faith, and cannot see myself clear to characterising it as an overenthusiastic error in judgement. This is WP:CRUSH based on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments amounting to a conscious attempt at WP:GAMING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all that 36 hour block your talking about was from 3 years ago and for a different unrelated page and issue, so i don't see how this dispute here could possibly be "immediately" after that one ... Secondly, I don't see how opening up a request for comment on a deadlocked issue constitutes "bad faith"...the entire reason the dispute resolution process exists is for situations like the one at hand here.XavierGreen (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for not looking at the block date properly, XavierGreen. Evidently, I 'misremembered' your being blocked as you've been pushing this issue on both articles, and have been warned about edit warring the articles by various editors. Notwithstanding, you have been arguing the same things over and over. That is a consistent fact about your approach to editing. What is at issue is that, despite trying to introduce policy based arguments, you have distinct emotion investment in this article (and other articles you edit). I didn't change the infobox: another editor did per WP:BRD, explaining their rationale. There was never a consensus discussion as to which infobox is appropriate on this or the LPR article, therefore it the infoboxes were default consensus. Per WP:CCC, editors have taken the change on board and discussed the issue thoroughly above this RfC. Personally, I don't care very much either way, but I see the NOR and NPOV policies as being better adhered to using the current infobox. I honestly don't want to have to argue this any further, so I'm happy to follow whatever the closing admin extrapolates from this RfC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue at dispute in the other article had nothing to do with this dispute here. Reviewing your own talk page archives reveals that you your self have been warned on multiple occasions. And before accusing someone of having an "emotional investment" in the page, look at your own behavior. Its quite apparent from looking at your own edit history that you have been engaged in a slow edit war on a wide variety of pages in an attempt to push a pro-Ukrainian point of view. I myself have no agenda, other than keeping this page and the others in uniformity in using the same infobox as other pages of the similar type as set by precedent (one need only look at the numerous other articles i've referenced in this thread to see that).XavierGreen (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, XavierGreen, you've just overstepped the unfounded WP:ASPERSIONS line like a bullet. I've been warned by whom? Please point out the diffs as to where I've been 'warned' and and match it against who did the 'warning'. Every single one of those editors and IPs have been blocked for being edit warriors and POV pushers, and I have 23k of an unblemished editing history to support the fact that I am both NPOV and have the courage to edit on articles other editors don't dare to because of heavy-handed POV pushing and trolling, and solid mileage on being just as hard nosed about pro-Ukrainian POV pushing as pro-Russian POV pushing. I suggest that you retract your aspersion about my being a POV pusher quickly... or, perhaps, you'd prefer that I take this issue to the ANI. Your behaviour has become WP:TEDIOUS indeed when you're unable to distinguish between being templated by editors who are WP:NOTHERE and admins +experienced, uninvolved editors ticking an editor off. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd have to look into it in more detail, and basically don't care. :-) An RfC is the proper venue for discussing the matter, so WP:PROCESS is being followed now, whatever may have happened earlier. If, as seems likely, it concludes with consensus to retain the warfaction infobox, and the same editor re-re-re-raises the same issue yet again somewhere else, then I'd say it's forum-shopping, since the RfC should be respected. Given that the RfC wasn't even neutrally phrased like WP:RFC instructs, but was written in a way that promotes the geopolitical organization infobox outcome and mischaracterizes those in favor of the warfaction one as a "faction" themselves [which strikes me as a transgression of WP:ASPERSIONS in contravention of the WP:ARBEE terms, as a side matter, and is especially insulting to WP:FRS respondents like me and BoogaLouie, below – all forum shopping issues aside], a consensus against that idea will be doubly damning against pushing the same idea again.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The original infobox was the Country/Geopolitical organization one. A polity does not have to be a "nation", a "state", or anything else to use the Country/Geopolitical organization infobox, rather instead it merely must be some type of administration which governs people or land. For example the various pro-serb polities during the Yugoslav wars for the most part did not declare independence, but their pages use the Country/Geopolitical Organization infobox. These Yugoslav-War era entities are perhaps the closest analog available to the DPR and LPR. See for examples Republic of Serbian Krajina, Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia, SAO_Western_Slavonia, Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, SAO Bosanska Krajina. There were also a large number similar administrations set up by the Japanese in China prior to WWII which, except for Manchukuo,did not declare independence and yet use the Geopolitical Organization/Country infobox. For examples see: Mengjiang, East Hebei Autonomous Council, Great Way Government. A large number of similar entities which existed in the Russian Civil War also use the Geopolitical Organization/Country Infobox, examples include the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic (1918–19), Far Eastern Republic, Provisional Priamurye Government, ect. Even anarchist held territories and communes use the geopolitical organization/country infobox. Most notably the Free Territory.XavierGreen (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't care which the original was. This is about what we should do now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• The original infobox is geopolitical organization. I leave two weeks those who want a infobox war faction to have a consensus. If no consensus, I ask adminitrateurs back to ante bellium version. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • RfCs run for a month, unless consensus emerges sooner; you don't get to make up your own time limits.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support Country/Geopolitical Faction: XavierGreen (above, "The original infobox was the Country/Geopolitical organization one .... ") seems to make a good case for Country/Geopolitical following precedent. The designation apparently doesn't imply that the entity has any significant international approval or that there isn't a strong possibility of its being dismantled in the relatively near future. (editor is volunteer in feedback request service) BoogaLouie (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Retain the warfaction infobox[EDIT - change of !vote - see talk re 'No infobox' below] No infobox This article (and the Luhansk People's Republic article) have been subject to intensive edit warring from both sides of the extremes since they were created. In fact, 'infobox country'(?!!) was introduced on 7 April 2014 and retained for a long period of time due to POV pushers treating the entire subject as WP:ADVOCACY, and disregarding the fact that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Eventually, it was changed to 'geopolitical organization'. The fact is that, as has been argued extensively and exhaustively above this RfC, it is not a WP:CONSENSUS issue. I wasn't particularly concerned (or ceased to be concerned about) the fact that using 'geopolitical organization' is the antithesis of what WP:RS clearly stipulate about DPR and LPR being war factions. The Minsk Protocols II are clear on any recognition of Crimea as part of the RF being contingent on them clearing out. Whatever happens from here is not for editors to go WP:CRYSTAL over, but is dependent entirely on RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how WP:Crystal comes into play at all, the LPR and DPR administrations have existed and continue to exist irrespective of Minsk II, that is a well sourced fact established by every single source used on this page. There mere existence of an administration of territory is sufficient to warrant the use of the Country/Geopolitical infobox as established by precedent shown through the various pages of similar entities i have cited multiple times in the discussion above. And as to consensus, stylistic choices like which infobox to use are at their very core a matter to be decided by consensus. In actuality Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Using_infoboxes_in_articles specifically states that "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."XavierGreen (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Keep the warfaction infobox. No any infobox per discussion below. First of all, this is not a geopolitical organization. Here are actual geopolitical organizations, and they are something very different. Second, this is hardly a country or a state. In fact, this territory is now governed from Russia, and de facto a part of Russia. The "leaders" of DPR and LPR are simply doing whatever was ordered from Moscow. Speaking about other uses of "geopolitical organization" infobox in the project, some of them are fine, but others are disputable, just at that one. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. My very best wishes (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

As i indicated above, the use of the country/geopolitical organization infobox is not resticted to "countries" or "geopolitical organizations", virtually any type of entity or polity that administers territory or people is included within its scope. Who governs them is irrelevant for the purpose of using the country/geopolitical infobox, as i indivated above Japanese puppet entities from the pre WWII era use the infobox (like Mengjiang), as do Sebian puppet entities from the Yugoslav Wars (like Republic of Serbian Krajina), and Soviet puppet states from the Russian Civil War (like Far Eastern Republic). Indeed, whenever individuals have attempted to create new types of infoboxes for different entities, they are merged into the country infobox template, as recently happened to the micronations infobox template.XavierGreen (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Several of us have given a rationale against that position. If WP did not want to distinguish between factions in conflicts and states that have at least some level of international recognition, we wouldn't have separate infoboxes for them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)4

The vast majority of pages about rebel groups that use the War Faction infobox do not concern groups that had civil administrations over territory and people. For example, the Paraguayan People's Army does not have a civil administration, nor does the Real IRA or the Justice and Equality Movement, however rebel groups which do or did establish civil administrations over their territory like the Islamic Courts Union, State of Katanga, Somaliland, and Wa State use the country/geopolitical orgnization infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

And if you want examples of rebel administrations which had no recognition, and use the country/political organization infobox (or the former country version) one merely need look at the list at List_of_historical_unrecognized_states_and_dependencies, the vast majority of polities on that list were never recognized by any other country as independant, yet all use the country/geopolitical infobox. Even unrecognized dependencies and military occupational administrations use the same infobox or derivatives of it, see for example General Government of Poland, Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, Second Philippine Republic, United States Military Government in Cuba, United States Army Military Government in Korea, Israeli Civil Administration, Allied-occupied Germany, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You've already made these arguments. They're not persuasive. Simply stating the same argument over and over again in response to every rebuttal is pointless and annoying. Nothing at either infobox's documentation says anything about "civil administrators". The war faction infobox is "used to summarize information about a particular faction participating in a war", which is what this is. Infobox country is for a) countries and other "territories", but this article is not about that, it's about the organization (despite efforts to make it seem like it's about a nation-state, a land area – which is really the Donetsk oblast of Ukraine); or b) geopolitical entities, but this entity has no geopolitical recognition. Various other entities use the geopolitical entity infobox because (to the extent its been debated yet, and there are indications in others' comments above that some debates are coming), it's because historical perspective indicates we should use that infobox there. No historical perspective to speak of exists for DPR yet, which is why people are citing WP:CRYSTAL (I explain this because you indicated above a lack of understanding of how CRYSTAL applied). I'm not going to respond here again; I can see that this will just turn circular.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess the status of these territories is indeed completely unclear. They are funded by the Russian government, just like Crimea. However, unlike Crimea, Russia does not officially call them a part of its own territory. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The LPR and DPR have a legislature, elections, a judiciary, ministers with a wide variety of portfolios. These elements are all well sourced in the page and should be reflected in the infobox, the country/geopolitical infobox has parameters which cover these various attributes. The war faction infobox does not, the warfaction infobox is intended to describe in brief paramilitary groups, it was not set up with parameters to properly describe a complex administration like the LPR and DPR. A huge portion of these articles are devoted to the description of the DPR and LPR governments, a neutral reader would expect the infobox on the page here to describe what the page contains.XavierGreen (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

There are no consensus to change infobox. The geopolitical organisation infobox should be restaured. Panam2014 (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Panam2014: It has already been explained to you that an RfC is a community process. No involved editors get to pick and choose when they want it to stop, and what they believe to be the correct !vote. As there has been a resurgence in activity here, the RfC continues to run until it A) runs out of steam and an uninvolved admin or experienced editor is called in to close it and interpret policy and guideline based arguments; B) the 30 days elapse and a closer is requested to do the same as for A. Once the RfC is closed and a decision made, we all adhere to the consensus whether we like it or not (ergo, if it is closed in favour of geopolitical organization, I'm not going to contest it and will revert anyone trying to change it to another infobox). Please familiarise yourself WP:CON properly. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• A third way to reach consensus? We seem to be arguing about which template to use based upon the titles of the templates. Is the Donetsk People's Republic an unrecognized state or a war faction? But that obscures our real goal: What information do we want to impart to the reader? Readers do not see the title of templates. All they see is the information that a template's parameters displays. So let's change the conversation from "Is Donetsk an unrecognized state or a war faction?" to "What information do we want to display?". Does everyone agree with that? If so, then let's move on to talking about what parameters do we want in the infobox (e.g. a map? population? size of area? titles leaders use? currency? languages?) --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Since this article refers to the administration (as opposed to the United Armed Forces of Novorossiya which covers the faction actually fighting the conflict), i would think a reader would expect to see parameters displayed in the infobox that reflect population, type of government, leaders, languages ect.XavierGreen (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Where are the WP:RS for population figures, 'type' of government, currency(?!) etc.? That's why we tossed out the 'ideologies' parameter. Invoking WP:NOR for the umpteenth time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Very good point. Absolutely we need good sources and to avoid original research. But what about my main point -- we should not be arguing over the name of the template but rather we should be discussing what information we want to display (keeping in mind WP:RS and WP:NOR) Why do we care about the name of the infobox? We should only care about the information displayed.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Iloilo Wanderer: I think that what we're dealing with here is really another question which really shouldn't be subject to local RfCs. Please see the discussions taking place at the bottom of this RfC regarding broader community consensus probably being a better way of tackling parity across Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - RfC editor here. If I understand the point correctly, we are debating whether we should use the war faction or country infobox (the later including geopolitical organisations and micronations). So we are attempting to determine whether the Donetsk People's Republic is more like a terrorist group or like an unrecognised nation. It is NOT our role to decide this question. Rather we need to look at what our sources say, how they describe the entity in question. So...

