Talk:Luhansk People's Republic/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Wait till More Information Is Available

There's very little public available source on this state and relevant events as of April 30, 2014. As the issue is an ongoing one, we should be patient and see what will happen next. 2001:CE0:2201:880C:A0EA:8669:6656:63E3 (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I have redirected the page. There is no way that this is ready for a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion copied from User talk:Lvivske

Hi, Seeing as you initially created a map for the Donetsk Republic, I was just wondering if you have made a similar map for the so-called Luhansk Peoples Republic. Although there is not a separate article for this subject at this stage I don't think that it would necessarily be a bad idea to have a some a visual representation given that the Republic was 'established' 10 days ago. I have created a map I believe to be accurate however have been waiting for a separate article to be created before I thought it was appropriate to upload. Any comments? Lunch for Two (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not even up on what cities have been occupied in Luhansk. I guess you can place your map in the Luhansk section of the pro-Russian unrest article until its necessary to split it off (which could be any day now, I'm not opposed to an article any more) —Львівське (говорити) 14:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The OSCE consistently has said that only Luhansk city has had any occupations. RGloucester — ☎ 14:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thanks, wasnt sure. This graphic says otherwise though --Львівське (говорити) 14:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
That graphic seems questionable, if you ask me. OSCE has been all over the place in Donetsk, but in Luhansk they've only said Luhansk city has any problems. If there was significant unrest there, I believe they'd say so. RGloucester — ☎ 14:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Re: Gloucester; apart from Luhansk, there are reports that takeover of government buildings has occured in Antratsyt, Stakhanov, Krasnyi Luch, Pervomaisk, Alchevsk, Sverdlovsk, Severodonetsk, Stanica Luhanska and Slovianoserbsk amongst others. Attempted buidling occupations, along with the erection of checkpoints and referendum preparations, have been occuring Rovenky, Rubizhne, Lisichansk, Starobilsk, Krasnodon, Mologvardeisk, etc. There may be more. Imho the sources are sufficient to evidence that the 'Republic' has spread beyond the regional capital. Lunch for Two (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd double check the Severodonetsk claim since other sources I found said 2 men showed up but got nothing, otherwise I agree that it's beyond Luhansk, especially with Antrasyt. --Львівське (говорити) 03:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm slightly concerned about all of this, as none of it has been reported by the western media at all, nor by the OSCE. The discussion we had at the reliable sources noticeboard made clear that Russian and Ukrainian sources should not be used without verification in western reliable sources… RGloucester — ☎ 03:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Antratsyt - (Guardian) (Huffpost Tymchuk report) khpg stopfake has info on what ukrainian press reported, RT video - I guess we can fact check them later but this one checks out --Львівське (говорити) 04:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that one's good, as far as I can tell. I'd be pretty perturbed, personally, If I saw those trucks full of Cossacks rolling in. Nevertheless… RGloucester — ☎ 04:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Stakhanov - telegraph said they read reports and were going to confirm it, but never followed up on it (i guess it wasnt real?) [1] --Львівське (говорити) 04:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, regardless of anything else, if any of this stuff is verifiable, we need a place to put it. Is it time to revive the article? However, it isn't clear that those Cossacks in Antratsyt are connected to the People's Republic, as they didn't fly that flag. It might be odd to put that in a 'People's Republic' article. RGloucester — ☎ 04:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
good point. how about a catch-all luhansk article and make the 'republic' article when we deem it necessary to split (or if they end up working together under Bolotov, renaming it) —Львівське (говорити) 04:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
How about if I 'revive' the People's Republic article and move it to a '2014 Luhansk insurgency', or something like that? We can split off the Republic later, if it is necessary. RGloucester — ☎ 04:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've done. That now we have a place for Luhansk stuff: 2014 insurgency in Luhansk. RGloucester — ☎ 05:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Luhansk People's Republic

Moved from Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

I have redirected the page to this article along with the 2014 insurgency in Luhansk as there was only slightly more information in the latter article than there is for the section here on the main article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

We are gathering information now. That's why we re-established the article. Read the talk page at that article. We need a place to put the stuff. RGloucester — ☎ 17:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay fair enough, I have a request that Luhansk be colored orange on the map though to reflect the insurgency. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's move this discussion to that talk page. Seems more appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 17:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion copied from User talk:RGloucester

legitimacy

deserves its own article now. Regional council is behind the separatist referendum and have granted the 'people's governor' actual authority. This is the most legit republic yet since it has actual authorities behind it. —Львівське (говорити) 15:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Really? I haven't seen any of that in the papers. RGloucester — ☎ 15:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
news for today [2] --Львівське (говорити) 15:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I guess that's that, then. Haven't seen it in any western sources. RGloucester — ☎ 15:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
as usual, gotta give it time to filter in --Львівське (говорити) 16:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

[3] the regional council is also telling Kiev to pull out of its territory and leave the separatists alone, I guess this seals it --Львівське (говорити) 16:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

map

I can't remember where you mentioned this saying the OSCE only reported Luhansk as having conflict and no other cities in the region. The Wall st journal showed a map with all conflict cities and I overlaid a map of luhansk oblast to double check and there are a few cities that are occupied [4] --Львівське (говорити) 21:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That's weird. It doesn't even tell us what the names of those cities are. I can't find any sources about cities outside of Luhansk proper being occupied. I suppose that map is something, except it hasn't any references or an even an indication of what the cities' names are. RGloucester — ☎ 21:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to figure out what cities those dots are and do some googling. The WSJ article didn't mention anything by name, unfortunately and the map was just thrown in at the bottom. —Львівське (говорити) 23:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
There's also a Mariupol standoff article now, if you're looking for something to do. RGloucester — ☎ 23:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
fml I'm burnt out—Львівське (говорити) 00:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll look at the Luhansk stuff later. It does rather annoy me, though, that the editors that create these articles tend to abandon them, leaving more work for everyone else to do. The article as it stands is rather crap. Regardless. RGloucester — ☎ 00:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, forgot, but Antratsyt is also occupied by Don Cossack mercenaries [9][10][11] --Львівське (говорити) 02:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Awaiting further information I have reverted Severodonetsk to the lighter shade of blue whilst adding the rural districts affected by roadblocks and the like. Lunch for Two (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"Ukrainian troops as of May 10, control over 50% of the territory of Luhansk region, said a law enforcement source."[12] --Львівське (говорити) 23:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Technically true, however the Peoples Republic 'controls' virtually all of the large and medium sized cities along with swathes of the countryside in the southern half. Ukrainian troops control the sparsely populated northern half of the region home to small towns and villages. Lunch for Two (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the Luhansk Republic Page?

Especially after the referendum, it should have it's own page. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGDok0Ga5ac 71.181.176.183 (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Split/Rename

The Donetsk People's Republic has it's own article, why doesn't the Luhansk People's Republic? A separate article about the state should be made, or this article should be renamed. [Soffredo] Journeyman 4 11:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Renaming this article to Luhansk People's Republic at this stage appears to be inevitable. Whether we should follow Ukranian or Russian transliteration is a separate matter. That a group of cossacks, aligned with the 'Republic', happens to control one town is not of enough significance imho to warrant the current title. Lunch for Two (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
It is very much so. We barely have any information on the Republic. There has been more or less no coverage of Luhansk, and we can't have an article based purely in Ukrainian or Russian sources. Donetsk People's Republic is heavily mentioned in reliable sources. This is not. RGloucester — ☎ 13:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree. There's no harm in collecting resources into a section on the republic itself and when we have enough, splitting or renaming. What do we know about the council? Its members/ We don't even know its flag yet. In Donetsk, we knew all the big names, their demands, background on the figures and Republic organization, etc. --Львівське (говорити) 14:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I have to respectfully disagree. An AfD was launched as soon as the Donetsk Republic page was created with users using precisely the above reasons for wanting it deleted. By the end of that process sufficient information had emerged to warrant the page not being deleted, I feel the same will happen here (without wanting to crystal ball), we should know more information once it is reported in the English language media. There is imho sufficient information already exists in the local media about this entity. That this entity exists, was supported by local legislators and politicians and was able to organize a large referendum suggests that the article does warrant a rename. There's no harm in waiting a week or so though. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't warrant a rename unless it is notable in western sources. At present, it clearly isn't, as there has been no reporting on the matter. If it gains reporting in the manner of the Donetsk Republic, I will have no opposition whatsoever to a splitting off of information about the Republic from information about the insurgency. However, at present, that is not the case. As I said below, as well, local media don't mean much here:

I'm quite opposed to the recent introduction of new text that relies solely on Russian and Ukrainian sources. A discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard made clear that we should not use these without western verification, given the nature of the information war occurring during the conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 15:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, there is no justification for such a change at the moment. RGloucester — ☎ 15:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

New text

I'm quite opposed to the recent introduction of new text that relies solely on Russian and Ukrainian sources. A discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard made clear that we should not use these without western verification, given the nature of the information war occurring during the conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 15:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've read the linked discussion and all that is tacitly 'agreed' upon is that Western media (presumably English language media) is to be preferred where there is divergence between the Russian and Ukrainian information presented. There is no explicit conclusion that Russian/Ukrainian sources are not to be used. If you find any misrepresented sources feel free to remove them or to edit the text accordingly. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
It isn't that they should not be used, it is that they should not be used alone. Western sources need to be cross-referenced. RGloucester — ☎ 15:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
If any conclusion is to be drawn it is that Western sources should be used where possible. I doubt that any users involved in that discussion would have contemplated it's "results" being extended to support a blanket opposition of sourced material, without any reference to the actual information contained in the source itself. Lunch for Two (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The question isn't about "sourced", but "reliably sourced". The sources you've used need to be attributed in the text ("reported by") if they cannot be verified by western sources. RGloucester — ☎ 16:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Not wanting to start an [inevitable] revert war, I propose that we change the infobox from that of a Military Conflict to that of a Country Infobox. It appears that sufficient information exists to make this change. We have had the declaration, regional council endorsement, dismissal of the regional governor, referendum, emergence of key insurgent leaders ie. Bolotov, Nikitin, Tsyplakov, expansion of territorial control, etc. Lunch for Two (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Provide reliable western sources, and I'll take a look at them. Furthermore, what would one do with the cossacks? RGloucester — ☎ 14:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The Cossacks should be merged into 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. As for Western sources, there are a host at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine#Luhansk Oblast that can also be used in this article, along with many that have emerged over the past few days in the wake of the referendum. I'm not sure exactly what you want provided but here is a good article focusing on Luhansk (and not Donetsk, as most Western media has been doing). [13] Lunch for Two (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The information at the unrest article doesn't have to do with the Republic, or with the insurgency. I know, because I put it in. It is merely about general unrest in the region. I would hardly say that that article "focuses" on Luhansk, as the title is "Donetsk region asks to join Russia". What I want to do is establish notability for the Republic in western sources. At present, there doesn't seem to be enough information to warrant an article. RGloucester — ☎ 15:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Luhansk People's Republic

  • I understand that lots of "opinions" kept this page from developing, but it should not be handicapped, as a page, because of a few. As the subject of a lot of media articles for many notable events, it should be open to editors, and not left as a redirect. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
What exactly are you talking about? If you have information about Luhansk, add it in to this article. So far, you haven't done so. The burden of proof is on those who add the content. Calling for an article, and then not adding any content to it to justify the article doesn't work. Show the content and reliable sources, and you'll have an article. If you haven't got any, then there isn't room for an article. RGloucester — ☎ 18:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for not being more clear. The page I am referring to is Luhansk People's Republic - which just redirects here. That page is only admin allowed for editing. There can at least be a short description there, but instead it is redirected here. I would add info, but I can't. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
We don't need a short description there. We can describe it here. We don't make a million articles without notability. We give everything WP:DUE weight. It isn't due weight for there to be two Luhansk articles, and furthermore, the Luhansk People's Republic has not received ongoing coverage to justify its own article at present. As soon as it gets that coverage in reliable western sources, we can rename this article and set it up. This article is sparse as it is, and relies mostly on Ukrainian and Russian sources which are most likely not reliable, as discussed above. I've been searching for good Luhansk information in western sources, but it just isn't there. Until that coverage comes, there is no notability in of itself. RGloucester — ☎ 18:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The are lots of news articles about this subject. It is clearly notable. Looking through a simple google News search shows this. The reliable sources are there! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Show them to me, and we'll talk. RGloucester — ☎ 19:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Postmedia News [14]
Sofia News Agency [15]
Global Post [16]
Radio Free Europe [17]
InSerbia [18]
Sofia News Agency [19]
Huffington Post [20]
The Guardian [21]
Foreign Policy Magazine [22]
InSerbia [23]
These are 10 reliable sources, showing the subject to be notable.I found these after looking through Google News. There are more reliable sources, and since the subject is notable, the article should permit editing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • We know all that. The problem is, there hasn't been continuing coverage. Of course we know that the proclamation was reported. Since the proclamation, there has been nothing more than a passing mention of the Republic in western sources. Many of those articles focus more on Donetsk than Luhansk, which, as I said, they give only a passing mention to. If you'll look at the notability guidelines at WP:SIGCOV, an event must receive significant ongoing coverage more than passing mention to establish its notability. The republic itself has not received this coverage. Some events in Luhansk, such as the referendum, have been covered, but the Republic itself, and its structure, leadership, and what-have-you have not. Hence, these are not enough reason to give the Republic its own article, without giving it WP:UNDUE. Also, please look at WP:NOPAGE. The broader topic is certainly notable and covered, if barely, and hence we have a broader article, rather than a narrower one focusing on the Republic, which has not received significant coverage. RGloucester — ☎ 21:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
In the sources above, there is much more than passing mentions. There are also numerous notable events, all reliably sourced. I can't help it that you prefer to stick your head in the ground and not see this. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see you adding content to this article. If you've got a mystical well of reliably sourced content up your sleeve, why don't I see it here? Then maybe a split or move would be justified. However, you haven't done so, and have shown no indication of doing so. RGloucester — ☎ 21:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Map

The map needs to be clarified. The areas held by the Don Cossacks should have a separate colour from those held by the Republic. RGloucester — ☎ 22:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've purposely uploaded both maps as .svg files so that any person can edit them from the template. The Cossack issue is a relatively minor one (at this stage), they allegedly overran some buildings in a medium sized town in the region. (Mind you there are Cossack/Russian flags flying all over the East of the country) I don't think this requires a separate category on the map, if anything tweaking the description will suffice, imho. Lunch for Two (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Now that they're SVG files I can't edit. The average to intermediate person can't edit SVGs…heck even professionals would get tossed up on those unless they had the right programs--Львівське (говорити) 01:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
That's odd. I have no idea at all how to edit PNGs, but I've got access to computers with Adobe Illustrator for SVGs. RGloucester — ☎ 01:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
You can edit a PNG in Microsoft Paint (and therefore, every single other program better than Paint, so all of 'em) —Львівське (говорити) 02:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I only have access to Macs, so I haven't got paint. Adobe Illustrator doesn't seem to allow me to edit PNGs, nor Inkscape. RGloucester — ☎ 02:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I just checked and AI supports PNGs like any other image file (never heard of Inkscape). PNGs are "the most used lossless image compression format on the Internet". Take a screenshot with your Mac...PNG --Львівське (говорити) 03:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
It lets me open them, yes. But it won't let me edit the thing, as I can't click on the boundaries of the regions and such. RGloucester — ☎ 04:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
same with Jpegs though or any other format I try. I never use AI though so I'm just going to assume we should be using photoshop for this kinda stuff... --Львівське (говорити) 04:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
For this purpose the .svg file is by far superior to the png files. They are much more versatile and precise .[24] As you have only one layer of the image it may make editing more difficult. Lunch for Two (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

[25] here's another map i found --Львівське (говорити) 03:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was such a thing as the "Luhansk People's Militia". Why isn't there any reporting on Luhansk? It is starting to feel pretty weird. RGloucester — ☎ 03:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a misnomer for the "Army o the South East". Everything in Luhansk seems to want to get the 'south east' trademark --Львівське (говорити) 14:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The "Luhansk People's Militia" simply appear to be the "forces" of the People's Republic. Btw. There is plenty of coverage about Luhansk in the Ukranian and Russian media. Lunch for Two (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't read Russian or Ukrainian, and we've been told at the reliable sources noticeboard not to use solely Ukrainian or Russian sources, and that everything we do use must be verified in western sources, or removed. RGloucester — ☎ 13:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


It would appear that there is significant divergence between some Western media reports and reports from people on the ground. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's an interactive map encouraging people on the ground to contribute and provide information. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Maybe you can try to make a file based on it to Wikimedia commons. 霎起林野间 (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
A public update map is not exactly reliable as the claims are not verified by the editors of the map. However it is useful to take into consideration and besides the existing maps (which are on wiki commons) sufficiently cover the region. Lunch for Two (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Move