Andrewaskew (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Country/Geopolitical Faction - A quick search engine usage test for Donetsk People's Republic reveals the overwhelming weight is towards them being an unrecognised nation, rather than a terrorist organisation. Perhaps they will stay unrecognised and dissapear from history, perhaps they may convert to simply being a terrorist organisation, but for now sources describe them as country-like. N.B. The Google test is not flawless, if someone can show reliable sources consistently go the other way, I will change my !vote. But let's stick to WP:RS. -- Andrewaskew (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  Just to comment (I am not going to vote myself), that DPR is classified as a terrorist organization in Ukraine, and, consequently, every single medium in Ukraine in any language refers to is as a terrorist group. Outside Ukraine, I believe, it is indeed correct that most media currently refer to it as an unrecognized nation-like entity.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ymblanter and Andrewaskew: Where on earth in the documentation for 'Infobox war faction' does it say anything about the infobox applying to terrorist states? This hysterical overreaction was brought up on this talk page above under the heading of 'The DPR is comparable to ISIS now?'. The infobox description reads, "A war faction infobox may be used to summarize information about a particular faction participating in a war; it should not be used for regular military units and formations..." It is not called 'Infobox terrorist group', so why is everyone responding to it as if that were the issue here? If I check RS through Google news and ignore Russian and Ukrainian news outlets, the RS are solidly pointing to the fact that the military operations and the unrecognised state are not separated, yet this article does so... so does that make this article redundant in itself? Please indicate WP:RS discussing the DPR or the LPR as being 'nations' or 'states' because I'd love to know where they're to be found. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

That was not my intention to make such statements (and, to be honest, I find the whole discussion purely time-consuming - the real question should be not which type of the infobox is used in the article, but what information is highlighted in the infobox), I just made a comment regarding the useless of the search results.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

My apologies if I'm getting short on the wick about this, Ymblanter. I'm really tired out over the issue, and I don't really understand what the furore is about. In as far as what difference it would make to the parameters, I can't see what kind of information can legitimately go into most of the parameters. Where do we extrapolate figures for the population, RS describing the system of government, etc? Even their ideology can't really be defined or described without heading into OR because there's only propaganda flying around from every side. At best, an estimate of the territory they're holding down is the only information available. Frankly, I'll just be glad when the 30 days is up and we can have someone neutral close this. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, what is the current area of DPR is well established and not currently disputed by anybody. I do not have reliable sources at hand, but I am sure they are available. Population is more difficult, but at least we have the Ukrainian 2013 estimate and the 2014 DPR estimate, we can use both saying they are estimates. If it is too difficult, we can just leave it blanc and/or explain in the text. Concerning the "leadership", DPR itself is pretty much a reliable source; whoever they list at their website as their leaders, and whatever names they use for the positions, can just go in the infobox. Same with the flag and the anthem - assuming they have any. The date of establishment is reliably sourced. Anything else significant at this point?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

In the original infobox used (the Geopolitical/country one), most of these parameters such as government, officials, captial, currency, had reliable sources listed. Much of it is also already cited in the body of the article.XavierGreen (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

There's one big problem with that: being that the fact of its being a 'state' is not reliably sourced. I'd have no problem with it if it were. Any such information (particularly the number of people actually residing in the region, full stop) can only be attributable to the DPR 'official' statistics, and the DPR is not a reliable source. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The DPR is a reliable source as to what its own laws are, what its capital is, what its offical currency is, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No-one is arguing that the DPR is a state, they are a geopolitical organisation or unrecognised nation (depending on how one prefers to describe the ambiguous condtion). In spite of the name, the country infobox includes many entities that are not countries. -- Andrewaskew (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Infobox country (changed to no infobox [see below]) – I can state with certainty that the DPR is neither a state nor a nation nor a country. No one recognises it as such. However, I do not think that this particularly relevant in terms of choosing an infobox. The purpose of an infobox is to provide a selection of quick facts for the reader, and one must consider what type of facts the reader would want. While not a state, this entity does claim to be one, and claims to have a state structure. For this reason, I will have to differ from some of my colleagues in saying that I think that the country infobox is the one most suited to displaying facts about the DPR, as it has parameters related to entities that have or claim to have a state structure. Similar entities, such as South Ossetia and Transnistria use the country infobox. The war faction infobox is a bit strange, and I struggle to see how many of the parameters are relevant in this case. What is occurring at the ISIL page is not particularly relevant here, and does not set any kind of precedent. I don't think we should WP:ASTONISH the reader with a strange infobox, when that reader will expect the same one he sees at other similar pages. Moreover, I don't think we should try hamfisting the nature of this entity into the war faction infobox, as the parameters for that box simply do not apply with the information displayed. Look at the strangeness of the "headquarters" parameter, for instance. It just doesn't make sense, and that's why I support the use of the country infobox. However, I strongly reject the incorporation of WP:OR into the infobox, such as the population and ideology fields. By the way, we've discussed this before. I stand by all the remarks I made back then. RGloucester — ☎ 01:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The country infobox covers unrecognized states in addition to those universally recognized. Its use keeps the article free of bias, stating only the facts, not opinions. Anasaitis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Infobox country as with all other unrecognized self-declared states. The infobox "war faction" is simply not suitable for this kind of article. Athenean (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, Athenean (and any other editors interested in the history of the development of this article) please note that I actually !voted for 'Infobox country' here in December of 2004. Since then, however, the infobox was changed, but was turned into a WP:COATRACK nevertheless: the infobox, as it had 'evolved', can be found here, and stuffed chock-a-block with non-RS goodness sprinkled liberally with COATRACK. These 'claims' and unreliably sourced figures have no place in an infobox, but are only appropriate for the body of the article using attribution. The predominant complaints here about the use of 'war faction' are by the same editors who have been POV-pushing what they'd like the DPR (and LPR) to be, and how they'd like the article to be presented and has nothing to do with what mainstream RS indicate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I going to be frank here, so I apologize in advance if my opinion offends anyone.This entire debate is stupid. This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the relavency of the facts within the article, and has everything to do with opinion. The last time something like this happened, it turned into a messy edit war that resulted in a lot of users getting banned, all because of some stupid infobox. Encyclopedias are about fact, not opinion. The fact of the matter is that the DPR and LPR are both partially recognized, self-proclaimed states. It has always been the policy of Wikipedia to use the country infobox for such political entities, not because we recognize them, but simply because that is what they are: unrecognized countries. Just because a country isn't recognized by another doesn't mean that it isn't a country. Something can exist without being recognized. And don't even think about bringing up international law or the UN definition of a country, because this isn't politics and we aren't the UN. It's an online encyclopedia. This arguement is a matter of opinion, while encyclopedias are supposed to state facts. The fact, whether we like it or not, is that both People's Rebublics control their own territory, administer their own laws, and function completely independently of Ukraine, this makes them de facto states. De facto is, as you may know, Latin for "in FACT". De facto means that the subject exists "in fact and practice without being officially ordained by a recognized law". "Fact" is the key word here. Encyclopedias, by their very nature, are all about factual information. If they were all about opinions, they would be nothing more than propaganda, as opposed to reference material. To label these two de facto states a war faction is not only a gross oversimplification of what they are, but also means that the article ceases to be neutral in the ongoing conflict. It is not universally accepted that they are terrorist groups. That isn't even the majority opinion. In any case, opinion doesn't matter. Facts do. O don't know who keeps starting these ridiculous debates, but it needs to stop. Just leave the original country infobox as it is. Anasaitis (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

We don't know if the DPR and LPR are countries, because we know very little about them and we don't have access to Moscow documents. Who controls the local armies - the countries or some Russian commander? Let's hope that some day the DPR or LPR starts to believe in its independence, a series of suicides and tragic accidents will come.Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Why does we need access to to Moscow documents? Why does it have to be Moscow in the first place? Regardless of your answer, you just proved my point. Your arguement shows clear signs of bias, which goes against Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopedia. You even showed preference for a side in the ongoing conflict. This is not a place for you to push your agenda on users. Only the facts matter on Wikipedia, not our opinions. Don't you know think there are times That wish I could make articles express my opinions and ideas? Don't you think I sometimes wish to push my agenda? But I never due. Why? Because that is not what Wikipedia is for. This is a place for facts. There is absolutely NOTHING to suggest that the People's Republics are controlled in any way by Ukraine or that their status has changed since the ceasefire. In fact, all evidence points to the contrary. Anasaitis (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, I knew this little debate would rear its ugly head again, so I've been preparing a list of articles relating to unrecognized or partially recognized states, ALL of which use the country infobox, as proof that this is the standard format for articles of this type, whether via official policy or unspoken tradition. This list is quite large, leaving little room for doubt. Unfortunately, it isn't finished yet, and it will take a while for the list to be completed. I will post the finished list once it's completed. Please bare with me until then. Anasaitis (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I have listed numerous examples unrecognized states as well as defacto autonomous polities which did not declare independence above.XavierGreen (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I know, but my list is far larger, so it should support the arguement. Anasaitis (talk), —Preceding undated comment added 23:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The list is finally done. All of the following articles are about unrecognized states from various historical periods. Many of them emerged during conflict, just like the two People's Republics. Indeed, many have a similar story. Every single one of these articles uses the country/geopolitical organization infobox. I dare anyone to explain why this page should be the exception of the rule after reading this list: Islamic Courts Union, Azawad, Free Territory, Mahdist Sudan, Tripolitanian Republic, Rif Republic, State of Katanga, South Kasai, Free Territory, Kingdom of Rwenzururu, Republic of Cabinda, State of Muskogee, the Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia, the Republic of Baja California, the Republic of Sonora, Republic of West Florida, Republic of Madawaska, Republic of Indian Stream, Juliana Republic, Republic of the Rio Grande, Republic of the Yucatan, Principality of Trinidad, Republic of Anguilla, Republic of Ezo, Republic of Formosa, Tagalog Republic, the Republic of Biak-na-Bato, Republic of Negros, Alash Autonomy, Republic of Aras, Arab Kingdom of Syria, Persian Socialist Soviet Republic, Republic of Mountainous Armenia, Kingdom of Kurdistan, Kurdish Republic of Ararat, Chinese Soviet Republic, First East Turkestan Republic, Fujian People's Government, Inner Mongolian People's Republic, Hyderabad State (1948–56), Republic of South Maluku, United Suvadive Republic, Democratic Republic of Yemen, Bangsamoro Republik, Kingdom of Corsica, Republic of San Marco, Kruševo Republic, Republic of Central Albania, Strandzha Commune, State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, Republic of Tarnobrzeg, Kuban People's Republic, Komancza Republic, Banat Republic, Belarusian People's Republic, North Ingria, Hutsul Republic, Bavarian Soviet Republic, Republic of Prekmurje, Monarchy of the North, Lajtabánság, Albona Republic, Serbian-Hungarian Baranya-Baja Republic, Republic of Mirdita, Republic of Galicia, Sovereign Council of Asturias and León, Carpatho-Ukraine, Republic of Užice, Bihać Republic, Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Republic of Serbian Krajina, Dubrovnik Republic, Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia, Franceville, New Hebrides, and the Republic of the North Solomons. If that's not enough for you, I can actually list more. That's right, these aren't the only examples I have! It took me almost a year of scouring Wikipedia to prepare for this inevitable argument. Let it not be said my dedication is lacking. This irrefutably proves that the country infobox is the standard infobox used for entities like the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic. There is no valid reason for these two articles to be the exception to the rule. So far, all I have seen is bias and POV-pushing, while you continue to accuse the other side of the argument of the exact same thing. This list represents solid evidence of the reasoning behind the use of the geopolitical organization/country infobox. It is what we have always used, because it reflects no bias. It acknowledges the fact that the entity functions as a state without showing favoritism to either side. Neutrality is essential for any encyclopedia article. This is a place for fact, not opinion. These are de-facto countries that sad minister their own territory, and theirs is no valid verified source that suggests otherwise. De-facto. In FACT. We need to stick to the known facts if we are to remain unbiased. Furthermore, the country infobox reflects the facts better than the war faction infobox. As it now stands, the infobox looks kind of bloated and cramped. It is simpler than the country infobox and does not contain as many facts. The infobox allows for more facts to be displayed and in a far more specific manner. There are more sections in which to put the facts and statistics than in the war faction infobox, and more space in which to place them. So not only is it more appropriate for the facts we know, but it is also has room for more information and places to put said information. It even looks better, and as the list above shows, it has always been the practice of Wikipedia to use the country/geopolitical organization for unrecognized, self-proclaimed states established by rebel groups. I hope I have proven my point with the evidence above. Anasaitis (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give you a quick evaluation of what seems to be the heart of the problem here, being that each of the infoboxes for each of these states have been decided on a local consensus basis. From an objective perspective, I'd say that - for the sake of parity between articles across Wikipedia - there needs to be a broader based discussion and/or RfC on a higher level and higher traffic page so as more uninvolved editors can voice their opinions and concerns to establish whether it is desirable to use specific templates for specific situations. As a suggestion, it would probably be best served at one of the WikiProjects. I'm open to other suggestions as to which and where.

On a second note, your list above is refers to historical states. The DPR and LPR situations are by no means over and done with. Information in the previous 'geopolitical' infobox did not even attribute the information to various biased sources, but presented them as if they were commonly accepted knowledge. Wikipedia does not set precedents, nor do we serve as a news organisation parsing bits and pieces as we chose. If any stats, ideologies, forms of governance are presented they must be based on WP:RS. If they are biased sources, the reader must be informed as where (or who) the information has come from.

On a final note, I'm also making it absolutely clear that XavierGreen's wording for this RfC is WP:POV and has been neatly tied up with a WP:ASPERSIONS levelled against other editors. Such wording and aspersions are unacceptable, WP:DE, and blatantly demonstrate bad faith behaviour on his part. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are historical states. I'm glad you brought that up. That does not, however, mean they are not relavant to the subject at hand. As I mentioned above, many of these states emerged under similar circumstances to the DPR and LPR. There was a similar political situation and a similar conflict. Furthermore, look at the dates for some of these states. Some, like Azawad, arose quite recently, and may have in fact used the country infobox while they still existed. Besides, if we use a country infobox for similar political entities that existed in the past, then why should we use a different one for those that exist in the present? Anasaitis (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, on your first note you say that these are local consensuses. They are still valid precedent in my opinion, as this also counts as a local consensus even if it is also applicable to LPR. Continuing onto your second note, the other "frozen conflict" separatist republics, Kosovo, Rojava, and the Syrian opposition are also using country templates. Even if you said the frozen conflicts and Kosovo were done and over, I highly doubt Rojava or the Syrian opposition would count as "over and done with", even if they are countries. As for your third note, ad hominem is not a valid argument, even if there was an edit war. Nuke (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@NuclearWizard: This RfC is currently being treated as a local consensus issue. This section that has sprung up below is merely an offshoot thread discussing the potential value in discussing better recommendations for infobox templates which are ill-defined in order to pre-empt such edit warring again. Now, when we talk about 'local consensus', it means that we do not need to concern ourselves with how other articles you might consider to be parallel treat the infobox (or any other part of the article): merely what reliable sources tell us about the subject matter dealt with per the WP:TITLE. Why, then, are you bringing how other articles treat the subject matter, and what your subjective point of view is into your argument? What editors working on other articles have decided on as being appropriate is irrelevant for the purposes of this article.

Secondly, if you're going to invoke WP:NPA, please make the effort to read the summary of this RfC as presented by the editor who started it and explain to me how "A faction of editors are attempting to change the infobox from the country/geopolitical organization infobox to the warfaction one." is even vaguely appropriate given that the protocol for an RfC is to place the template and "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template.". Is that a neutral statement/question, or is it ad hominem? Wagging your finger at me and telling me that I don't have the right to make a statement about how shoddily presented and WP:POINTy this RfC was from the inception is not productive, either. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:It's called a precedent. In the absence of serious guidelines on an issue like "which infobox?" which probably shouldn't need the administration to set real guidelines, "an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances" can and should be used. See WP:PRECEDENT. The fact this is on the talk page for DPR is practically irrelevant to this discussion. It's not like we can't easily see that. As well, I don't think we need a source to tell us if DPR is a war faction or an unrecognized country: It's both. Can you show me relevant guidelines telling me that DPR/LPR are war factions, not countries, if you so confidently say these precedents (which are backed by a mere essay) re completely and absolutely irrelevant to this discussion? Likewise, I doubt there is any organization publishing RS material for which infobox should be used by a Wikipedia article, and the notion is absurd.