I will now consent to a move to "Republic" or whatever. The only question I have is whether it should be Lugansk or Luhansk. Does anyone have an idea? I figure Lugansk is most likely what the actual Republic uses, but we tend to follow Ukrainian-style here. RGloucester — ☎ 00:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Although it's physically in Ukraine, it's clear that this is a Russian speaking republic. Are we to use Russian transliteration convention and render г → g (Lugansk PR) or continue with the Ukrainian г → h (Luhansk PR)? Lunch for Two (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Luhansk is the Ukrainian name, and Lugansk is the Russian one--Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Given the context I think it is preferable that we use "Lugansk People's Republic". Republic of Kosova is an article title that is relatively comparable imho. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Everything else we have on "Luhansk" is written with the Ukrainian-style, though. However, I'm willing to move it to the Russian-style name, and then if someone objects, we can deal with it. RGloucester — ☎
I agree and would support such a move. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

some notes

Too many tabs, no time to work on this stuff atm

[27] police station seizued, interior minister created - Starobilsk under Ukrainian control (map shows it as 'attempted')
[28] bolotov captured, shootout, released

--Львівське (говорити) 18:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

There was an attempt a week and a half ago that saw rebels take control of the council chambers then relinquish that control shortly after, but you are right there is more information needed here. Lunch for Two (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Website

Could anyone with Russian-language knowledge look for the official website of the Republic? The DPR has one, and it was quite useful for establishing what the flag of that Republic is. I can't find this one's website, for some reason, and it would be useful if we could find it. RGloucester — ☎ 16:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I had a look as per your request. Although I didn't find their website I did find this article that basically says that the LPR is currently working on a new constitution, flag, emblem/coat of arms and national anthem. I guess we will just have to wait for the time being. Lunch for Two (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
This website is apparently the "official press-center" for the Lugansk People's Republic. All major announcements seem to be coming from here. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Donetsk got a decent infobox with flag, updated map, etc. Why doesn't this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.159.164 (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)<!— Template:Unsigned IP -->

There is no official flag, at yet, unlike with Donetsk. See the above section on the flag. RGloucester — ☎ 02:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, I found a source that shows the official flag, but the reference and the image were taken off long ago. We should readd it. [Soffredo] Journeyman 4 04:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a crappy internet image, and not a real source form the Republic itself. The Republic itself said, as shown above, that they had not chosen a flag yet. RGloucester — ☎ 04:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
so far all pics ive seen of the "parliament" uses the current Luhansk oblast flag. If they are part of the new "New Russia" confederacy now they might just keep it for all we know. --Львівське (говорити) 04:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Use a better map

(Also discussed here)

We should base our map off of this, as it shows actual rebel-held areas instead of just occupied government buildings which make the republic look bigger than it actually is. (Source) [Soffredo] Journeyman 4 00:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

i agree 100% --Львівське (говорити) 00:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
By all means feel free to edit the map, however I wouldn't assume that just because the BBC website has one image that we should automatically reflect that. Lvivske has brought to our attention these other maps [29] [30] [31]. Then there is this [32]. Simply using a map with the caption "Territory claimed by Donetsk/Lugansk Republic" (claimed being the key word) would probably be the most accurate, given that we know what territories these entities are claiming as their own. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
the one he's showing is from the central election commission showing where they have the ability to set elections. I think that's a good source as others show areas where buildings were taken and may be rolling out of date as troops move around. Torez was re-taken the other day and had only two people in the building? Separatists are spread pretty thin.--Львівське (говорити) 06:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
If the LPR no longer exists as per your comments at the DPR talk page, then we should simply put an image of the territory claimed and start on a new map which combines both the Donetsk/Lugansk regions. Lunch for Two (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
ps. Turns out other users have done just that here. Lunch for Two (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Somebody know this flag in Luhansk?

I from time to time see a flag with orange and grey color, like this [33], and [[34] in the 4th photo. Who know the origin? Is it related to Luhansk People's Republic? 霎起林野间 (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

that's just a St. George Ribbon --Львівське (говорити) 15:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

War with DPR

Still developing [35]]

Chairman of the self-proclaimed “Luhansk People’s Republic” (LPR) Valery Bolotov declared war on the leadership of “Donetsk People’s Republic” (DPR), Bolotov’s press service reports.

Bolotov believes that the cleaning of Donetsk by the forces of the anti-terrorist operation conducted by the Ukrainian government and the city’s submission to the Ukrainian army is a crime committed by the DNR head Denis Pushilin against his own people.

“On LPR’s territory Pushilin Denis and his inner circle are considered to be traitors and persona non grata. According to the laws of war, as traitors to their own people, they are subject to liquidation,” said the head of the LPR. He added that he considers the head of the DPR an outlaw and declares war on him.

--Львівське (говорити) 23:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I was unable to find any western sources to back this up, it may just be part of an internal propaganda. If true, then it will definitely have to go in the article. Lunch for Two (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I replied to you on the other talk page but a number of sources reported on it but I found one (vesti.ua) which said he denies the reports now, so I guess put a pin in this. --Львівське (говорити) 06:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Army of the South-East to be paid

[36] if you dont pay them you get charged with treason, or whatever. --Львівське (говорити) 06:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This might be relevant for a subheading dealing with law and order. Lunch for Two (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Add Federal State of New Russia?

108.195.138.231 (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

LNR Poll

I've started a poll at the talk page for List of sovereign states. You can find the poll here. We're discussing the inclusion of the Islamic State, the Donetsk People's Republic, and the Lugansk People's Republic. [Soffredo] Yeoman 01:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Soffredo

Soffredo has returned, once again placing an unsourced and incorrect flag in the infobox. Furthermore, he is adding superfluous citation need templates in the lead, and not noting WP:LEADCITE. He has also added the DPR to the recognition section, which doesn't make any sense, because the DPR has nothing to do with international recognition. I reverted these changes, but of course I don't want an edit war. I hope other editors can come to my aid to rid this article of such changes as these. RGloucester — ☎ 17:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

He has reverted again, once more inserting disinformation into the article. He cites the "Vermont Republic" flag, and I'm not aware of how that article is arranged, however, this flag is not used by the authorities of the LPR. They have used the Luhansk Oblast flag, the DPR flag sometimes, sometimes the New Russia flag, but never this so-called "LPR flag". We've been through this all before, and it is nonsense. RGloucester — ☎ 17:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I was a bit confused at him adding the Kyiv Post citation as it had no mention of the flag. The official site identifies the crest / coat of arms, but it also has a page on proposed flags (none of which include the one Soffredo is inserting). We do see this flag used on the cite, but it could be fan-made, and it also has a different crest (note the lack of pick axes). --BLACK FUTURE (shout, shout, let it all out) 07:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
As I've said many times, it isn't actually the LPR flag. The LPR itself does not use it. RGloucester — ☎ 15:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Also, he re-inserted it again now with this source here, but that source also doesn't mention the flag and the one used as the cover photo has a white bird with yellow crest, while the one Soffredo is inserting is a golden bird with different crest with additional pick axes. Is he intentionally adding bogus sources that don't line up with his edit summaries? --BLACK FUTURE (shout, shout, let it all out) 00:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You're calling Novorossiya's website bogus? The flag is right, the bird in the center just needs to be corrected. [Soffredo] Yeoman 01:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
New Russia's website isn't a good source for an LPR flag, considering the LPR has been in open conflict with the New Russia authorities and the DPR leadership. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@Soffredo: How can you put the flag back while in the same breath admit that it's entirely wrong? The symbol itself is entirely off, the only thing the same is the background colors. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 03:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? LNR is a member of Novorossiya. Look at WP:POV before you say this official website "isn't a good source". [Soffredo] Yeoman 01:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It is "supposedly" a member of New Russia. The problem is that New Russia doesn't really exist. The two republics still operate almost entirely separately. The only people trumpeting the New Russia horn are the DPR fellows, because New Russia is their project, and is supposedly run from Donetsk. The LPR and DPR were in open conflict for a while after the New Russia declaration. They've got better enemies to fight, for the moment, but New Russia was never really established. RGloucester — ☎ 02:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, let's bear in mind that this is the 'Novorossia News' site, and them using a graphic for an article doesn't make the flag official for the LPR, which they do not control, nor (as you said) do they even see eye to eye with w/ Bolotov. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 03:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Why can't we just include the blue flag that's been seen many times? Why do you have to make this so difficult? LNR is a member of Novorossiya, despite what you say. The Union State also exists, but that doesn't mean Russia and Belarus agree on everything. Now why would Novorossiya's website put up the wrong flag for one of its members? [Soffredo] Yeoman 14:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, have another article from Novorossiya's website showing the blue flag being used. Need any more proof that this flag exists or is, at least, in use? [Soffredo] Yeoman 14:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Because they're just taking it from wikipedia to act as a filler photo? It's not a source that the flag is real in the LPR. It's a fan remix. We even have an entire flag page on the official LPR site with no mention of this one as a potential flag. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 15:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Link? [Soffredo] Yeoman 18:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
He already provided the link to the LPR website. It is here. It shows proposed flags. RGloucester — ☎ 19:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Those were symbols used for development. The blue flag can bee seen in this album on the LNR's official website. [Soffredo] Yeoman 20:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, that flag (stapled to a sandbag?) isn't even the same color. This flag was used in the bio on Bolotov video. By my count, there are 3 common variants of the LNR flags floating around, none official. Stop pushing an unofficial flag with no sources. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 04:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It can be seen in pictures of random people with it, but that doesn't mean it is the flag of the LPR. RGloucester — ☎ 21:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Use WP:COMMONSENSE maybe? Why are you making it so difficult to include this flag? [Soffredo] Yeoman 21:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Because if it isn't actually the flag, that would be misleading to the reader. The LPR itself does not use the flag. The flag was not even one of the flags proposed to be used by the LPR. You have no sources from the LPR itself that say it is the flag of the LPR. RGloucester — ☎ 21:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Name and Flag and more