Second, you brought up the fact he made a subsection comparing ISIS to DPR under a section called "DPR - terrorists". Even if it's inappropriately worded, it's relevant. Lastly, if you're offended by someone on a Wikipedia talk page or bitter over an edit war, it's absolutely irrelevant to this discussion, and ad hominem is not an argument; in fact, you've responded to two people who are not XavierGreen with this as far as I've read (Anasaitis and I), so I guess it's more guilt by association than ad hominem. Nuke (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I was not pointing to the comparison section, I was pointing to the actual wording of this RfC. Please read it:

"A faction of editors are attempting to change the infobox from the country/geopolitical organization infobox to the warfaction one." As for 'insulting' anyone other than XavierGreen: where are these 'insults'? In fact, Anasaitis and I have worked collaboratively together in the past, and we're currently discussing this subject matter productively on my talk page. Secondly, I suggest that you read WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT. Note, however, that I have no interest in engaging here further. It's really a waste of valuable time and energy for editors to keep chasing their tails, so I'm bowing out. Let the cards fall as they may. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again, this whole "ad hominem / argument on association / attack the guy who posted the RfC" thing is absolutely and completely irrelevant and I don't really see why it was brought up in the first place. There is no reason in this case to ignore precedent or ignore rules. To the contrary, we have arguments that show the proposed use of a country infobox will improve the article and thus Wikipedia, so if anything we can ignore rules or precedent and get rid of the war faction infobox.

• I support using the country infobox for multiple reasons:

1. I didn't even realize that the war faction infobox wasn't the terrorist organization infobox up until now. This does create an implication that DPR and LPR are terrorist organizations for users who naturally are reading about both the Syrian Civil War and the war in Ukraine.
2. The country infobox is much better for this article, with the exception of the population part for aesthetic reasons. However, the bizarre proportions and the overall ugliness of the war faction infobox probably overrule that. Plus, I'm not sure if the war faction infobox has things like currency as options, and fields like "ideology" aren't really usable, given "Lugansk secessionism" and "Russian nationalism" don't really seem like they fit the bill.
3. These are popularly treated like governments or countries (if I'm correct), even if they're treated like "pro-Russian separatists" or the like, to a greater extent than groups like the Syrian opposition which have currently been given country infoboxes, even if they are only internationally recognized by South Ossetia. As well, they are just as much a country as Rojava, which also uses the country infobox.
4. I largely agree with the points made by RGloucester and Athenean, as even without the aforementioned precedents, because they're much more country than war faction. DPR is not the political party Donetsk Republic and LPR is not "Peace for Lugansk".
5. At this rate, the War in Donbass will simmer to the point these will become frozen conflict states like Abkhazia et al. They do not seem ephemeral in nature. Nuke (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Point 5 is WP:CRYSTAL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll rephrase, then. With the last battle being about a year ago, and no new battles starting for the foreseeable future, with the NYT calling it a "frozen zone" (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/world/europe/ukraine-frozen-zone-virtual-reality.html?_r=0), these are frozen conflict zones. These are de facto independent republics like Abkhazia, Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Nagorno-Karabakh. The claim that these republics will disappear in the near future is WP:CRYSTAL. Nuke (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the fighting has not stopped, and I think you've misunderstood what WP:CRYSTAL means. We deal with the here and now of what sources say about what has occurred (because we're WP:NOTNEWS). As editors, we may feel that we know what the outcomes will be, but we don't project that into the content of the article, hence whether or not these states/entities will or won't remain is not within the scope of how we present the material. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I am aware fighting has not entirely stopped, but we already have a reliable source, the New York Times, seemingly placing it in the same category as South Ossetia et al. Also, regardless of my gaffe, I do not believe that using a country infobox counts as Wikipedia acting as a news source or acting as a crystal ball. However, I do believe this argument is reaching the heights of absurdity, not like it wasn't already chaos. Also, with the precedents I cited earlier, it does not matter if the conflict is ongoing as we see in the cases of both the Syrian opposition and Rojava, because the country infobox may be used if the country in question is a mere belligerent in a current armed conflict; as well, we see that it is not only a mere belligerent (e.g. Syrian opposition) but claims to be its own nation (e.g. Rojava). Anyway, I'm going to bed. Nuke (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• I support country infobox. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• Infobox country - I agree with what most people have said here, and I particularly agree with Anasaitis' comment above. I've never heard of DPR being compared to ISIS until I tapped into this discussion. So that's just personal opinion and should be kept as such. The country infobox's parameters are definitely more in lined with what the DPR actually is. I can hardly view the city of Donetsk as the headquarters of fully functioning government. It's the capital, and even Western mainstream sources represent it as such. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

What the DPR actually is is an leadership that when it signed the so called Minsk II agreement (and it did) it vowed to reintegrate territory it controlled back into Ukraine. Why do people want to give something that is not a country an infobox for a country? And if it gets one the fact that it is agreed by all parties in the conflict to reintegrate this territory back into Ukraine should be mentioned in it. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 11:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Except that the Republic of Donetsk has not come to Ukraine. And when it does we will infobox old country. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Iloilo Wanderer here. This actually has NOTHING to do with whether DPR is a "country" or a "war faction" or a "terrorist organization". The argument seems to be that "ISIS uses the 'war faction' template so if we use it for DPR that means they're like ISIS" is completely wrong headed. The only relevant question is which template is better suited *to our readers*, not to some POV or other. And readers don't see whether the template is "country" or "war faction". So all of these arguments about what the nature of DPR is are completely beside the point. The key question is - what information we want to include for our readers? I don't really care which template is used as long as the info in it is sourced and neutral. Or we could always go with NO infobox.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"No infobox" is a suggestion I could certainly support, and have hence changed my !vote. They are simply packs of oversimplified crap, useful for PoV pushers and no one else. RGloucester — ☎ 17:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Il support this suggestion. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Iloilo Wanderer and Volunteer Marek, it doesn't matter tuppence which infobox, so long as the info in the box is neutral and sourced. Therefore the box which best represents the info parameters to be displayed should be chosen. A WP info-box does not confer (or withhold) statehood, but so long as the infobox is NOT used to apparently legitimise the existence, it really doesn't matter what the box is called. I'm not going to vote as the relevant info isn't presented and most discussion above centres on is it/is it not a state (probably not, but that doesn't necessarily mean the 'country box' is not the most useful). Having no box also sounds a sensible option. Pincrete (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with Iloilo Wanderer, Volunteer Marek, RGloucester, Panam2014, and Pincrete, hence I've changed my !vote to reflect this. As I'd already pointed (time and time again: so whack me with a whale), the dynamics have changed since the !vote in 2014 when I believed that, according to RS, 'infobox country' was apt. Per WP:CCC, with the folding of the 'Novorossiya Project' (and I don't care whether it's re-manifesting as Anti-Maidan because the project itself has ceased) and Minsk II, treating the infobox as a COATRACK and SYNTH is not valuable, at-a-glance information for the reader. In fact, the article is so heavily weighed down by surplus and remnant info that it needs a disciplined clean up. Why this template (created by a sock in November 2014) is still embedded in the article is beyond me, but I'll be submitting it for TFDing as redundant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, yes the template seems to serve no information purpose except to give a dubious legitimacy. Pincrete (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe that the template is within the scope of this article; I'd say it's much better suited to a bottom-of-the-page template since we lack articles on DPR. I don't think it lends any legitimacy to the DPR, however. Nuke (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep the present Infobox war faction template. It meets all needs. It does not matter what the template is called. Any information that does not fit in the infobox, probably should not be in the infobox.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It does not meet any needs at all. It does not show the languages of the DPR, shows two leaders occupying the Prime Minister post simultaneously for some reason, provides nothing in the way of historical establishment (see South Ossetia, Canada, etc.), no legislature (while one exists), currency, time zone, demonym, form of government, or statistical information. It also shows its capital/largest city as a "headquarters", which sounds more like how you'd describe a government agency or a group like the Free Syrian Army, although that goes back into the "war faction or country" debate. Nuke (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• I support country infobox. Applodion (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I would not mind country infobox as long as it's "status"-section shows the correct situation. As it does in Wikipedia's Rojava article. I would suggest for this "status"-section: both DPR and Ukraine agreed of reintegration of DPR held territory back into Ukraine proper when signing Minsk II; but so far both have done nothing to make this possible. Or a more neutral phrasing..... The problem with the previous country infobox was that it ignored Minsk II and looked like an attempt to make DPR look just as normal as Canada. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the concept of putting Minsk II and such in the establishment timeline, but I'd prefer just putting "Minsk II", "Novorossiya formed", "Novorossiya suspended", etc. Nuke (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The country/geopolitical organization infobox did not ignore Minsk II, nor was it an attempt to make the DPR look like an officially recognized state. It simply reflected the de facto situation. Neither the Ukraine nor the rebel People's Republics have made much of an effort to adhere to what was discussed when Minsk II was signed. While neither group has launched any offensives since then, they still exchange fire and kill each other. There doesn't appear to be any serious effort to reintegrate the DPR and the LPR into Ukraine, so it appears that this conflict, like other similar conflicts nearby, has become a frozen conflict. So, like South Ossetia, the DPR and the LPR are still under their own administration. There is no Ukrainian authority within their territory. Novorossya may be no more, but its two constituent People's Republics still exist as seperate political entities from Ukraine. The country infobox is appropriate. However, if it would make satisfy the critics, I would support the suggestion of a status section within that country/geopolitical organization infobox which explains the DPR's status as an unrecognized state. Anasaitis (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Has any conclusion been reached on this? The discussion seemingly slowed down drastically and then stopped, and I'm pretty sure this RfC has now expired. Nuke (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC) It seems that the majority want the country/geopolitical organization infobox. If no one has any objections, I'll restore the infobox to reflect this. Anasaitis (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not how this works. Involved editors cannot close RfCs. You need to wait for an uninvolved administrator to come and close the RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 17:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay then. Let's find one to close this. Let's be done with this debate. Anasaitis (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I've already submitted a request at WP:AN. I'm sure one will come along shortly. RGloucester — ☎ 18:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Country Infobox would handily include their national symbols on the infobox instead of being haphazardly crammed to one side. BrxBrx (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2016 (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.

Infobox type

Should the infobox used not be war faction, instead of geopolitical organization? I ask this because on the List of states with limited recognition, both the DNR and ISIS fall under the same category of non-inclusion as even unrecognized states since they don't meet the criteria of the declarative model of statehood. In this regard, bot the DNR and ISIS are militant organizations controlling territory and proclaiming statehood (in ISIS' regard, claiming a caliphate, in the DNR, claiming the right to the entire Donetsk Oblast). Both are generally more militant in nature than governmental. This being said, would it be okay to switch infobox types at this point? --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 16:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• See the above RfC, "#RfC: War faction or country infobox?", which was closed in favour of the present infobox. RGloucester — ☎ 17:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Great minds think alike i guess, didnt expect that to even be on the page lol --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 18:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-crisis-deepens-rift-between-orthodox-churches-044052410.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Current lead says "unrecognised state"

The current lead states that Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) is an "unrecognised state". I wander if per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view not a more neutral description has to be used. Since most English language sources do not seem to be describing DPR as a state but as a "breakaway republic from Ukraine" or as a "self proclaimed state". Wikipedia is suppose to follow sources; not "lead the way" — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be "partially recognized" based on Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh. I believe "self-" is not neutral. It makes it sound more like a micronation than something that exists. See WP:LABEL. AFAIK, current policy is that if it lacks any recognition whatsoever -- such as Somaliland -- then it can be "self-". I added "unrecognized" without realizing what I mentioned in the first sentence and did not think it would be seen as not neutral in any way, but since al-Qaeda isn't called a terrorist group for the same reason, I believe that this article is justified in calling DPR an "unrecognized state". Nuke (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The basic problem is that "unrecognized state" means it is a de facto state. I agree that "unrecognized" isn't inherently a POV problem, but most of the sources I can find still only refer to it as a state-like entity or self-proclaimed state, not as a state, so "self-proclaimed" is a better description, I think. As per the convention at the List of partially recognized states (which excludes "Rebel groups which have declared independence and exert some control over territory, but which reliable sources do not describe as meeting the threshold of a sovereign state under international law"), we need sources referring to it as a territorial state by the declarative/Montevideo criteria before labelling it such. —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a wide variety of sources which state that it is an unrecognized state, such sources can be found in the talk page archives of the List of partially recognized states page. The specific reason why the DPR is not listed on that page, as reflected in the same talk page archives, is not that a lack of sources stating that it is an unrecognized state, it is that there are a lack of sources which explicitly state that the declarative or constitutive theories of statehood are satisfied. Thus while it may not meet the criteria for inclusion on that page, there are still sources which clearly state that it is an unrecognized state. Indeed, South Ossetia has extended recognition to the DPR that it is a state.XavierGreen (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore by calling a state unrecognized, one is by default conceding that there is no consensus within the international community that a polity is a state. As such I don't see the how calling the DPR an unrecognized state is NPOV, since the sources clearly state that its status as a state is generally unrecognized by the international community.XavierGreen (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: Re the discussions at the list: I know, having participated in them . I should say I don't necessarily object to calling it an unrecognized state, but my concern is basically that many sources (and many people) disagree with assessing the DPR as a state rather than simply as a state-like entity or just a rebel group. This, I take it, was Yulia Romero's NPOV concern. Calling it "self-proclaimed" is a minor change of terminology, equally valid, and doesn't make a judgement either way, so it seems more in line with consensus, IMO. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is why I used the term "unrecognized"; being recognized by a state not recognized by the majority of countries or the vague "international community". Nuke (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Self-proclaimed state", the pre-existing and longstanding terminology, should be used. "Unrecognised state" implies that it is a state, but merely does not have "recognition". That is not how "states" work. States only become states on the basis of recognition by the international community. An entity with no recognition from other states is not a state. This is called the constitutive theory of statehood, which is currently the norm, and is why ISIL is not considered a "state" in international law, despite resembling some form of a state on a practical level. Even if one accepts the declaratory theory of statehood, which suggests that a declaration of statehood creates a state, this would still be a "self-proclaimed state". There is nothing loaded about "self-proclaimed", as it is simply a statement of fact. The only people who have said the DPR is a state are the DPR group themselves. That is the definition of "self-proclaimed". "Unrecognised", on the other hand, is an attempt to skew WP:NPOV, by implying that the entity has legitimacy regardless of whether it is self-proclaimed or not. For these reasons, the only neutral description is "self-proclaimed". RGloucester — ☎ 16:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

When I wrote "longstanding terminology" above, I had thought that the change to "unrecognised state" had been recent. Low and behold, it seems that the change was introduce on 16 February 2015 by MyMoloboaccount. This slipped by me, because it occurred during the middle of an edit-war between people who wanted to label the DPR a "Russian nationalist rebel group" and those who wanted to label it a "self-proclaimed state". "Self-proclaimed state had been the stable version from just after the "declaration of independence" all the way until the start of the edit-war, but somehow no one reverted Molobo's edit. I would suggest we return to that description, per above. RGloucester — ☎ 17:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It might be self-proclaimed if it were not recognized by another partially-recognized state, but it has been recognized by South Ossetia. Nagorno-Karabakh simply states who recognizes it and says it is a "republic" while seemingly all other frozen conflict zones simply say "partially recognized state". Also, the term "unrecognized state" is often used in historic contexts, including on Wikipedia. Nuke (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I would challenge that the constitutive theory is the norm anywhere outside of international law—political scientists of all hues would generally cite the Weberian theory as the norm (i.e., a state exists where a group successfully enforces within a particular area its claim to be the only legitimate initiator of violence), which is legally represented in the declarative theory. Presumably this is why the list of unrecognized states opts for the declarative theory, though I haven't read the archives for that discussion. It's not really relevant either way, though; I agree that "self-proclaimed" is the neutral term in this case. —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. I was referring to international law. Regardless of what theory one takes, one cannot deny that "self-proclaimed state" is a mere statement of fact, whereas "unrecognised state" gives WP:UNDUE weight to the position of the DPR itself, as if it were in a vacuum outside international law. RGloucester — ☎ 17:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Understood, and I agree with you in that case. —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The DPR not being recognized by the UN and not being a signatory to any international treaty, is indeed in a vacuum outside of international law.XavierGreen (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This should be "self-proclaimed" - exactly as on page about LPR. My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe this would probably affect the LPR as well, based on how the infobox RfC affected both LPR and DPR. To me, other frozen conflict zones should be used as precedents. Nuke (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Just want to point out since you guys are discussing theories, but the Declarative model is the type used for other articles of this nature, it seems; which the DNR does not meet per reliable secondary sources. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 16:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The scholarly sources I have read largely state nothing in regards to whether or not the declarative theory has been satisfied. There is one source mentioned in the States with Limited Recognition page archives which states that the DPR meets most of the criteria, but that the author could not determine at the time of publication as to whether it met all of the criteria.12.10.199.11 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not personally aware of many (or really any) sources stating that the DPR does not meet the declarative model of statehood, having dug through the literature a couple of months back, so it's a matter of "sources don't exist either way" rather than "does not meet per reliable secondary sources". As far as academic stuff goes, there hasn't been much chance for scholarly literature dealing with that very narrow topic to appear in the last two years anyway. It would be helpful if Black Future could post the ones he is aware of. Might be some new stuff since I've looked. —Nizolan ^(talk) 16:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Assuming the declarative theory makes South Ossetia a state with which the DPR and LPR could have diplomatic relations, then it probably fulfills all four requirements. It has a government, even if it is qualitatively questionable. It seems from their foreign ministry website that they do not at least talk about any relations with them, however, which makes it more an issue of if their relations with Ukraine count. Now, as for a defined territory? Well, we have a map that generally doesn't change (as of late), but I don't know if the period of time that the map hasn't changed -- with the most recent changes occurring earlier this year (around March if I recall correctly) in an evacuated area -- and a permanent population is obviously present. Also, if there is no "defined territory" of DPR because of its shifts, then it may also be the case that Ukraine is not a state, either, which is wrong, so I presume it's acceptable. (I figure the permanent population part is to prevent self-declared Antarctic Empires, not "refugees leaving the region" or similar.) Nuke (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

DPR Poll Support

In a poll conducted in August 2015 in 19 cities of the Donetsk oblast with 6500 respondents, only 29% supported the DPR and 10% considered themselves to be "Russian patriots". -- it's fake.

It was thickness of whom presented this poll on site. Question was why you support DPR? 29% of peoples support DPR cause they are against new autorities who came as the result of maidan. And before for same reason DPR was supported by 22%.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcM9i_EUYig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iuOPH8tCNU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazilio215 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Bazilio215 This is a Wikipedia talk page, not a soapbox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, i just gave links so you can look, why it's happened. Here is poll [2] source, you can use google translate to check. And here is unredacted version (http:// ar chive. is/qsS3q) of poll, which ukranian media used for propaganda, you can see the title: The results of the survey on the topic "Why do you support the DPR?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazilio215 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You're citing ДАН as a reliable source? When? How? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a poll origin, you can look dates of publication, also i can't call unian[3] reliable source either cause it's often produce propaganda and don't give links to the original material: "The findings were published on the website of Donetsk news agency". (ДАН) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazilio215 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

ДАН is the direct outlet of the DPR government. This only makes it reliable for comments on itself. UNIAN is not a government outlet and, as with Kyiv Post, it has a track record of being neutral: i.e., it has also freely criticised the Ukrainian government. If you believe that ДАН is a reliable source, please take it to the WP:RSN and present your case there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

So you are saying POLL from DPR government source is less reliable than reprint from it with mistakes on UNIAN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazilio215 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

UNIAN is not neutral, it's not even close to neutral, sharij.net[4] is neutral, korrespondent[5] is more less ok. UNIAN is not. I really hope you won't leave false information cause of some political bias, it's wikipedia. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazilio215 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Shariy is neutral!?! Oh, come on... what parallel RS universe are you living in? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, his news site is ok and neutral, not his personal page or youtube channel ofc, and i never saw any fakes on it. I live in normal universe and know both sides of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazilio215 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, well I live in a universe where I read up on various sides of any story, but that doesn't mean I can confidently tell you that I've never encountered 'fake' information on any of them. What may appeal to either of us, and make good sense within our personal realms of understanding does not equip us to know that the source is not 'fake'. He has an absolute bias, therefore his going to interpret information from his bias (just as you or I do). All that makes him is a biased source, not a reliable source, and we're not here to push our own biases: we're here to reflect what mainstream sources have to say on the matter. This doesn't mean that I'm gullible and have some form of absolute faith in mainstream sources, but if I don't like what they say, I just have to stay away from editing articles I don't like what the mainstream press presents the situation as being. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we agree on that this info on UNIAN is distorted and fake? I explained as much as i could and gave all proof links about that. I can only add that expecting to have on DPR government source (on which UNIAN didn't give proper link as source and only mentioned) other information would be quite strange. I hope truth prevails and you can fix it cause seems you are chief editor here, thanks. :) --talk (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for upping this topic from archive, but nobody answered anywhere, so will be nice to hear other guys opinion about this. Anybody? Do you need some proofs that unian do mistakes and was sometimes bias during this conflict? Or something else. Here is more less fresh example: http:// a rchive. is/jzICL They presented girls with down syndrome as ukranian flag [6] Basicly it's situation same as with western media, they publish something though if they made mistakes in article they add corrections to it, but for some reasons this corrections is not accepted in this wiki article for ДАН website, and was used old reprint from UNIAN with mistakes as source. --talk (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, UNIAN is a low-quality highly biased source. It can be used if there is nothing more reliable available.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is original poll source[7], corrected by editor to which unian links in it's article[8] without proper reference, maybe we should use it in wiki? Not UNIAN version, cause they took it from this website from unedited version with mistakes and were lazy enough intentionally or not to fix it later. --talk (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This one is highly biased as well, so that they can only be used with attribution "As reported by ..." or smth similar.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, i don't trust both, though i'm reffering to that if we use poll "published on the website of Donetsk news agency" as written on UNIAN website we will use original corrected source of this poll or we won't use this information at all as trustable. --talk (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Basicly i guess it will be best decision, to remove this completely: «In a poll conducted in August 2015 in 19 cities of the Donetsk oblast with 6500 respondents, only 29% supported the DPR and 10% considered themselves to be "Russian patriots".» Both sources are biased and can't be trusted, though if we continue to use this poll than only from "DNA" website cause it's original source. As an option i can suggest leaked documents in 2015 from State Security Ministry of DPR with opinion polls, not sure if wikipedia ok with it, cause it's leak, though i think it reflects reality[9]. In it:

Poll conducted in Donetsk, Makeevka

09.12.14 What's foreign policy is the most suitable for you?

DPR republic in Russian Federation 77,7%

Independent republic 9%

Federal (autonomous) republic within Ukraine 13,3%

Can't tell for sure 0%

Poll conducted in Donetsk, Makeevka, Shakhtersk, Yenakiyevo

22.12.14 What's foreign policy is the most suitable for you?

DPR republic in Russian Federation 48,2%

Independent republic 22,4%

Federal (autonomous) republic within Ukraine 29,4%

Can't tell for sure 0%

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazilio215 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 

Evidently you believe that RT is the only reliable source of news. Maybe you are in the wrong place.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not, i'm just trying to be objective as much as i can and never trusted Russia Today if y imply on this and i know who brought Boeing down for example, i'm using western sources mostly daily, though i don't trust them totally and use alternate sources too. --talk (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not think it reflects any reality and should be in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sad to hear, then can't help. :( Can only suggest delete this wrong info in article. I don't trust ukranian polls and pro-russian official polls too. Basicly for me i see this way: Crimea around 85% for Russia. In DPR around ~70% in 2014 pro-russians, now maybe 50-55% cause political situation uncertain. Though ofc it's my personal opinion. --talk (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2016

Please add link in "Foreign" section ".... fulfill all the obligations under the Agreement of 21 February." to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_settlement_of_political_crisis_in_Ukraine Zovadn (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistent naming conventions

Can someone explain to me why this article describes DPR as a self-proclaimed state, whereas Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is described as a terrorist organisation? Seems to me the only difference is predominant skin color, their objectives and status are identical. One or the other. 86.93.227.7 (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sure you are right. The problem is that NATO Pact countries do not designate the DPR as a terrorist organisation. Because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, it has to reflect what mainstream reliable sources say.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

See WP:SOAPBOX before placing a nonsensical post like this again. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

"Status"-section in Infobox. Let's use it!

In have seem to have started an edit-skirmish on this page and on the Luhansk People's Republic-page. I tried to use the "status =" of Template:Infobox country to describe the situation that the two self-proclaimed states are now in.... I was reverted because "Minsk II is already mentioned in the infobox". That might be the case but without explaining what Minsk II is the Infobox it becomes an attempt to make the two self-proclaimed states pass for "normal" states which makes the articles a publication of original thought; since mainstream media does not try to make the 2 self-proclaimed states look as normal (as (for example) Canada). I also noticed that in the articles on Transnistria, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic this handy "status ="-section is missing in their Infoboxes. One missed opportunity to explain the current peace proposals (or lack of...) of those self-proclaimed states. But I would not be surprised if enthusiastic diaspora (originating from those places) tried to WP:POVPUSH the Wikipedia community in trying to threat those self-proclaimed states as "normal" states. They are not "normal" states (because they have too few recognition by UN-states); so they should not be treated like one. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about Minsk II but the explanation you had there was really helpful and should be put back. Legacypac (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No polity using the country type infobox uses the status parameter to my knowledge, so i don't see why one should be used here. There was just a massive RFC about the use of the infobox on this page and the LPR page, the result of the RFC was to use the country infobox. By using Minsk II is already linked in the infobox, there is no need to list it twice. Furthermore none of the other parameters in the infobox have legnthy explanaitons attached to them. If further explanation is needed one can merely refer to the article, or a note can be included in the reference section, though this would be redundant since its already clearly mentioned in the article. Since Minsk II was not implemented outside of the ceasefire, its pointless to include much detail about it anyway since it does not reflect the actual situation or "status" of the two polities in question.XavierGreen (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, the findings of the RFC specically stated that the infobox as it stood prior to your edits did not in fact do anything to tip the POV of the article towards the legitimacy of the LPR and DPR as states.XavierGreen (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The specific language the RFC closing comment made regarding this is as follows "I'd like to caution editors that this should not be taken as license to insert a particular POV regarding the DPR's status into the article." Given that Minsk II was signed but is has not been implemented, mentioning it in the status parameter is quite meaningless, since the DPR and LPR defacto lay outside of the regime envisioned by the Minsk II agreement. Rather than explaining one point of view or another regarding the status of Minsk II, merely mentioning it in the infobox should suffice as it was originally should suffice, let the readers themselves decide what the current status of the DPR and LPR are, there is no need to put POV statements one way or the other in infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue that the RFC covered was which template should be used to generate the infobox. As you pointed on in one of your edit summaries, the question of the status line in the country infobox template was mentioned. The comments that clearly mentioned it were:

• 21:35, 8 March 2016 "I would not mind country infobox as long as it's "status"-section shows the correct situation. As it does in Wikipedia's Rojava article. I would suggest for this "status"-section: both DPR and Ukraine agreed of reintegration of DPR held territory back into Ukraine proper when signing Minsk II; but so far both have done nothing to make this possible. Or a more neutral phrasing..... The problem with the previous country infobox was that it ignored Minsk II and looked like an attempt to make DPR look just as normal as Canada."
• 18:01, 11 March 2016: "However, if it would make satisfy the critics, I would support the suggestion of a status section within that country/geopolitical organization infobox which explains the DPR's status as an unrecognized state."