[37] Tsarev officially declared the creation of the 'Lugansk People's Repiblic' and proposed to unite with the Donetsk Republic to form "New Russia" (not sure if thats the official name proposed or they are just shouting rhetoric, maybe just Donbass Republic?) and said they want it to join the Customs Union (so not join Russia?). The flag is also the exact same colors as the DPR but with a different crest in the eagle (debunking the ones we kept deleting from the article). Under the crest it says "novorossiya" while the DPRs crest says "Donetskan Rus'"--Львівське (говорити) 18:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the first time I am seeing this flag. Whilst the coat of arms is similar, the "Novorossiya" and colour scheme set it apart from the first "Luganskaya Respublika" set of flags which emerged en masse over the past few weeks. Lunch for Two (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I've seen in online on vk...i forget which groups, but I got there by going from Gubarev's facebook so one of the bigger antimaidan type groups I would assume. I never saw the one being posted here while browsing vk or in real pics. --Львівське (говорити) 14:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's a rather large People's Republic flag, however at this stage it would appear that above the center of the movement only the Russian and Lugansk Oblast flags have been hoisted. A raft of Yugo-Vostok flags, presumably the flag of the Army of the South-East, have emerged [38]. They may be of some interest. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Correct, now that I see it I think I remember that pic now, but as you've said, only Russian and Oblast flags have been seen from the actual separatists. These flags are being made daily, I saw the new "New Russia" flag last night circulating [39]. People have photoshop and want to come up with ideas, some get turned into real flags used there, I guess. --Львівське (говорити) 15:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


  • [40] they declared themselves a sovereign state, and then right after the 'Luhansk Regional Council' (which endorsed the referendum) called for Ukraine to federalize "Otherwise, it is the central government alone that will be accountable for the disintegration of the country," and called for Russian language to be made official. It seems the politicians there have no clue what's going on between VK, Tsarev, and the Council. --Львівське (говорити) 18:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


They have a new flag it seems, different COA but same colors as the one used on the page previously. Here's the leader with it on his desk and in background link [41] --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 19:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Flag

The flag is unsourced. Please stop adding it. There are million variations. Furthermore, this article isn't just about the Republic. There are also Cossacks around, flying the Don Cossack flag. RGloucester — ☎ 15:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

also in mariupol the militants had russian and "glory to donbass" flags with an orange and black crest on it, so they may be pan-donbass and involved as well. lots of guerrilla groups.--Львівське (говорити) 16:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm personally bordering on invoking MOS:FLAG to remove all flags from the infobox at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 16:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


The new flag and COA have no sources and should be removed. The COA's reference goes to the old COA's reference. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 18:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

New flag source is here, which is the official site of the LPR. RGloucester — ☎ 20:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems the new flag is confirmed in use, given this picture at a BBC article. Notice that the flag is on the ballot boxes. RGloucester — ☎ 04:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm if LPR's coat of arms given in the article correct? I would have assumed it being the same as the one given on the flag, as in the case with DPR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't find any source for the red star CoA, and I agree with you that it is likely that the CoA is actually the one that appears on the new flag. RGloucester — ☎ 16:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Pensions

Apparently the Lugansk People’s Republic is paying pensions of $112.50 per month; but the source I found does not make it clear if all pensioners get it or just a few lucky oneness... Hence I did not put the information in the article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

area/population figures in main sidebar

Are there any estimates for the area (sq miles or sq kilometers) and population for the LPR?

That would be useful to include in the sidebar to the article (which describes other attributes of the state).

Thanks in advance if this is possible

Son of eugene (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes

There is a discussion of infoboxes at Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#How many infoboxes the article should have, and which one should it be that is probably relevant to this article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2015

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. The participants in this discussion as well as the Google results favored Luhansk. Using Google News seems justifiable for an entity whose life might be mentioned in months rather than years. (Google Books went the other way, but we may assume that GB will lag behind current usage due to the time it takes to publish books). If the Luhansk People's Republic continues in existence for some time, it's possible that its name will come to be mentioned in more English-language references. If so, it may be appropriate to run a new set of Google searches in the future. Though common sense may suggest that the Republic is supported by Russian speakers, thus making 'Lugansk' more logical, I don't see anything in our guidelines that implies that we defer to the language of the people who belong to the political unit. We only care about the most common usage in English. EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Lugansk People's Republic → Luhansk People's Republic – User:RGloucester has been running a change of name discussion for this article since 22 February 2015. It is clear from the discussion that there is some support for his/her initiative. If it is to be proceeded with, there must be a requested move. Listing this on requested moves will open up the discussion. Proposing this move is purely procedural, and does not endorse the proposal. Toddy1 (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should we use "Luhansk" or "Lugansk"?