These comments supported the use of the status line in the country infobox template.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The POV in the summary description was a reference to using the infobox in order to promote the presentation of the DPR as a country along with driving on the right hand side, population estimate, plus, plus, plus: all that was missing was the phone number for the 'Better Business Bureau'. In fact, it has basically reverted to exactly the same piece of rubbish purporting a recognised and established state as it was before the RfC. Do we now need to hold an RfC defining what constitutes superfluous, POV-pushing content for the infobox? This has simply regressed back to the WP:BOLLOCKS being promoted as 'neutral' when it has absolutely nothing to do with what any reliable sources have to say about the DPR or the LPR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You had stated that you would abide by the RFC regardless of its outcome, and would not oppose putting things back to the original country infobox if thats what the RFC found. The RFC found that the language as used in the country infobox was not POV, it seems like you'r going back on your own statement...XavierGreen (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The comments your refering to were not in the Closing statement of the RFC, and don't constitute consensus on that issue, in fact there were other editors who opposed such an implementation of a statement in a status section as you are advocating.XavierGreen (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

There were? Did they write anything in the RFC? If yes, please provide times and dates of their posts in the RFC.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

See this comment in the above RFC - "I agree with the concept of putting Minsk II and such in the establishment timeline, but I'd prefer just putting "Minsk II", "Novorossiya formed", "Novorossiya suspended", etc. Nuke (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)" As i have said from the beginning, i'm not opposed to mentioning Minsk II in the infobox. What i am opposed to is mentioning it twice, and any lengthy/ POV statement. Its not up to us to determine what the status of the DPR and LPR is, that is for reliable sources and the readers themselves to interpret from reading those sources.XavierGreen (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you are seeing what you want to see. The comment you refer to said:

• 3:02, 9 March 2016 "I agree with the concept of putting Minsk II and such in the establishment timeline, but I'd prefer just putting "Minsk II", "Novorossiya formed", "Novorossiya suspended", etc."

This is not a clear statement that the the status line in the Inbox Country template should not be used.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Its a clear statement that in the editor's opinion, that in regards to mentioning Minsk II in the infobox it in that editor's opinion should be limited to "just putting Minsk II" which is a clear statement in regards to what we are talking about. Regardless, what matters is the closing comment, which clearly indicates that POV regarding status of the DPR should not be put into the infobox. Creating a status paratmeter clear indicates a POV in regards to status.XavierGreen (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I also note, the citations given for the "status" section, state nothing about the actual "status" of the DPR or LPR. Two of them merely cite that a ceasefire agreement was signed, but are so old that they do not mention that the provisions agreed to in the agreement were not implemented. The third source from the New York Times, is a piece covering an inverview of a Ukrainian politican who opposed the signing of the deal and has no bearing on the current "status" of the polities in question.XavierGreen (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No, you are not 'noting' anything, XavierGreen: you are nit-picking in order to twist the RfC outcome to fit your POV. This is known as WP:REHASH. Read the RfC and note how many times you were asked to stop the rehashing and WP:CRUSH tactics. The fundamental agreement was to use the country infobox on the understanding that OR was not to be introduced, nor relevant content pertaining to the 'in the real world' status (i.e., Minsk II) be removed as part of the 'at a glance' information the infobox provides the reader. If you believe the RS is somehow out of date, please bring RS demonstrating a change in status to the table for discussion. I don't particularly care if an international law enacted in 1948 hasn't changed: if it hasn't been repealed or redefined it still remains the contemporary international law whether you'd like to wish it away or not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The closing comment of the RFC by the administrator clearly states that there should be no POV injected into the infobox regarding the status of the DPR, creating a status parameter directly injects an opinion into the infobox regarding the status of the polity.XavierGreen (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this appears to be an attempt to WP:WIKILAWYER the closing statement of the RfC into something it wasn't, *precisely* for POV purposes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Having nothing in regards to a status parameter gives the infobox absolutely no POV in regards to status.XavierGreen (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Having nothing in regards to a status parameter gives the infobox the POV that the DPR (sub LPR) is a real little boy, Geppetto. False advertising... as you well know. Please stop these horrendously disruptive POV contrivances, XavierGreen. You are edit warring against several other editors and refuse to stop WP:BLUDGEONing everyone yet again. You did this with the RfC. You are now trying to get the infobox back to the same piece of nonsense editors had objected to prior the RfC... so I am reminding you again to drop it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The result of the RFC was to revert to the infobox used prior to the edit dispute that caused the RFC. Virtually no polity using the Geopolitical/Country infobox uses the status parameter, so not having it implies nothing. Those few pages that do have it use it to describe what type of polity the particular entity in question is. The status parameter as it currently stands on this page does nothing of the sort. I have removed the two sources that user:VolunteerMarek stated in his edit summary only implied what was asserted. Since there is no synthesis of sources allowed, they should not be listed as citations regardless. The third source dates from February of 2015, as has utterly no bearing on the current situation in the DPR. Thus that source is also irrelevant.XavierGreen (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The infobox provides incorrect or inconsistent info. The estimation of population (based on prewar numbers) is grossly incorrect given that hundreds thousand (at least) left the area. Why this a "Unitary semi-presidential republic"? What does it mean "International recognition"? Is it independent from Ukraine or "reintegrated" to Ukraine as different parts of infobox inconsistently claim? The "religion" section is also inconsistent with the quoted source, which tells about persequition [10]. And so on. My very best wishes (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to changing the statement in the infobox about international recognition, a more NPOV way to handle it would be to simply list that there is recognition by 1 non-UN member, as the Transnistria page's infobox handles recognitions. In regards to the religion parameter, if there are no sources stating that the DPR has an official religion, I would not oppose that parameter's removal as well. For population, there is a note attached stating that the number quoted is a pre-war estimate, if there is a better more current number that can be found it can be updated. In regards to independence, that the DPR has declared independence and the dates given are well sourced in the article.XavierGreen (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's incredibly noble of you, considering that it was you who restored the 'infobox country' to exactly the problematic, misleading state it was prior the RfC. Is this meant to be some sort of compromise? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You yourself had clearly stated in the RFC and prior discussions above that if consensus was to return to the old country type infobox, that you would not oppose it any further. Well the RFC was closed in favor of using the country infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I even changed my !vote to no infobox rather than the 'geopolitical' one. Read through the RfC again and pay attention to what editors were !voting for and against, as well as the decision. As it stands, any WP:CALC for numbers of people living in the DPR is WP:OR as there are wads of reliable sources discussing the displacement and refugee status of literally at least a couple of million people. It was not a vote to reinstate the POV and OR inclusions of 'type of government' (except if qualified as being per self-identification), currency, etc. as if it were even functioning as a real state, but as a vote for flexibility. Flexibility is most definitely not the same thing as way off the mark misrepresentation and POV omission of defining features of the 'state'. The status of both the DPR and LPR are clearly that of unrecognised states that must technically reintegrate with Ukraine in some manner in order for the RF's annexation of Crimea to be internationally recognised. It may be a dumb, unworkable, awkwardly engineered piece of politicking, but that's what the status is. Wikipedia represents what the RS mainstream tells us regardless of any editor's personal politics. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Briefly stating something controversial in the infobox is frequently misleading. For example, someone who reads "referendum" in the infobox would assume there was indeed a referendum. But it was not actually a referendum in the normal meaning of the word. Describing this event in detail in text is fine, but simply calling it "referendum" in the infobox is misleading. Also, we all know that population numbers in the infobox are completely wrong, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

There was a referendum, whether or not it was valid is POV, something that readers should decide for themselves. As for population, the note clearly states that its the prewar population, it doesn't purport to be anything but that. If you have better more recent numbers, put them there.XavierGreen (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

A referendum is a direct vote in which an entire electorate [of the country] is asked to vote on a particular proposal. There was no such referendum. That was only called "referendum" in sources. It is OK to call it "referendum" on the page if we explain what it actually means. But simply saying "referendum" in infobox is misleading. And no, this is an absolutely wrong idea to place any outdated numbers in the infobox when we know that the actual numbers are significantly smaller. My very best wishes (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion on what the referendum means and its validity is Original Research, the readers themselves can determine what they believe the validity of the referendum to be by reading the body of the article. That the DPR and LPRs conducted referendums on indpendence in the areas they control is an uncontroverted fact well sourced in the article. As for the population data, a whole host of countries list similar data for example Syria, Turkey, Iraq, South Sudan all have wild population fluctuations that are not necessarily reflective of what census data shows.XavierGreen (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The readers can determine something themselves only if relevant information was provided to them per WP:NPOV, i.e. in the body of the page. Once again, placing highly controversial claims that were disputed in sources in the infobox (i.e., essentially as a matter of fact and without appropriate context) is POV-pushing. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• According to RfC closing, I'd like to caution editors that this should not be taken as license to insert a particular POV regarding the DPR's status into the article.. Yes, exactly. I removed certain POV/misleading statements from the old version of the infobox and explained why (see above). Please do not restore without consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
• This is common problem for infoboxes: they do not provide appropriate context - as required by WP:NPOV. Therefore, placing any questionable and controversial data in infobox is POV. Placing something undisputable and non-controversial is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Upon further review, the referendum parameter really isn't used much in these types of pages, so I have gone ahead and removed it from this one. Looking at the citations for the population parameter, it looks like its synthesis to me so I removed that as well. The edits that you stated you did not have a problem with in your edit summary I have restored (removing the ethnicity parameter and editing the recognition parameter to make it NPOV.XavierGreen (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

In addition, I think that map is misleading ("Territory controlled by the Donetsk People's Republic within its claimed territory"). Is it really their claimed territory, especially after Minsk agreement, and which sources tell about this? Why their "claimed" territory (rather than controlled territory) is at all relevant? Some of them claimed the entire Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be listed as a Client/Protectorate of the Russian Federation? - mango2002 07/09/2016 08.43 AM GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.163.234 (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources describing it at such? If, not such suggestions are a breach of WP:NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Back to the infobox: map

I'm removing File:Donetskrepublic.svg - the map that was being used in the infobox - as being both unsourced and outdated. It was last updated in February 2015. Just comparing it to Lugansk News Today - a problematic source in itself - demonstrates the the purported "controlled territory" for February of 2016 here), and LiveMap here do not correspond with the Donetskrepublic.svg.

Further to this, as was noted in the discussion regarding parameters for the infobox a couple of months ago, the description, "Territory controlled by the Donetsk People's Republic within its claimed territory" is nonsensical. It controls territory within its territory? How remarkable and caption-worthy it is... not: tautological at best; complete load of old cobblers at worst. Either scenario marks it as not up to scratch as encyclopaedic content. The map claims areas no longer controlled by the DPR or LPR, so how can it be realistic to even imply that everything within the defined region is absolutely and unequivocally under DPR control (which is what the convoluted caption was presumably trying to infer)? I'd suggest that the only way to get around map issues if for a sourced map to be created, and for an apt description to be appended as the caption. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Parity between articles

I would request that editors of this article take a look at the Luhansk People's Republic article. There is an editor edit warring to introduce Category:Ukrainian irredentism, as well as remove the List of designated terrorist organizations from the article. The editor also opened a thread at the NPOVN a few days ago. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 51 external links on Donetsk People's Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016142942/http://rt.com/news/line/2014-08-07/ to http://rt.com/news/line/2014-08-07/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-russia-backs-results-of-sundays-referendums-in-donetsk-and-luhansk-9354683.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukrainian-city-of-donetsk-epitomizes-countrys-crisis/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c427c7dc-a558-11e3-8070-00144feab7de,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c427c7dc-a558-11e3-8070-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk&siteedition=uk&_i_referer=http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c427c7dc-a558-11e3-8070-00144feab7de.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/07/us-ukraine-crisis-storm-idUSBREA350B420140407
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://novosti.dn.ua/details/222251/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/total-of-77-citizens-in-donetsk-condemn-administrative-buildings-takeover-342872.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/world/europe/ukraine-russia.html?_r=0
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rt.com/news/157640-donetsk-ukraine-referendum-may/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/world/europe/ukraine.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/05/06/Germany-Said-Donetsk-May-11-Referendum-Will-Exacerbate-Ukraine-Crisis-US-Will-Not-Recognize-Vote
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.euronews.com/2014/05/10/ukraine-donetsk-polling-stations-gear-up-for-sunday-referendum/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rt.com/op-edge/158528-russia-response-ukraine-donetsk/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://online.wsj.com/articles/russia-calls-for-civilized-implementation-of-east-ukraine-referendum-results-1399884791
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140309/pro-russian-gubarev-symbol-east-ukraine-separatism
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140311065542/http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140309/pro-russian-gubarev-symbol-east-ukraine-separatism to http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140309/pro-russian-gubarev-symbol-east-ukraine-separatism
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/08/donetsk-pro-russian-activists-referendum-ukraine
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/pro-russian-separatists-dig-in-at-donetsk-government-342977.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.itar-tass.com/world/727352
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rt.com/news/donetsk-republic-protestukraine-841/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.itar-tass.com/world/726779
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://novosti.dn.ua/details/219773/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://news.vice.com/video/russian-roulette-the-invasion-of-ukraine-dispatch-twenty-three?trk_source=homepage-lede
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ukrainianpolicy.com/sbu-audio-links-donetsk-republic-to-russian-involvement/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/05/21/fascism_comes_to_ukraine_--_from_russia_122700.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unian.net/politics/915617-plennyih-sotrudnikov-alfyi-obmenyali-na-treh-liderov-separatistov-sbu.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304626304579509100018004342
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://novosti.dn.ua/details/221964/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27743090
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/120113
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4510688,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ukraine-leaflets-calling-jewish-registration-were-faked-1445383
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/18/antisemitic-donetsk-peoples-republic-ukraine-hoax
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/19/us-ukraine-crisis-jews-idUSBREA3I0ES20140419?feedType=RSS&feedName=everything&virtualBrandChannel=11563
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://observers.france24.com/content/20140418-ukraine-authenticity-anti-semitic-leaflets-targeting-jews-donetsk-under-scrutiny
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117415/relax-ukraine-not-ordering-its-jews-register
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/17/prorussian-deny-jews-told-to-register/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/18/antisemitic-donetsk-peoples-republic-ukraine-hoax
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/04/19/7023041/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10880652/Beaten-and-threatened-the-Donetsk-Peoples-Republic-turns-on-citys-priests.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unian.net/politics/909728-v-slavyanske-separatistyi-izbivayut-i-grabyat-romov-smi.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://osce.usmission.gov/may_8_14_ukraine_roma.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kyivpost.com/multimedia/video-2/ukraine-news-one-donetsk-gay-club-attacked-by-separatists-video-351341.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/199512.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unian.net/politics/910438-sem-selsovetov-donetchinyi-prosyat-prisoedinit-ih-k-dnepropetrovskoy-oblasti.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://obozrevatel.com/politics/48623-kolomojskij-gotov-navesti-poryadok-v-donetskoj-i-luganskoj-oblastyah.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://euromaidanpr.com/2014/05/10/donetsk-residents-to-vote-in-referendum-on-joining-dnipropetrovsk/#more-8771
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ukraine-crisis-stephen-harper-blames-russian-provocateurs-for-escalation-1.2609504
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/200643.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.voanews.com/content/q-and-a-with-us-amb-geoffrey-pyatt-ukraine-crisis-escalates-as-war-fears-grow/1893136.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-split-partition-/25270988.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Government ministers list is outdated

The list of Government ministers in the section "Politics" is outdated. Until I changed it today Alexander Kofman was listed as "Minister of Foreign Affairs", according to this source he isn't anymore. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

there is no dnr

it looks like the article is trying very hard not to mention the russian involvement in this thing called "dnr", and trying to present it as an autonomous entity. Ukraine and the western world consider this territory to be occupied by Russian Federation. That's not a small thing, that should be in the article. were you asleep for the past 3 years? here watch this report https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxtq4PNfRPg 212.90.182.118 (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

For future reference: Russia denies that the "young republic" is being maintained at the expense of the Russian Federation. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Republic of South Ossetia

It is not an independent country, it has no impact on the world, so why write it as an authoritative source? It is not logical to write about the recognition of the unrecognized country another unrecognized country.--AlexKozur (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Why? It is notable. Anyway it is an independent country, it just isn't recognised as such.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Apollo The Logician: I don't understand this, I think it isn't correct. This isn't the country (formally) and has no influence in the world. So can not recognize the other countries because she is not recognized. Sorry for my English and this conflict. --AlexKozur (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@AlexKozur: Your argumentation is not logical. An unrecognized state can recognize another unrecognized state, even if you do not understand this. The "influence in the world" is completely irrelevant. Apart from this, South Ossetia has been recognized by Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Nauru.