At present, we use the title "Lugansk People's Republic" for this entity. The region of Ukraine is referred to as "Luhansk Oblast", and the city is referred to as "Luhansk". The city and the oblast are almost always referred to by their Ukrainian names, and Wikipedia naming conventions at WP:P-NUK and WP:UKROM dictate that those names should be used. It seems as if the People's Republic is another story, however, as it isn't clear if it falls into the scope of the guidelines on Ukrainian places. The claimed territory of the LPR does contain many Ukrainian speakers. As far as I can tell, they are less gung-ho on the Russian business than the DPR. Ukrainian is an official language of the LPR, along with Russian. Is there any real reason why this article should not be called the "Luhansk People's Republic", to match the articles on Luhansk and Luhansk Oblast? RGloucester — ☎ 04:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support use of Luhansk – From what I can tell, "Luhansk People's Republic" is more common in sources than "Lugansk People's Republic". A quick Google search shows 223,000 results for "Luhansk People's Republic" and 196,000 results for "Lugansk People's Republic". Google News shows 18,800 for Luhansk PR, and 4,330 for Lugansk PR. While the preference for "Luhansk" isn't overwhelming, I think WP:CONSISTENCY comes in play, suggesting we should use the same transliteration for the republic as for the oblast and city. "Luhansk" is the best choice. RGloucester — ☎ 05:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose renaming - The nominator presented Google search results without quotes although they stated that number of hits are for search with quotes. When this mistake is corrected the quoted search results without "wikipedia" gives 50% advantage to the current title with LuGansk (48,900:62,700). I think that the appropriate way to rename an article would be RM not RfC. I came here after I saw notification at WikiProject Military history.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
For one thing, you used the Serbian Google, which is entirely inappropriate. Please do not use foreign search entities. This is the English Wikipedia. Secondly, excluding Wikipedia doesn't make a difference, and I have no idea what the "quotes" do. The Wikipedia article is named "Lugansk People's Republic", so excluding Wikipedia should not boost Luhansk's numbers. Nor did you challenge the Google News results, which show a strong preference for "Luhansk" in high-quality sources, even in Russian-origin English sources. This is not an RM. This testing the waters. RGloucester — ☎ 20:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Trying to do this as an RFC is inappropriate. The correct process is WP:RM-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to rename the article, now. I'm just trying to figure out what people think. That's why I requested "comments", not a move. RGloucester — ☎ 21:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Using Google.com and not excluding "wikipedia" results with the significant advantage (almost 20,000 hits or more than 30%) for the current title (Lugansk People's Republic):
RM discussion serves exactly to learn what people think about name change.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
No, because the result of an RM is either to move or not to move the article. I don't want to move the article. I just want to see what is thought about the present title. I don't know how you got those results. They are nothing like mine, above. Regardless, you are forgetting Google News, which is prioritised because it selects high quality RS, rather than blogs. In Google News, "Luhansk" has a great advantage. There is also the WP:CONSISTENCY argument, which you forget. RGloucester — ☎ 22:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator - if you are doing search counts, you get better results if you page through to the last results. When you do this, the number of hits drops. I got much the same numbers as you on the first page of my searches. But when I had paged through to the end, the numbers were orders of magnitude less, and showed a different preference.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
If you look at page 16 of the results for Lugansk People's Republic it says "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 160 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." I called that 160 results.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The google search hits I presented prove that nominator's statement "A quick Google search shows 223,000 results for "Luhansk People's Republic" and 196,000 results for "Lugansk People's Republic"." was incorrect. If only last page of search results is used, sometime G prevails, sometime H. That is not solid basis for renaming. Google Books Ngram Viewer gives significant advantage to G version.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
We're not talking about the city or the oblast, only the republic, and that data is outdated anyway. My statement was not incorrect. Click the links. Those are the results I got. Google News has not yet been refuted, and that is a solid basis for renaming. RGloucester — ☎ 23:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
You just refuted your position. The results you got were without quotation marks and include city or the oblast. When quotation marks are added LuGansk version has significant advantage.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
What? I still don't understand what this inverted commas do, but regardless, Luhansk PR still wins Google News with inverted commas. RGloucester — ☎ 14:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
If you really don't understand "what this inverted commas do" why did you say that Google search results you presented are for terms in quotation marks (diff)? That is simply not true and you should openly and clearly acknowledge that and strike trough your statement with false information that gives additional weight to your position. If you don't do that you may deceive other people to believe that you presented search results for a particular term which would not be true. I hope that is not your intention? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, in standard English usage, which you may not be familiar with, inverted commas are used when one is referring to a specific term. It would've been incorrect to write, "The results for Lugansk People's Republic are XXX", as the distinction between the search term and the results is not made clear. Inverted commas are required, indicating what was searched for. Only what is inside the inverted commas is what was searched for, i.e. "Lugansk People's Republic" indicates the search term. As a foreigner, perhaps you are not familiar with standard English usage? RGloucester — ☎ 14:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I think I gave a fairly clear explanation that you presented false search results and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect everybody to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian is not applicable. It "describes how Ukrainian is romanized in Wikipedia. It is subordinate to the naming conventions and the manual of style, and to common sense." It is not relevant to a Russian-language organisation such as Lugansk People's Republic.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places) is a Ukrainian-nationalist POV document. The statement "Do not use transliterations derived from the Russian language" is at variance with Wikipedia:Core content policies. Wikipedia has a core policy that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias."-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose renaming. I agree with Toddy1's statements directly above, and it seems clear that applying those guidelines to this page would violate WP:NPOV. In the absence of an English WP:COMMONNAME, we should use the name used by a majority of the oblast/republic's residents, which is the Russian transliteration, Lugansk. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This is not a "Russian-language organisation". Ukrainian is an official language of the LPR, and northern Luhansk Oblast, which is claimed by this organisation, is largely populated by Ukrainian speakers. We follow WP:UCN, and UCN dictates use of Luhansk. Luhansk is much more common in sources, and is WP:CONSISTENT with Luhansk and Luhansk Oblast. RGloucester — ☎ 14:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Our Luhansk Oblast article states "more than 68.8% of the population consider themselves Russian speakers, while Ukrainian speakers were only 30.0%", while Luhansk proper had 85.3% Russian speakers (both as of 2001). I would argue on the same lines above that Luhansk should be at Lugansk, but Luhansk Oblast should probably stay where it is, given it's a Ukrainian administrative division. IgnorantArmies (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
30% is a significant number, and as I said, that 30% dominates northern Luhansk Oblast. Regardless, that's not how we decide to title our articles. We are not titling our articles as Луга́нськ or Луга́нск. We use the English-language common name, which is "Luhansk" for the city and oblast, and "Luhansk" for the PR. "Luhansk" is not "Ukrainian", but an English-language name for the city, oblast, &c. Who speaks what where is irrelevant to WP:AT. RGloucester — ☎ 01:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support use of Luhansk in order to facilitate consistency with articles across Wikipedia and the fact that more reliable sources use LuHansk over LuGansk. § DDima 05:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support use of Lugansk: I don't think Gbooks is the proper way to decide the article name. The fact that the Lugansk People's Republic is pro-Russian, and officially uses Lugansk, I do not support the Ukrainian romanization (as per the oblast and city) of this self-proclaimed state, as that would be considered POV.--Zoupan 10:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
How is it PoV? Again, Ukrainian is an official language of the Republic, insofar as anything can be official there. I hope you realise that there are many more languages than Russian in Russia. Being pro-Russian has nothing to do with it. RGloucester — ☎ 14:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
People who use the Ukrainian language when dealing with the separatists tend to be beaten severely. The claim the Ukrainian language is an official language in the separatist republics is a propaganda fairy tale.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support use of Luhansk. Despite the hopes and dreams of the separatists, Luhansk remains a part of Ukraine, even if that is (internally) under dispute. As such, and to keep things consistent with regard to names on enwiki, we should use Luhansk People's Republic as the page name. If such a time comes that the separatists successfully break away from Ukraine, perhaps then we can visit the idea of using Lugansk instead. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 00:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support move per WP:COMMON and WP:CONSISTENCY. Looks pretty open-and-shut. I'm sure the editors who want to default to the Russian name because it's the separatists' preferred language and transliteration would be happy to support a move of Kiev to Kyiv? -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Kudzu1: I want Kiev to get moved to Kyiv but I don't support the Russian name for Luhansk. It feels like you're implying things there. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 14:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Google search results

News search Google.com (America) English language only.

Web search Google.co.uk (Britain)

Web search Google.com (America)

Books searches were unimpressive. The search mechanism did not work well, producing many false positives and for "Lugansk People's Republic" other odd behaviour that made it hard to count.

Google Books - Google.co.uk (Britain) English language only.

Google Books - Google.com (America) English language only.

Comments

  • I appreciate the provision of these statistics. I think the Google Books search is a waste of time, given how recent these events are. I can't imagine a book has been written about the LPR. RGloucester — ☎ 21:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I did the book search for completeness and to show lack of bias. You are mistaken in your imagination.
  • Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands, by Richard Sakwa, pub 3 January 2015.
  • Ukraine Crisis: What It Means for the West, by Andrew Wilson, pub 4 November 2014.
  • HC 219-xi - Ukraine and Russia : EU Restrictive Measures, published in paper format by British Government's "The Stationary Office"
-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The British government one is not a "book" in the conventional sense. I'm surprised about those two, though. RGloucester — ☎ 22:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Google news search on name of the city

Google.com (America) English language only.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal

The merger consensus is opposed. The discussion at Talk:Novorossiya_(confederation)#Merge_to_Novorossiya was combined with the results here to arrive at this consensus. AlbinoFerret 02:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

I propose that Lugansk People's Republic be merged into Novorossiya (confederation). I think that the content in this article can easily be explained in the context of Novorossiya (confederation). The LPR is a subentity of the Novorossiyan "confederation". Fakirbakir (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – We don't know that either the LPR or DPR are "sub-entities" of New Russia. They are still described as being independent entities. If anything, the New Russia article should be merged. Personally, I'd support blowing up the LPR, DPR, and New Russia articles, as they are not serving any real purpose other than as coatracks. RGloucester — ☎ 16:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - exactly as per RGloucester. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unfortunately the Lugansk People's Republic terrorist organisation really does exist on the ground. The Novorossiya (confederation) seems to be more or less a fairy tale.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
WOW Toddy1, you call them terrorist organisation even in talk? that doesn't show you exactly ready to write a NPOV article does it? Even the Ukrainian Government has not declared them a terrorist organisation (although it refers to them as terrorists, which is legally different from a declaration)KoolerStill (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Don't make much sense to merge into an article that probably should be deleted anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2015 (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.

In need of updating

The article is bogged down in content primarily dating back to 2014 with a smattering of information from early 2015. Given that a lot has happened since then (and it should be up to information like this). I've tagged it as being out of date and will try to find some time in the next few weeks or so to at least turn the present tense into the past tense and find more up to date, reliable sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Updating and the lead

Why is
"According to LPR estimates, the Republic rules over 1,220,000 citizens, roughly in line with the Ukrainian government's assessment."[1]
deemed to be WP:ITSIMPORTANT for the lead? These estimates are from November 2014 and, given the enormous amount of displacement and exodus from the region over the past year, it doesn't represent anything other than the LPR's estimate of the number of 'citizens' it rules over in November of 2014. Is the premise based on the fact that because it's sourced and verifiable, it merits inclusion? My own take on it is that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, therefore I've removed it from the lead where it was added on 16 November 2014. It may have been relevant then, but it is no longer relevant: it's outdated and is presented to the reader as if it were a current estimate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Nowhere to Run in Eastern Ukraine". www.nytimes.com. 2014-11-13. Retrieved 16 November 2014.

LPR - terrorists

Terrorism is they prime ideology popularized on the media. Intimidation and public torture of women visiting bars and cafe, intimidation of LGBT or Ukrainian speakers, creating and populating of scared image of Ukrainian, EU and USA peoples. All of those facts not just a methods they used, it is clear ideology. Like killing slavic and jews people was ideology of nazy. They sow fear and terror to everything which is not Russian or supported by Russian President. They creates distorted reality in the media (including Wikipedia) to populate the fear of western civilisation. It is definitely name of this ideology: Terrorism --Ipadm (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Let us keep the discussion at a single place, which is Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#DPR - terrorists--Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Should we use "Luhansk" or "Lugansk"?

A person or entity should be called as it itself deems. Excepting in-fighting over the same name (e.g., copyright, trademarks where a ownership is contested), we call persons/entities as they would deem. Even if one does not adhere to Catholicism, the head of the Church of Rome is still "the Pope". And so, the "Dalai Lama", even if one does not deem him personally as such. There is no contestation here. The entity names itself "Lugansk" and distinguishes itself from "Luhansk". The advocates of the latter naming believe that by denying it the name Lugansk, somehow, this incorporates into Ukraine. It is the opposite, by it calling itself "Lugansk" it identifies that it is not "Luhansk" that seeks independence, but an upshot group (from a Ukrainian perspective) that seeks to do so. This silliness needs to end. Nothing in the archived discussion prevails on this point. If I were sufficiently versed in Wikipedia editing, I would implement all the needed changes myself. Tachypaidia (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"A person or entity should be called as it itself deems." This is contrary to Wikipedia policy. See WP:OFFICIAL. Actual usage in English-language sources is preferred as a guide for article titles on Wikipedia. We don't care what the political unit wants to call itself. We only care how it is generally referred to in English sources. In some cases this may be the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Normal English usage is preferable; hence East Germany not "Deutsche Demokratische Republik", and Mark Antony not "Marcus Antōnius Marcī fīlius Marcī nepōs". Self-identification should carry weight though. It is much better to call someone by the name they call themselves, than some name made up for them by Wikipedia editors.
In the case of Lugansk, both "Lugansk" and "Luhansk" are almost equally common (see searches in February 2015 above). There seemed to be slightly more use of "Luhansk". If you think you can make a case for changing to the "Lugansk" spelling, you would need to make a case based on English-language usage. If you have the evidence to support your case, make a proposal at WP:RM.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The observation on native vs. English language translation is relevant here (it would be if the site were in Russian or Ukrainian). In questions of principle, word counts are not relevant: first, they are, by definition, dated, and secondly, do not augur any moral value. And, more so, I may be adamantly opposed to names such as Chelsea Manning, Mohammad Ali, Mr. T, Caitlyn Jenner, Malcolm X, etc., (some of which I am), but my assessment of their names, too, is not the point. The process that Wikipedia has in place to sort this out is likely not up to the task, but I stand by this point nonetheless. Tachypaidia (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Unclear what point you are making. Are you expressing disagreement with the policy at WP:Article titles? You appear to be saying that it won't give the right answer regarding 'moral value.' If you check current move discussions, you will find that page hits are often used to decide what term is most widely used for a certain topic. From WP:AT, "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit criteria such as recognizability and naturalness." EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
At this point, at a glance, Lunansk People's Republic yields 371,000 hits, while Lugansk People's Republic yields 136,000 hits. I see no argument for changing the title of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The point I am making, to clarify per EdJohnson's request, it that it's a terribly pedestrian view, and even a bit bigoted, to resolve this question in this way. There were many, as I recall back in 1964, and well thereafter, who adamantly maintained the name Cassius Clay, refusing to admit the name change. Were Wikipedia in existence in 1964, what result would the "hit count" give? Where is the "naturalness" is that? In this instance, the case is even aggravated, since this is a self-proclaimed entity. If Lugansk survives, and is not forced to revert back into Luhansk, the point will be self-evident. Tachypaidia (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, your arguments remind me of the Talk:Kiev/naming debate. Secondly, you already know that we don't make predictions. When/if it becomes self-evident, it'll be evident to everyone. Your comparison to Muhammad Ali is a non-starter because this is not a potential BLPVIO. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that all the English-language news coverage of Eastern Ukraine has increased usage of the "h" spelling for Lugansk, the "i" spelling for Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk, etc.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
yes toddy! you would know toddy! we know that you are russki saboteur-on-dnipro. wrong spellings, ha. 138.128.180.226 (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
One cannot even speak of any "accepted use" for this nascent entity, as the extant "hit counts" are nothing but artifacts of polemical shill outlets intent on imposing their own terms of identity. Tachypaidia (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Respect for self-identity is the ethical factor here. If there is a religious splinter group that self-identifies as the "Ladder Day Saints", I’m not going to respell and rename it to my liking. Divining this by a “hit rate” is Wiki-fundamentalism. Tachypaidia (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing our role in not taking sides for that of our role being one of WP:ADVOCACY. We're not dealing with a potential BLPVIO here. If your postulated religious splinter-group was predominantly reported on as being "Lader Day Saints" as opposed to "Ladder Day Saints", that would be the TITLE of the article... except for the fact that it wouldn't happen simply because one of the things you could count on is that RS fact check. Our only concern would be that they weren't actually "Latter Day Saints", but RS would clarify that issue for us, too. What you're actually basing your argument on is the transliteration into English, and we only use our Romanization transliteration system where there is no clear RS COMMONNAME convention in the English language. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I took the opportunity to read the Talk:Kiev/naming debate. The crux of that discussion was WP:COMMONNAME policy; this discussion is distinguishable. Obtainment of commonality takes time (and so, too, a change of commonality). Lingual usage evolves, reaching a local equilibrium ( i.e., "common use".) The new-born republic (27 April 2014) was only 3 days old at the initial posting of the Luhansk article (30 April 2014). Deletion was proposed the same day. Thereafter followed a dizzying alternating use of Lugansk with Luhanks--of which shill usage must be admitted. Amongst the LPR founding principles was Russian language usage. In such an instances, given that the name Lugansk is self-same with its existence, any other use here promotes a particular point of view. Tachypaidia (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Look - please do one of three things:
  1. Accept that this is going nowhere, and stop posting messages on this topic, and wait to see if other people agree with you.
  2. Write lots of letters to newspapers using your preferred spelling; if any of them were published it would have the effect of increasing usage of your preferred version and might induce the newspapers to copy you instead of copying the other usage.
  3. Make a formal proposal at WP:RM for a change, not just to this article but all articles using Lugansk in the title. This would have the effect of drawing more people into the discussion. Even if you only really want the change for the Lugansk People's Republic, you should propose the change for all, because one of the major arguments made last time was that it was better to use the same spelling for Lugansk throughout Wikipedia. It may be that consensus would be for some articles with one spelling and some for others. If you were to propose that all articles on Ukraine used the spellings standard in English in the 1970s and 80s it would be a huge improvement - but there is not a hope of this happening, because English newspapers now use 'i' when they should use "o" or "e" and use "h" instead of "g", etc.
Please do one of these.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm going to wait a bit--especially to see if Iryna Harpy weighs in with any additional feedback on this last point, then I might venture a try at WP:RM Tachypaidia (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I think Toddy1 has made good points about a prospective RM. Yes, for the sake of parity across articles using the 'h' rendition of Luhansk/Lugansk, it would need to be made as a request across the board. Personally, I don't see this as standing much of a chance of being accepted as an exception to the rule. This would mean that you would need to make a very strong case for the use of pre-independence nomenclature/transliteration in the English language. I'll leave it to your discretion as to whether you want to try an RM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
It should be called Lugansk, because that is how it is normally spelled and how they officially spell it. Nuke (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It isn't how it is normally spelt. Look at the requested move above, and you'll see that the vast majority of English RS use "Luhansk". Furthermore, nothing having to do with the LPR is "official". RGloucester — ☎ 01:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The LPR's official language is Russian. The LPR's official leader is Igor Plotnitsky. Might as well say the official language of the English Wikipedia isn't English because the UN hasn't recognized it. However, I see you're correct on the first point now. I maintain my vote. Nuke (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
But this isn't a !voting matter. You've seen the recommendations provided to Tachypaidia. Short of that, it's simply not subject to WP:CONSENSUS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Attention All Editors

Please refrain from changing the infobox until a consensus is reached. I have restored the infobox to it's pre-edit war state. DO NOT change it until a couple nose uss has been reached on the matter. Thank you. Anasaitis (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It is discussed at Talk:Donetsk People's Republic, which you are very well aware of, and you actions therefore constitute edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