DIBA --176.94.44.42 (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Status - reintegration???

You must be joking. Status connects to Minsk II and says reintegration. That is ridiculous. There will not be reintegration, but liquidation and prosecution of perpetrators. De facto status is unknown and connecting it with Minsk II makes no sense. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, the article on Minsk II says that reintegration will occur for the "Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts", while the article on Donetsk People's Republic states that the separatist group will be reintegrated. Where is consistency? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Ukrainian is official language of the separatist group???

Where is this information taken from? Who promotes Ukrainian language in this separatist group? That is totally ridiculous. I mean Ukrainian universities were forced to be relocated. Carrying Ukrainian flag on the territory occupied by that group is similar to criminal act. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The separatists' constitution states that Ukrainian is one of the DPR's official languages. 217.66.156.190 (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

What oppressive states claim about themselves, and what they actually do, are often different.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Regardless what happens with the country of Ukraine, some people in the area still speak the language. Legacypac (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

DPR is recognized as a terrorist organization

By the reputable expert group: https://www.trackingterrorism.org/group/people%E2%80%99s-militia-donetsk-people%E2%80%99s-republic

TRAC ANALYSIS: IDEOLOGY Separatist / New Regime Nationalist / Ethnic Nationalist

TRAC ANALYSIS: TACTICS Kidnapping/Hostage Taking as a Terrorist Tactic, Arson / Fire Bombings as a Terrorist Tactic

TRAC ANALYSIS: TARGETS Attacks on Infrastructure

So by the this analysis they are neo-Nazi ("Ethnic Nationalist") too.

Also, "U.S. Senators Urge Naming 'Donetsk People's Republic' Terrorist Organization".

http://www.rferl.org/a/us-senators-donetsk-republic-terrorists/25468028.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.208.90 (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:TERRORIST requirements have already been met for this article. Nuke (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

LGBT Rights/Constitution

The Donetsk constitution has no ban on same sex activity; it doesn't even mention homosexuality. The article cited uses a fake translation. The real text of the constitution can be read here: https://dnr-online.ru/konstituciya-dnr/ 2601:187:4502:8160:7040:679C:6C1D:4F0B (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Please cite reliable sources that support what you say.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Recognition by the LPR?

Is the DPR recognized by the LPR? The article only mentions South Ossetia for some reason.--Adûnâi (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Territorial unit or event?

Does this article cover a territorial unit (as suggested by most of the sections at the start) or an event (as implied by the "Reactions" section at the end)? The combination of both seems to me not coherent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HFS-er (talk • contribs) 11:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Designated as terrorist in Ukraine?

Right now the ref for this ukro-nazi drivel is one non-mainstream newspaper that cites PR office of prosecutor. The article is from 2014 and says that "case is opened on creation of terrorist organization". 5 years passed. Not a single word about this case since. Newspaper ARE NOT reputable sources for cases, official open legal government documents are. I'm pretty sure that even in Ukraine with all its lawlessness and corruption there's OFFICIAL list of organizations that are CONFIRMED not suspected or accused, but CONFIRMED to be "terrorist organization. I.e. there should be official legal state act, with signatures of relevant state officals that declares DNR as such or lists it among such organization. This act or list should have official number and designation. Unless someone provides such a valid legal reference, this wishful thinking of urkonazi needs to be removed from this page. I intend to remove this in a week. --Rowaa[SR13] (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Some additional info: Ukraine called anti-rebel operation "ATO - anti-terrorist operation" for years, but switched to "OOS - opeartion of combined forces" in 2018. According to Deutsche Welle hosted commentary by Ukrainian journalist Segey Rudenko (https://www.dw.com/ru/комментарий-окончание-ато-в-донбассе-продолжение-войны-в-украине/a-43591213) this means "Ukraine at last confirmed de jure, that it clashes not with terrorists, but with representatives of occupational government, that are LNR and DNR". This looks to me as it implies that either there were no previous de jure designation, or it was changed. --Rowaa[SR13] (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

And guess here's the definite answer as soon as I confirm authenticity somehow: http://timer-odessa.net/news/ofitsialno_ukraina_ne_schitaet_dnr_i_lnr_terroristicheskimi_organizatsiyami_288.html Supposedly those papers are photocopies of official answers to queries to Office of President of Ukraine and several other bodies in 2017 if LNR/DNR are official recognized as terrorist organization. It says "no official body issued any legal acts recognizing LNR or DNR as terrorist organization". --Rowaa[SR13] (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

gov.ua - i.e. government site: http://old.kmu.gov.ua/kmu/control/ru/publish/article?art_id=247885502&cat_id=244843950: 21.01.2015 Arsenity Yatsenyuk addresses Rada asking it to support project of law on procedure of designation a group as "terrorist organization". Apparently until this date Ukraine didn't even had legal means to designate anyone "terrorist organization". So that makes 2014 year press release as void as it can be. --Rowaa[SR13] (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Human Rights Category

This is some of the worst stuff I've seen on Wikipedia. Almost all the sources are Ukrainian newspapers, which have a bias tendency. Beyond that I checked out one that crashed my PC. (Although that may be because I'm on an older model.) The entire area is a bias mess which is far too long. It should either get trimmed down by a lot or it should be a subcategory. Flalf (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not the fault of all editors working on this article that detailed non-Ukrainian sources about Donetsk People's Republic are hard to find because of a global fascination of international media with US-internal politics. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand, sorry, I wrote that in a moment of frustration. Flalf (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's defaitist. Check

• https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports
• https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/83968/Karis_CSM_2018.pdf?sequence=1
• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/26/opinion/sunday/ukraine-war-donetsk.html

And thanks for your contributions to this article, Flalf. Heptor (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem Heptor. On the other hand I gave in because I felt like it wasn’t a worth fighting over, although I still stand by the fact that the section is less than satisfactory. 00:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flalf (talk • contribs)

I agree with your assesment of the current quality of this article. Althogh some improvements had recently been made, the state of the article remains poor. The shortage of reliable sources is a part of the problem, but not the only problem. Heptor (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

On the Human Rights split discussion, I don't think we should split it we should cut it to 1-2ish paragraphs. Flalf (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion is in line with Wikipedia:Splitting. Issues with verifiability and misrepresentation of sources notwithstanding, the section is simply too long compared to the rest of the article. Two other articles are meant to cover this topic in full: Human rights in the Donetsk People's Republic and Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass. Heptor (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks. Flalf (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Neo-Sovietism

Heptor, why do you accept the Category:Neo-Sovietism for the article as WP:Label? There were reintroduced the Soviet pioneers, there still exists Communist Party, there are people who look at Ukrainians with disdain as it was in the Soviet Union, and there are many people who sincerely wish the reinstatement of the Soviet Union because in the words of their idol, it was the greatest tragedy of all-times (or maybe just a 20th century). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I think they still celebrate the Day of the Soviet Army and Military Sea Fleet, the Day of the October Revolution, the Polbedy Day and many other Soviet junk. They still watch the Soviet movie "With a light steam" that exists for some 40 years. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Aleks, on the other hand they have multi-party elections, freedom of speech and organization, freedom to emigrate, freedom to run business enterprises without being sent to Gulag. This is a significant departure from the soviet ideals. Also, many non-soviet states celebrate the Victory in Europe Day, and communist parties are also very common in Europe and beyond. I'm sorry if you feel that Ukrainians are not treated respectfully, this is certainly not an attitude that I share. Heptor (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

So called "references"

I've reviewed some references. Pretty much all DNR bashing points to Ukrainian newspapers. Gee, I wonder, could they be just spewing lies without any confirmantion such as photos or something. What a weird idea, right? But at least one reference stood out for me for just how pathetically laughable flimsy it is. This one about attack on Romani: https://www.unian.net/politics/910549-v-slavyanske-snova-ustroili-romskiy-pogrom.html. Open it and read up, it short. REALLY SHORT. Why, I'll simply cite entire article here:
>> Header: There's another attack on Romani in Slavyansk
>> Subheader: There's continued robberies and bullying of Romani Slavyansk (yes, "in" is missing in original text - nobody even bothered to proofread it, this piece of random shit was released "type and forget" twitter style)
>> <Image of some random Romani? people standing near old village house with same subtitle as header, none of them looks beaten>
>> Entire text of article: As reported by "Новости Донбасса" in their Twitter. It also came to light that one man was shot in the leg.
Yes. That was ENTIRE text of article used as reference. Header, random stock image and two sentences. Does it looks like reliable reference to you? Because it looks like 5 minutes long propaganda patchjob that people didn't even bothered to proofread along the lines "let's throw some dirt at those separatists to make them look bad" to me.

Who validates references like those? --Rowaa[SR13] (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe this observation to be correct. This article is presently far too dependent on Ukrainian newspapers. It is poorly edited. Much of the text is a patchwork of negative (and poorly sourced) factoids. The likely reason is compound activist editing over the years. Personally I have been mostly editing the article on Lugansk People's Republic, and I dare say it is in a far better shape . Heptor (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Whatta heck? Just if someone decided to add this reference, it does not necessary discredits the Ukrainian media, it is individual who added the reference. What are you talking here about? This discussion you have here is laughable. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think any reasonable editor would agree that for an article about an ongoing military conflict, that any of the parties to the conflicts' news media qualifies as a reliable source -- no matter *who* they are. (That is, if the article were heavily sourced from exclusively Russian or DPR media, that would not be reliable for these topic either, as the Ukrainian sources for this topic cannot be considered reliable).

Firejuggler86 (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ukraine is a country with a free press, just like Britain and America. There is no more reason to think that Ukrainian news sources are an unreliable source than to think that British and American news sources are unreliable. To say otherwise is simply prejudice. Ukrainian news sources have the advantage that their authors know about Ukraine and both languages. Toddy1 (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ukraine doesn't actually have anything like a "free press". The WP article Media of Ukraine notes that most of Ukraine's media are owned by Ukrainian elected politicians. One of Ukraine's largest TV channels is owned by Petro Poroshenko, for example.Santamoly (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Confusing image Description

The image description is "Territory in Donetsk Oblast under the control of the Donetsk People's Republic or the Luhansk People's Republic (in pink), as of 2015." However, BOTH the DPR and LPR are in pink. It implies the DPR is in yellow, which is untrue and leads to confusion. This description ought to be made clearer or the image ought to be updated to delineate the two republics. (Two different shades of pink/red?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.36.113 (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The caption reads "Territory in Donetsk Oblast under the control of the Donetsk People's Republic or the Luhansk People's Republic (in pink), as of 2015." Maybe you misread it? Flalf^Talk 06:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus

https://atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russian-occupied-eastern-ukraine-is-a-ticking-coronavirus-time-bomb/ Xx236 (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Erroneous reference 188

Xx236 (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Unrecognized state?

Donetsk People's Republic is described as "unrecognized state" in this article, which I think is logical. However, on the article List of states with limited recognition it is not included. That article claims it is not an unrecognized state but rather a rebel group and so does not counts (unlike Abkhazia, Transnistria, South Osettia, Nagorno Karabakh which are all listed there). The criteria should be uniformly applied accross Wikipedia so you may be interested in joining the discussion I have started in the talk page of that article (Talk:List of states with limited recognition) in favor of DPR/LPR inclusion. Ruĝa nazuo (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but i believe the difference is that DPR and LPR are not officially recognised by any UN member states. Transnistria might not be either, but their situation is stable..I don't know about Nagorno Karabakh. Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I found some donetsk-related wikipedia articles, but in russian

If anyone understands Russian, you can translate these Wikipedia articles

• https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1_%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%A0%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8
• https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%A0%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8

Mhatopzz (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

region status?

"Donetsk People's Republic is a self-proclaimed quasi-state [..] Only the partially-recognised South Ossetia and the Russian-backed quasi-state Luhansk People's Republic (LPR) recognise the quasi-state [..]

The lead isn't clear what is the region status elsewhere? --Jakey222 (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It's essentially a unrecognized breakaway territory of Ukraine. Only recognized by two other who are unrecognised or partially recognized breakaway states themselves. --Jakey222 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Seizure of the RSA building

GeneralPoxter, could you clarify what is the source for the statement "When the session was not held, the 100 or so separatists—who have never previously been elected—held a vote within the RSA building and overwhelmingly backed the declaration for a Donetsk People's Republic." I don't see it in the BBC article which follows this sentence. If it's the same sources which are cited after the next sentence then there is no point in duplication. Alaexis_¿question? 21:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

See the archived url link I provided (and presumably, the text the original author of the claim used in this diff). There is an analysis by Daniel Sandford. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, GeneralPoxter. For some reason his analysis is not in the currently available version of the article. Alaexis_¿question? 06:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

International Recognition

We are going to vote wether to add the Donetsk Peoples Republic as a partially recognized state or unrecognized state. 20 vote are needed. List your vote.