How is this edit warring? The discussion is still ongoing. The infobox should not be changed unless a consensus for change is reached. Anasaitis (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, don't think I didn't notice the fact that YOU are one of the ones arguing for change. It appears you are abusing your administrative privileges.You're one of the users who started this edit war in the first place. Would you like me take up your little POV-pushing up with the other administrators? Do you want to be reported again? Anasaitis (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I am so, SO sorry I snapped there. I'm just frustrated by this whole turn of events. You see, This discussion/edit war is identical to a previous edit war that happenned some time ago. It even involves some of the same users. I will admit that I got involved then. I was fairly new on Wikipedia. I was fairly new on Wikipedia, and I didn't know as much as I do now. I saw the discussion, and noticed that what was being suggested as the new infobox appeared contrary to what has been the standard for dealing with unrecognized political entities here on the site. So I got involved. Little did I know that I had just got myself involved in what would become a long, frustrating affair in which tempers would flare and calm discussion would give way to protracted arguement. Multiple users were banned because of this one dispute. It quickly became clear to me that I had gotten myself in over my head. Still, I was adamant, and I continued to attempt an explanation of why unrecognized political entities usually recieved the country infobox. Unfortunately, tempers continued to flare and level heads failed to prevail. I grew frustrated as the same arguments were made by both sides again and again. I'm ashamed to admit that It got to me. I e ded up stepping over the line. I soon realized what I had done and tried to apologize, but before I could do so I was blocked. It was only a temporary block, but I was ashamed and humiliated. I briefly considered leaving Wikipedia for good, but I later reconsidered. Still, I never forgot that incident, and it haunts me to this day. I felt ashamed that I let it get to me (though I have never admitted it until now), and angered by the fact that such a stupid, trivial issue like the choice of which infobox to use had gotten so out of hand. It wasn't even that big of a deal, and yet despite the insignificance of it all, some stubborn users had seen fit to start what termed into a nasty edit war that quickly escalated out of control and required admin intervention. All because of some stupid infobox. Still, I felt that everyone had learned their lesson, myself included, and that such a ridiculous problem would never happen again. Sadly I was mistaken. While combing over some articles, I stumbled over the current discussion, and to my dismay I recognized some of the same people that were involved in the last dispute. They had started the same issue all over again! Hasn't this dispute caused enough frustration? Haven't enough users been blocked? Do they not understand what they're starting? The idea that the same users would raise that same issue after all the trouble it caused last time is an outrage. That stupid edit war waged off and on again for close to a year, and now they want start it all over again? Are we just going to wage the same debate over and over again? Can't everyone just suck it up and leave things as they are? Why can't everyone see that this arguement has left the realm of facts and degenerated into an arguement over opinion? I don't expect any sympathy, but please try to understand where I am coming from. I don't want to get involved, but I don't want everyone making the same mistake again. Anasaitis (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Just wait until the RfC gets closed and continue discussing, not reverting, in the meanwhile.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Anasaitis, I've responded to you on my talk page about this. Please stay cool headed. It isn't worth getting yourself blocked over something that doesn't need to be fixed right now. There's certainly a serious discussion to be had over a consistent use of templates across articles, but this isn't the time or place for it. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I am relieved to see that this issue has been resolved with sensible heads prevailing, and without anyone getting banned. That is a huge relief. Now, if everyone will just drop the matter and move on, we can put this mess behind us without anymore heated arguments on the talk page. Anasaitis (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy of maps (again)

As a heads up for interested editors (particularly those who work on maps on Wiki Commons): I've removed the map being used in the infobox of the DPR article, and have explained my reasoning on the talk page there. Primarily, my rational is that it is undoubtedly inaccurate when compared to more recent depictions of territory controlled by the DPR and the LPR. I don't have an issue with the maps being used in this article, particularly the infobox one which is vague, but serves to inform the reader of the optimum claims by the LPR, a general insight into how much territory is currently under their control, plus captions that adequately describe the maps. Any comments on how to improve the map for the infobox on that article would be welcome. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"See also" section edit warring

Over the last couple of weeks, there have been a couple of editors removing List of designated terrorist organizations and List of rebel groups that control territory from the "See also" section using WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit summaries like this and this as an argument for removal. Contrary to the bad faith assumption, these are relevant, related articles for the benefit of the reader, not 'propagandist' insertions. Both the DPR and LPR are 'rebel groups that control territory'. The article on designated terrorist groups is also relevant and covers groups across a multitude of recognised sovereign states. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED therefore, unless there are genuine policy and guideline based reasons for excluding them from the section, I will be restoring them ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, it is included, with appropriate sourcing, into the list. So, this just needs be consistent. Besides, the account who made revert is an edit-warring only account, not mentioning this is an obvious "sock". My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what you are getting at. There are obvious NPOV implications with both items. It is a fact that the Poroshenko government categorizes the Lugansk People's Republic as a terrorist organization. This designation is controversial even in Ukraine and it has no significant support outside of Ukraine. It is therefore against NPOV to label, or to insinuate, that LPR is a terrorist organization on Wikipedia. Linking to the List of designated terrorist organisations does the latter.
Adding the List of rebel groups that control territory is a less problematic, but it is still unfortunate since it insinuates guilt by association. Most of the organizations that are currently included in the list are recognized terrorist organizations, so the list is severely lacking in completeness and it is hard to define properly. One could uncontroversially include organizations such as Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, Kurdistan Workers Party. Perhaps also some of the more recognized rebel groups such as Republic of China. So it's hardly essential to link to that list out of concern of underinforming the reader, and given the NPOV concerns this item should be avoided. Heptor talk 18:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
1) Read the lead for the list of designated terrorist organisations: "This is a list of designated terrorist groups by national governments, former governments, and inter-governmental organizations." 2) Please bring WP:RS to demonstrate that it is recognised by any sovereign state, because there's certainly an abundance of sources positioning it to the contrary: i.e., its being a rebel group controlling territory. 3) Please don't use article talk pages for advocating your own POV when there is obviously nothing to 'discuss' other the fact that you just don't like it... And please take the time to read the archived talk for any articles on controversial topics (particularly those covered by discretionary sanctions). Everything you've commented on has been discussed to death on this talk page, and on related article talk pages. The situation has not changed, so there is nothing to drag out and start discussing again: it's a waste of other editor's time and energy. Good faith is contingent on the premise that all parties have done their homework. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
1) the ukrainian govt classifies LNR as a terrorist organization, WP does not; doing so would violate the WP:NPOV policy. Having something akin to "see also: terrorists" in this article would violate the neutrality of this article. 2) the terms "state" and "a rebel group controlling a territory" are not mutually exclusive, a political entity can sometimes be accurately described as both. the problem is that that list is underdeveloped and unupdated, so it actually functions as a "see also: terrorists". 3) the situation is an active war zone, so it obviously changes all the time. If you feel that some of the archived discussions remain relevant, please summarize their arguments. Heptor talk 22:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Wrong. What has changed? International recognition? Who? Where? And, yes, it's an active war zone: you've hit the nail on the head. According to Minsk II, LPR and DPR should have been disbanded ages ago. Per WP:BURDEN, the onus is on you to back up your WP:OR. Any WP:RS for your position? If not, it's a violation of WP:NOR. There is no NPOV violation. Evidently, you need to re-read and understand Wikipedia's policies. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Insinuating that LPR is a terrorist organization in Wikipedia voice, for example by use of "see also: terrorists" would be an NPOV violation. The policy requires articles to be written in non-judgmental language and with impartial tone; loaded language is to be avoided. Heptor talk 06:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Woah! I just realised you'd made a series of WP:POVPUSH edits when you started your WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT commentary here. Reverted per WP:BRD, but you've accomplished nothing other than being extremely unconvincing. Again, you don't seem to comprehend the meaning of policies and guidelines. "Terrorist" is not a WP:LABEL when it is reliably and well sourced! Read policies and guidelines properly before invoking them. Incidentally, where did you pull the category "Ukrainian irredentism" from as applying to this article? "Novorossiya" is a Ukrainian political/territorial concept? Seriously, please provide one WP:RS for this piece of silliness. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

There is now a continuation of this discussion at the NPOV noticeboard. Heptor talk 16:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Russia backing

Russia backing should be explicitly stated and prominently emphasized at the very top as the primary reason why "LPR" exists in the first place.