Example:

Yes

No 2601:47:4380:AFD8:5521:29D2:12CB:6627 (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Right now it has a recognition, which makes it a partially recognized state. I think it's a neutral, objective term in this situation. It will probably be recognized by a small group of states, but hardly will ever get a full recognition. Beaumain (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Frankly, I don't think it's something to be voted on and I'm, to be honest, slightly suspicious of this specific (2601:47:4380:AFD8:5521:29D2:12CB:6627) request. DNR was an unrecognized state, with the news from Putin very specifically done for reasons that are becoming more apparent. With other places, with very similar situations, the wording used has been "partially-recognized" because Russia is a fully recognized country and its recognition is still something. — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 21:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We will not hold a vote. This violates multiple Wikipedia policys. Specifically WP:NOTDEM and WP:Vote. Wikipedia operates on consensus, not voting. And in any case, you cannot set the terms and call a vote here. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

|}

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2022 (2)

Salasoad1973 (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that Both Putin's ( https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/21/europe/russia-ukraine-tensions-monday-intl/index.html ) and Zelensky's speech ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGJRMYHBZRw ) should be added

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2022

Its independence is recognized by Russia. -> The region is internationally recognized to be a part of Ukraine, with the exception of the Russian Federation who has recognised their independence [11] Levalmaster (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 Already done See article; it says "partially recognized." --Firestar464 (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2022

Change “Viktor Yanukovych, a Donetsk native, was been elected president of Ukraine in 2010.” to “Viktor Yanukovych, a Donetsk native, was elected president of Ukraine in 2010.” 24.181.233.1 (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Firestar464 (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

"Geography and demographics section" has been removed; important information was deleted from the article with it

I noticed that in recent days the "Geography and demographics" section this article had on 18 February 2022 has been removed in recent days. Now information that I consider interesting for the readers of this article (more than half of the pre-war population has left the territory controlled by the DPR and Luhansk People's Republic and leaked documents suggest that approximately 38% of the separatist controlled population are pensioners) has seen to be completely have disappeared from the article. Should the above mentioned information be in a separate part of this article? 50% of the population leaving looks like a big deal to me, also more then a third of the people living there are pensioners does indicate that a DPR economy would be completely impracticable/unviable (the taxes paid by the DPR workforce would go mainly to paying the pensioners there, there would be no money left for other social programs). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Should the a new "Geography and demographics" contain my 2 main points (50% has left/38% pensioners)? Or should the 2 points be integrated in the "Economy" section? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Confusing syntax

How can a region be an organisation? The article says that the region is considered a terrorist organisation. Shouldn’t it specidy it is a breakaway region ruled by a specific terrorist organisation?

It’s confusing as it is. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2022

I propose changing the last sentence on the introduction:

Both "republics" are at the center of the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis.

into

Both self-proclaimed republics are at the center of the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis.

mainly because the quotation marks seems to be leaning to an opinion, while "self-proclaimed republics" is a more neutral phrase, although this might be more controversial than I believe so if this requires a discussion I'll be fine by it. - 2001:4453:589:4100:8839:D4E1:167A:DEA1 (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Noting that Luhansk People's Republic used "Both Republics" instead, so there's no consistency here. - 2001:4453:589:4100:8839:D4E1:167A:DEA1 (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

 Already done It looks like this was taken care of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the section called 'Allegations of anti-semitism'

I think the section called Allegations of anti-semitism breaks the neutral POV policy (see WP:UNDUE and WP:STRUCTURE) and it should be removed altogether. The hoax can be mentioned somewhere else in the article, but in the current structure, mentioning it under 'human rights' section is obviously misleading.

Please tell me what you think. Drerl (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Recognition (Syria, in particular)

Hi, I'm not sure how talk pages works but here goes: According to the page right now it says that Syria LEGALLY recognizes the DPR, which is not true yet as they've only supported Russia in the matter. Could this be changed? I used to change it myself but now there's protection lol ok thanks have a nice day to anyone who changes it uwu Taroboy owo (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Maps

I removed the infobox maps, per discussion at Talk:Luhansk People's Republic#Fake map. —Michael Z. 16:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

"Far Right Nationalism"

Why does this page make a point of emphasizing that but no mention of communist or Soviet national sentiments?

Seems biased. 71.173.18.251 (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any citations to support Soviet or communist sentiments? — Czello 13:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Recogniton

Russia's parliament has done a motion for it and now reportedly Putin will officially recognize this...thing. Just a heads up because I'm sure the edit war will be a mess. Maybe get consensus here? --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 18:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Officially signed by Putin now..--BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 19:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be best to leave it as "partially recognized". This would be the best description of the current situation. Seumas MacGregor (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"Partially recognized" by the occupying force and a few puppet nations, does not do justice to the term "partially recognized". So, no. I'm not of that opinion, at least without qualifying remarks. All states that have "recognized" this are partly or completely under Putins control, as is the region in question. See War in Donbas for details. Kleuske (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kleuske: You are analyzing the situation based on your personal interpretation of the situation. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a source of subjective information. The fact of the matter is that the state in question has been recognized officially as a sovereign state by a state which is recognized globally as sovereign. This qualifies it as partially recognized. Seumas MacGregor (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Seumas MacGregor: What about "Recognized only by the occupying force and a few puppet states" is my personal interpretation? Again, "partially recognized" is, in the light of WP:NPOV not doing justice to the various sources.

• "Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a decree recognizing the independence of two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine controlled by Moscow-backed separatists, escalating Western fears of an imminent invasion of Ukraine." msn.com
• "Die Separatisten in der Ostukraine verstärken ihre Hilfegesuche an Putin. Der erkennt ihre Gebiete als unabhängig an und ebnet damit den Weg zum Krieg." https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/marschiert-russland-jetzt-ein-separatisten-bitten-putin-um-militaerische-hilfe/28089624.html Tagenspiegel]. Etc.

If we're calling this "partial recognition", we basically parrot Russian propaganda. Kleuske (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"Partial" means anything more than none and less than full. Therefore, even a recognition by only one UN member state qualifies as a "partial recognition", regardless of whether one's favorite propaganda (be it Russian, American or any other) likes it or not. 176.62.33.75 (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Any change will require consensus. Volunteer Marek 21:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the page about states with limited recognition one of the two criteria are: "be recognised as a state by at least one UN member state" As far as I know DPR has been recognised by at least one UN country (Russia) so I think it at least should be introducted as a partially recognised breakaway state. DrYisus (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on precedent, specifically Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the wording used is slightly indirect; rather than describing them by general recognition, the specifics of Russia, et al., recognising them is what condenses the information. Having said that, if things do develop, as has been suggested (being as non-speculative as I can), the specific phrasing may not be necessary. Just mentioning it, for no reason and no opinion, whatsoever, because it's a page that happens to mention Ukraine and Russia, as if I was picking one of any of the pages that do, randomly, Crimea. — Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 22:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with 176.62.33.75 that we should stick with the accepted definitions, as always. Kleuske, you may wish to have a read of WP:RGW. Firestar464 (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to reduce this to the compound adjective "partially recognized"? It would seem simpler to state it is "recognized solely by Russia among all the United Nations", or words to that effect. This is hardly the first puppet state WP has had to describe.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that the clarification on the amount of recognition should be expressed, I fail to see by which definition of "simple" is using 9 words simpler than using 2 words. 193.198.162.14 (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2022

{{subst:trim|1=

DPR and LPR does not exist! Russia made them up 3 weeks ago. They are part of Ukraine. How come are they on wiki?

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Official Donetsk People's Republic coat of arms.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Official currency

Officially, Russian-backed so-called "DNR" has switched from Russian ruble to Ukrainian hryvnia, likely as a result of Western sanctions on Russia. Source - https://twitter.com/rnbo_gov_ua/status/1508066615451131905 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.140.150.67 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

What currency does its national bank use? 2.28.151.223 (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Self-contradictory "government" statement

"Separatist leaders espouse a mixture of three strands of Russian nationalism: fascist, Orthodox, and Soviet."

This citation isn't exactly easy to check.

And I think I should mention that it is 100% impossible for a government to be Soviet and fascist. Communism and fascism are ideologically opposed, and their adherents have always been adversaries throughout history.

This citation should be checked. If the source actually can support this statement, it is an incredible source.

The statements immediately after the fascist and Soviet reference says the nation is like North Korea. This is both incredibly suspect, considering the lack of verifiable information on North Korea itself, and directly contradictory to the idea of a fascist Donetsk People's Republic. The flag of the Donetsk doesn't look fascist to me...

Wikipedia should stop allowing conflation between fascism and communism. It is a common myth among Eastern European nationalists and among North American liberals. And its 100% false. Hitler and Stalin weren't allies. And the description of a fascist, Soviet Donetsk is a continuation of the same lie. 2601:5C4:200:5C40:283C:81EB:2151:EBB2 (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022

self-proclaimed to Russia-proclaimed Mariusbejan (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Miscellaneous and trivial information

The original cleanup tag added in December 2019 said, "This article needs to be properly organised. It is currently a collection of factoids and random events that got aggregated over the years." This is better summarised by the Trivia tag.

To other editors: Please improve the article if you can by creating cohesion between paragraphs (clarifying their relevance to each other) and making use of prose. At present, the relevance of some of the material in this article is unclear and listed without much detail. CentreLeftRight ✉ 02:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Breakaway state ?

Why is it called: The Donetsk People's Republic (DPR or DNR; Russian: Донецкая Народная Республика, tr. Donetskaya Narodnaya Respublika, IPA: [dɐˈnʲetskəjə nɐˈrodnəjə rʲɪˈspublʲɪkə]) is a breakaway state located in Ukraine,

It is not a breakaway state, it is a Russian funded (founded) military group claiming that Donetsk Oblast is an independent country, despite controlling only a small fraction of it. Calling it a breakaway state is giving it legality, which is not something it has anywhere but in Russia, who wants to enroll it in the motherland after having extended the occopation even further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Povlhp (talk • contribs) 07:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"Puppet State"?

It is widely recognized as a puppet state of Russia and that's clearly the truth. It's better to add "puppet state of Russia" in "status"? 182.239.117.109 (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

You'll need reliable sources which describe it as such to add it to the article and follow WP:DUE. Alaexis_¿question? 16:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Heading "Far-right nationalism"

In this article and Russian separatist forces in Donbas, Aman.kumar.goel has changed the original name of the section "Far-right nationalism" (which is what the section is about) to "Pro-Russian separatism". So now we have a section named "Pro-Russian separatism" in an article that's about Pro-Russian separatism. Ridiculous. They've been asked to take it to the talkpage per WP:BRD but have simply kept reverting. So I've had to take it here myself. Please explain why a section about far-right nationalism should not be called such. ~Asarlaí 14:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Because we agreed on Far-right politics in Ukraine that most of these groups are not 'far-right', instead they are just pro-Russian separatists. Most of our discussion happened there and like you have been already told, it decided the fate other similar content. "Far-right nationalism" is misleading because according to your own source says that "right-wing radicals" were active in the movement especially in early months of the uprising at page 27 that they were active "in the first few months of the conflict", but not afterward because they were pushed into margins after that. Segaton (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

No we didn't. Show me a quote where we "agreed" that. The whole section is specifically about far-right Russian separatists. ~Asarlaí 14:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not just about what you agreed with but what was the final compromise. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Please explain why a section about far-right nationalism should not be called such.
Please explain how it's sensible to have a section named "Pro-Russian separatism" in an article about Pro-Russian separatism. ~Asarlaí 15:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Because most of the names do not meet the definition of "far-right nationalists" and per your own source at page 27 that they were active "in the first few months of the conflict", but not afterward because they were pushed into margins after that.

It makes no sense to say that this article must not have such misleading title to be re-titled to "Pro-Russian separatism". Segaton (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Every group named in the section are far-right nationalists, as the sources say. That's what the section is about. ~Asarlaí 15:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources does not say that and that's where you happen to be wrong every single time. National Bolshevik Party, Sparta Battalion, National Liberation Movement (Russia), National Bolshevism, The Other Russia and many others are not far-right. That's why it is meaningless to assume the title "far-right nationalism". Segaton (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I could find plenty of sources, but here's quotes from sources that are already used in the section:

• "THE OTHER RUSSIA: Political organization. An umbrella organization that includes a variety of liberal and extreme right wing political parties and organizations". (Saunders, Historical Dictionary of the Russian Federation, p.521)
• "NATIONAL BOLSHEVIK PARTY (NBP). Banned ultranationalist political party". (Saunders, Historical Dictionary of the Russian Federation, p.476)
• "For Russian radical nationalists, the ideology of imperial restoration was not an abstract theory. The the National Bolshevik Party (NBP), the Russian National Unity (RNU), the Eurasian Youth Union..." (Likhachev, The Far Right in the Conflict between Russia and Ukraine, p.19)

I also added that the other groups are far-right, with reliable academic sources to back it up. But you deleted them. Why?

If you won't accept the heading "Far-right nationalism" then how about "Russian ultranationalism". As you can see, all of the groups are described as ultranationalist/radical nationalist/extreme nationalist. ~Asarlaí 16:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

How they are generally labeled actually matters. I had removed that edit of yours because none of those ideologies came into the play in this conflict. Unless the source describes how their ideology came into the play in the conflict, there is no need to selectively mention them.

I will be fine with "Pro-Russian nationalism" because ultranationalism too played role only in early months of the conflict and now: "DNR and LNR regimes have themselves assumed a conservative, right wing complexion and different types of xenophobia play a considerable role in their official ideology and rheotric."[12] Segaton (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

So we shouldn't mention that these Russian groups are far-right nationalists, because you think their far-right nationalism has nothing to do with their involvement in a nationalist conflict? ~Asarlaí 17:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I said we should not because the source makes no such mention of ideology of Russian National Unity or Eurasian Youth Union because that is not relevant to this conflict.

Are you in agreement with the compromise I proposed i.e. "Pro-Russian nationalism" for heading? Segaton (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

"Russian nationalism" is better than the current misleading heading. But "Russian ultranationalism" is more accurate, since all the sources call these groups ultranationalist/radical nationalist/extreme nationalist, rather than mainstream nationalist. ~Asarlaí 15:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, not all and you are still missing the point. When "DNR and LNR regimes have themselves assumed a conservative, right wing complexion and different types of xenophobia play a considerable role in their official ideology and rheotric",[13] apart from the beginning of 2014, it would mean that radical elements are not dominating the movement. Either "Right wing nationalism", or "Pro-Russian nationalism" should be the heading. Segaton (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with "Right-wing nationalism" for the time being. ~Asarlaí 16:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done now. Segaton (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I am active over at the 2022 invasion event articles and saw the discussion here. Just wanted to say I think "Right-wing nationalism" is a much better term to be in line with NPOV. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Presidential Republic?

There is an Head of State, Denis Pushilin, and a Prime Minister, Vladimir Pashkov. Maybe it is a semipresidental Republic..... --Skyfall (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes most likely. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Map Update

On 19 April 2022 the former Rozivka Raion of the Zaporizhzhia Oblast 'voted', or more accurately was coerced into voting to join the DPR. I added the paragraph talking about this and added them to the administrative divisions of the DPR, however, I am not graphically inclined and am unable to update the map accordingly. I'm hoping that someone else will. Scu ba (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Vorobyov

@Asarlaí: You are the one misrepresenting sources and restoring wrong URL with your blind reverts.[14]

How a 2017 article of News Week titled "Alexei Navalny: Is Russia's Anti-Corruption Crusader Vladimir Putin's Kryptonite?" is relevant here? But you are blindly restoring it.

Business Insider clearly reads that "the video posted on Pushilin's official website did not show Vorobyov receiving his medal".[15] Why you are removing it? Segaton (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Asarlaí: Thanks for fixing the problem here. I consider this issue resolved. Segaton (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I had undone this edit of yours, but then I saw that you had mostly corrected it afterwards. So I think the issue is resolved also. ~Asarlaí 22:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Mirovalev's article

The article describes the 'Republic' but only one phrase is referenced here. Does not the article deserve more?Xx236 (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Redundancy in lead text

The 3rd paragraph states the same fact twice:

"On 21 February 2022, Russia officially recognised the DPR and the LPR as independent states" (...) and "The Russian Federation recognised the independence of the DPR on 21 February 2022."

Could someone delete one of those two statements? It's quite redundant.

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 21:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Alessandro Musolino

Is Alessandro Musolino a typo for Alessandra Mussolini, the granddaughter of Benito Mussolini? Syd Storm (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Area in infobox

There is currently an error in the infobox because the template supports neither ranges nor commas in the area values. See the Pakistan and Morocco pages for examples of how to handle uncertain areas. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey! Protect this article now, it's a arbitration enforcement!

Why this article protection expired today? Protect this article now, it's arbitration enforcement on Eastern Europe! ImChessFan21 (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Can we change the color scheme on the map to be more friendly to people with small monitors and various degrees of color blindness?

It's 3 shades of green.....

I'd personally suggest:

Red: Held by DPR since 2015.

Orange: Captured in 2022 war.

Yellow: Disputed Rozivka Raion taken and added to the DPR in April.

Green: Controlled by Ukraine. 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:496D:BBC5:1A61:7E1C (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I see that the latest versions of this map were created by CubanoBoi so I would suggest raising it at their commons talk page. Alaexis_¿question? 06:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is there a yellow area in Zaporizhzhia oblast? Why is Russian-occupied territory not shown outside of the oblast borders? Why is there no difference between international and oblast boundaries? This is not a good representation of either the stable situation of the last seven years nor of the current military situation. —Michael Z. 18:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:D0D0:316A:5D30:3E64 (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)The yellow area in Zaporizhia is the raion annexed to the DPR in the disputed referendum in April. It's yellow because it's a step further removed from the other controlled areas(not being part of Donetsk Oblast), but it's still technically claimed and controlled by them. Also, while the text has been changed, the image seemingly hasn't...unless I just happened to join the page in the middle of the transition.

The file on Commons has been reverted. Apparently Rozivka raion was removed from DNR because someone likes green better than orange and red, showing the level of encyclopedic rigour being applied here. Rozivka oughtn’t appear anyway, because secondary sources don’t show it on maps of the occupied territories. —Michael Z. 14:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hence a different colour, but it should be shown to some degree. It IS held by DPR forces and it WAS annexed by them in a referendum THEY recognize. Hence one color further removed from the Orange recent gains and the Red held since 2015.

Come on, it's not a bad setup is it?

2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:70B4:E17A:83C7:3CB4 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I don’t believe maps in reliable sources indicate that at all. In fact most of them say “occupied by Russian forces” or something to that effect. I don’t recall a single map that indicates anything outside the seven-year line of contact being labelled held by separatists or by “DLNR.”

Furthermore, there was no referendum, no reliable source says any territory was annexed by DLNR, and I don’t think I’ve even seen any reliable source about the sham council meeting in Rozivka: only a tweet or something. —Michael Z. 18:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Although I don't know how to address the multiple shades of green issue, I think it's a great point and we should strive for accessibility. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Love this idea, though making one part red and one part green rather than different shades might be worse for colorblind people. And also DPR should be green and the Ukraine should be red if anything. But a lot of political maps imo shouldn't be using red and green because of the connotations each color has. A colorblind mode you can set your display to May be a good idea for the site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.97.248.215 (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Please quote your RS supporting "territory controlled by the DPR since 2014 (dark green)" after February. DPR 'politicians' do not control themselves and certainly not the war area occupied by Russian army.Xx236 (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Quite right. Reliable sources refer to it as Russian-controlled territory. Please see my survey of sources in talk:Luhansk People's Republic#Russian or LPR territory?. Many call the occupied territory behind the seven-year line of contact “separatist-controlled territory before February.” Reliable sources published in the last four months that I have seen do not indicate borders of a territory called DNR or LNR, since these are not defined. —Michael Z. 18:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Recogniation

Today(13 July) DPR got recognization from North Korea, and LPR would be recognised few days later. 185.84.172.212 (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Please link to a WP:reliable source on the subject, so we can include it in the article. —Michael Z. 16:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Does such word exist (Recogniation)?Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

185.84.172.212 - Bratsk, Russia. You act under Russian war laws, so you are not allowed to write the truth, eg. to use word 'war'.Xx236 (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk: What you should know about the ‘republics’

Reference 150. Do we really want to know anything if we quote only few words? Xx236 (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Germany and the United States also stated that the referendums had "no democratic legitimacy",[82] while the Russian government expressed "respect" - that says 2:1. Not bad, but this is an encyclopedia, not a sport newspaper.Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

This is the end https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/07/13/the-president-likes-him-and-has-for-a-long-time Xx236 (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Editing the article as per "Luhansk People's Republic"

I've already made various bold edits to the "Luhansk People's Republic" article that have so far largely gone unchallenged and have indeed been welcomed in some aspects. The Donetsk PR article is closely related, so similar changes will be made here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Recognition and change of 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) 22:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi SovietLampa, I understand your valid points, and there may be a lack of fairness in the treatment of different regions, but Donetsk is relatively new, so the description, in the context of how it came into existence, is understandable: But the bottom line is that if you want to balance the article so that it reflects both perspectives then you will need to provide reliable Sources to be able to cite. You can start by providing them here and then a first draft of the amendment(s) that you believe will improve the Article, I would suggest starting small, instead of trying to rewrite everything. Bibby (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

RS are there, is an easy issue, acording to wikipedia: 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.

DPR and LPR are recognised by 2 states so they meet the criteria. DrYisus (talk) 18:06, 1 July 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. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The concept of a "NPOV" does not mean that equal weight should be given to theories that differ in terms of their widespread acceptance outside of Wikipedia. For example, an astrophysicist's opinion on the shape of celestial bodies should be much more credible than a flat-earther's. In the same sense, the public opinion of the international community is overwhelmingly in favour of Ukraine's side of the story, with very few countries taking the Russian/DLPR side. So, we cannot in good faith compare these two sides equally. The Ukrainian side should take precedence. Also, the historical (and contemporary) facts are there right in front of you, as I've detailed in various comments across the "Breakaway Puppet Quasi State" section of this talk page. By the way, as someone else has mentioned, you should be very careful about not making false equivalences or a false balance. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Another brief but important comment: Here at Wikipedia, we don't state things how we want them to be. We state things as they are. The most important details to pay attention to are the details on the ground. So far, as far as I can tell, Donetsk and Luhansk have been an active warzone for their entire 9-year existence so far, although the period between 2015 and 2022 was a bit less intense than it was in the very beginning (2014 to 2015) and at the present moment (2022). There has been very little opportunity to establish what is exactly happening there from the POV of the native inhabitants, largely because you're going to die if you actually set foot on that territory. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Izolyatsia prison

Tha page has not been linked here. I have added the link as Main in Abductions. Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Describing the DPR and the LPR as a "de facto state"

My understanding of the concept of a "de facto state" is that it implies that a state exists in reality but isn't recognised as such by the international community due to some "technical difficulties", so to speak. The best example that I can think of for an entity (country) that can really be described as a "de facto state" is Taiwan. Taiwan satisfies the Montevideo "declarative" theory of statehood. However, Taiwan lacks official recognition from the majority of countries around the world, although it does have unofficial recognition from a substantial number of influential countries (as well as official recognition from a few insignificant countries).

On the other hand, I don't think the DPR and the LPR can actually be described as "de facto states" because I dispute the idea that they actually properly satisfy the Montevideo "declarative" theory of statehood. That theory has various criteria that are used to determine whether an entity functions as a state in reality or not. The DPR and the LPR just don't seem to properly satisfy the theory. They seem to perhaps satisfy some parts of it, but indeed, aside from having a defined territory and a defined population, one of the most important details regarding the classification as a "de facto state" is whether the entity manages its own internal affairs or not. If an entity is deemed to be completely under the control of an outside power, then it stops being a de facto state and begins being a puppet state. My understanding is that an entity can't be purely a de facto state and purely a puppet state at the same time. Of course, I think it is possible for an entity to be partially within both of those categories at the same time. But if an entity is completely within the category of a puppet state, it ceases to be classified as a de facto state since it has completely lost its own authority as an independent sovereign entity. Essentially, the entity needs to have at least a tiny bit of sovereignty to be classified as de facto, as sovereignty in this sense is not defined by recognition (i.e. Russia's official recognition has no bearing here) but rather by the facts on the ground. When looking at the de facto situation in the DPR, it can be argued that the supreme control of the entity indeed lies with Russia rather than with the DPR itself. This means, ironically, that the DPR has effectively lost its sovereignty to Russia. It is possible that Russia has gained even more control over the DPR during the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, having potentially had less control over the DPR in the past (this is just speculation, I can't say for sure). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I doubt they satisfy any requirement of declarative statehood, including not seizing sovereignty by military force. —Michael Z. 18:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "not seizing sovereignty by military force" precludes statehood (what about East Timor or Bangladesh, then?). But I agree the DPR and the LPR shouldn't be called "de facto states". The term quasi-state feels more suitable given their lack of key elements of statehood, like being subject to, or bound by, international public law. By the way, I also oppose the term "client state" as too vague (many states have had client-like relationship with other states sometime in their history) – a puppet state is another term that fits better. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It does. See Sovereign state#Declarative theory and wikisource:Montevideo Convention#Article 11. —Michael Z. 15:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Most de facto states gained their sovereignty through some form of military force, obviously to differing degrees of severity.

I would say that in the majority of cases, de facto states gained their sovereignty through some degree of military force. Whether minor or major, military force is almost always a factor. The only time that it isn't a factor is when the de facto state has some other kind of political element affecting it, such as being a rump state or being a non-self-governing territory.

All breakaway states, i.e. de facto states that broke away from a parent state, have used military force in order to secure their initial independence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: Continuing from my analysis above, I think a lot of the list articles on Wikipedia surrounding de facto states are misleading since they usually don't bother to differentiate between breakaway states and non-breakaway states. They usually just indicate the country that claims sovereignty over the de facto state, without specifying whether this country has previously possessed sovereignty over the territory or not. To me, this is a very important detail, and it should not be omitted where applicable. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - A good starting point for the DPR and LPR

I believe that the "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" article on Wikipedia is a good starting point for assessing the issues of NPOV and DUE WEIGHT (FRINGE, NOTABILITY) surrounding both the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic articles on Wikipedia. The amount of edit history, editors, reliable sources, and content over at the 2022 invasion article massively dwarfs the same resources over at the DPR and LPR articles. As such, it is clear that the majority of the DUE WEIGHT (context, POV) surrounding the DPR and LPR articles lies with the 2022 invasion article. Obviously, the DPR and LPR aren't exactly subsidiaries of that article, but they are indeed closely related to that article due to the central role of both the DPR and the LPR in the 2022 invasion. This is essentially means that a single event (i.e. a war) surrounding these two quasi-states is more significant than the existence of the two quasi-states themselves. Me personally, I'm not really willing to go on a "citation hunting spree" to find reliable sources about the DPR and LPR when the 2022 invasion article already has dozens of reliable sources about the DPR and LPR from a neutral perspective. If I were to fish around for sources that specifically only talk about the DPR and the LPR independently of the 2022 invasion, they would most likely be unreliable, and this could be considered "cherry-picking". So, again, I think it is really important to consider the 2022 invasion article when discussing/editing the DPR and LPR articles. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

List of states with limited recognition - DPR and LPR entries

Indeed, the DPR and the LPR have both been listed at the Wikipedia article "list of states with limited recognition", which is essentially the main article on Wikipedia that lists de facto states (aside from the article "quasi-state", which is also important in this sense). I myself have been arguing over at the "limited recognition" article's talk page that the DPR and the LPR don't actually satisfy the Montevideo declarative theory of statehood. Indeed, the main reason that the DPR and LPR have been added to the article is due to their official recognition from Russia, North Korea, and Syria, with complete disregard for whether they actually function as de facto independent or not. Essentially, the DPR and the LPR were not admitted to the article for satisfying the declarative theory, largely because they really don't satisfy that theory at all. Instead, they were added to the article purely on the basis of the "constitutive" theory of statehood, which says that a state becomes a state when it is recognised by at least one other state, regardless of whether it actually functions as a state or not. I have been disputing this assessment since I believe that the DPR and LPR should be required to satisfy BOTH the declarative and constitutive theories of statehood in order to be admitted into the list, rather than just satisfy the constitutive theory alone. It doesn't make sense to me that a state can exist simply from being recognised, even though it doesn't actually exist in reality. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Corresponding Luhansk PR discussion

I've linked this discussion over to Talk:Luhansk People's Republic#Describing the DPR and the LPR as a "de facto state" (Luhansk entry), and now I'm linking that discussion back over to here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)