Let's discuss declined revision 748114079 mentioning the puppet state principle applied on this Ukrainian territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denchik37 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Do we have sufficient amount of independent 9from both Russia and Ukraine) reliable sources calling LPR a "Russian-backed puppet state"?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
There is plenty of confirmed evidence that "LPR" depends on Russian Federation (not to be confused with the citizens of Russia as a sate, ethnic Russians, or Russian language speaking population) in terms of original creation "Putin issued the first public and clear description of the ultimate objective of the Minsk Agreements--autonomous rights of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics", decision making control "Pushilin has been spotted in Moscow on several occasions since then, including in a meeting with high-profile Russian nationalist politician", and partial economic sponsorship "Russia is financing pensions and state salaries in the self-proclaimed Luhansk People's Republics". As far as Russian military intervention, that's even easier to confirm "Zakharchenko admitted that thousands of Russian citizens, including many professional soldiers, were fighting alongside the separatists. He said 3-4,000 Russians had joined" In fact, there's a whole article on this matter at Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denchik37 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure you understood my question. let me repeat it. Do we have sufficient amount of independent (from both Russia and Ukraine) reliable sources calling LPR a "Russian-backed puppet state"?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
What I'm seeing is a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH being elicited from sources. Puppet-state = breach of WP:NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
you don't have to use the term "puppet state", geese... "russia backed state" or "russian protectorate state" or whatever. I mean common, why is Russia under global sanctions in the first place??? For intervening eastern ukraine. Don't you watch the news?212.90.182.118 (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
IP 212.90.182.118, you've already been informed that talk pages are not WP:SOAPboxes. You're leaving a trail of deeply offensive hate diatribes in your wake on numerous articles on my watchlist. Understand - here and now - that your behaviour is not acceptable, and won't be tolerated should you persist. Suggestion: you'd better familiarise yourself with WP:NOTHERE... sharpish. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Ymblanter, no need for emotions in your reply. I have provided a link to BBC, is it independent enough? Let's focus on each provided fact in order to avoid WP:SYNTH:
  • Use of Russian military to secure control over "LPR" territory
  • Statements by Russian authorities supporting "LPR" autonomy
  • Meetings of Russian authorities with "LPR" leaders
  • Financing by Russia of social welfare in "LPR"

It can be called backing, support, or have no heading at all. However, it directly relates to the subject of the article. Denchik37 (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Denchik37: What you are doing is known as WP:BLUDGEON. You've provided absolutely no WP:RS for the use of such a term, ergo it is SYNTH. We know the BBC article like the back of our hand by now, and nowhere does it refer to any 'puppet government'. The only person getting emotional is you. Wikipedia is WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, so it's time for you to stop trying to stop the original research and drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello editors.

Hello everyone We need to change the name "Luhansk" to "Lugansk" because: a) That's the correct pronunciation. b) BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY !!! THAT'S THE MOST COMMON NAME FOR IT!!! Please google search each name and see for yourself that "Lugansk" gives you almost double the results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.59.96.64 (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read talk pages before you change content and post new comments here. The subject has been discussed at length here. Just read the sections above. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
156.59.96.64 - this exercise has been done. The results were recorded at Talk:Luhansk People's Republic#Requested move 28 February 2015. It turns out that when you look at pages in the English language, they do not come out the way you thought. In case you think, "ah but that was February 2015", you can repeat the search using the links. For example:
Web search Google.co.uk (Britain)
For the purposes of what the article should be called on English-language Wikipedia, only English-language usage matters.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I was referring to the word itself.
Folks please search the word "Lugansk" and "Luhansk" .
Lugansk gives you almost double the results(several millions more).
And it references exactly the name of the peoples republic of Luganks.
Also 178 results vs 198??? You've got to be kidding me. That is honestly just pure ridiculousness...
It's not even a couple of hundred results...Which means it could be easily altered by you or me..
Search results for Lugansk https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Lugansk About 5,380,000 results
Search results for Luhansk https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Luhansk About 3,190,000 results
It gives you the same result with or without quotation marks.
To change or create 20 pages and therefore alter the "most common way" people refer to "Lugansk" would take me about a day on the internet...
To alter or create 2 million plus pages on the internet ...Would take me 300 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or if someone took the task of altering this (say perhaps some government wanted to do this... it would take a huge chunk of their time/investment to do that.So they are not going to do that...
So 2 million+ (2 200 000) results more for Lugansk ...CLEARLY SHOWS YOU THAT LUGANSK IS THE COMMON WAY TO REFER TO LUGANSK and therefore Lugansk People's Republic!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.59.96.64 (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
But this is an article on Luhansk People's Republic. If you think that the article on the city should be renamed, you need to raise it at Talk:Luhansk.
By the way, if you are going to do search counts, you need to go to the LAST page. Generally, the number of hits is vastly inflated on the first page. You also need to try to restrict the searches to English. Hits like this page from gorod-lugansk.com tell us nothing about English-language usage.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
To further prove my point please look at google trends that keeps track of all the searches over time.
By the way you can use google.co.uk or google.com or any other version of google for that matter...Results are pretty much the same...
https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore?date=all&q=luhansk - Looking at the word "luhansk" and its searches over time.
https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore?date=all&q=lugansk - Looking at the word "lugansk" and its searches over time.
The results above clearly show that lugansk was the most popular over time.
https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore?date=all&q=lugansk%20republic - Looking at words "lugansk republic" and their searches over time.
https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore?date=all&q=luhansk%20republic Looking at words "luhansk republic" and their searches over time.
The results above clearly show that lugansk republic was the most popular over time.
And to conclude Lugansk is the correct way to say and write it.And it is more popular.And is the most common way to reference it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.59.96.64 (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with previous statements to the effect that we should be using 'Luhansk' as opposed to 'Lugansk' because 'Luhansk' is more common in English, as this flies in the face of a long-standing policy to use official nomenclature to describe a place according to what it is called by the inhabitants who hold authority over the area.

Many articles have been renamed to official standards despite common usage, i.e, The page for the Indian city of Chennai uses the official nomenclature and spelling, whereas the much more commonly used name is Madras; this is also the same with some cities in South Africa--Witbank is still the more commonly used name of What is now called eMalahleni, same with Polokwane for Pietersberg).

There was also the controversy regarding whether or not the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant should even be called 'Islamic', but it has been consistently ruled that, as that is the name they use for themselves as well as having common currency in daily parlance , despite not being officially sanctioned or recognised by any international governing body.

WP:NCGN Suggests that we use Lugansk, as it meets the criteria for the article's title:

  • Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place);
  • Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)";

and then finally, Wikipedia:P-NUK, which describes how to refer to the Crimean Autonomous Republic using official nomenclature, but not to refer to individual Oblasts by their Russian names, as these Oblasts are still under Ukrainian authority.

I'd say there is no real established precedent about using internal nomenclature in war zones and disputed areas, something that Wikipedia would have done good on laying out (and in so far as Lugansk has more or less solidified control over these disputed areas, these names are de facto as opposed to de jure), I would say that this issue isn't dead, and that we should change the name to Lugansk, especially since it is politically contentious to use the alternative for a people who consider themselves separate--Maybe 'Lugansk People's Republic' but keep 'Luhansk Oblast'?

Either way, It should be initially referred to as 'Lugansk People's Republic' in the lede, as per at least those guidelines above. Stevo D (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) says "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always." English-language sources generally call it "Luhansk People's Republic" (see the many previous discussions).
You misunderstood the words you quoted from WP:NCGN were Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place). These come from a paragraph that starts "The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses...". The current wording of the first sentence of the article complies with that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luhansk 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luhansk 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Rebels hate gays?

The article presently states that the republic has a law against homosexual practices. LPR now publishes its laws online[42], and I can't find any such law in their database (or anything remotely similar for that matter. The laws that were passed during the period in question are very typical government business, including election procedures, separation of powers and such). The sources that we have are 1) a Ukrainian LGBT community, that only reports that there are rumors of this law, and 2) The Daily Beast, an unashamingly tabloid publication that don't seem to have any special information about what is happening in the republic. The ultimate source of this rumor seems to be this Facebook post by Vsevolod Filimonenko. My judgement is that the LPR law database can be used despite being a primary source per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, since LPR is the authoritative source for its own laws despite their laws not being internationally recognized. Heptor (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Other updates

I made several other updates to the article. I realize that any changes to the article may be controversial, and some of the editors present may disagree with them; please remember that the changes are not written in stone, so if you disagree please state your reasons here, while maintaining civility, assuming good faith, respecting other relevant policies of this Wikipedia and the norms of the wider civilized society in general. Thanks, Heptor (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

More updates

As pointed out in the header template, there is a need to update the article with the recent events. To start with, the History section is currently organized as a random mix of factoids, and it needs to be cleaned up and written chronologically. I started doing it here, but much work remains. Iryna, you previously removed the text I wrote on the territorial and demographics extent of the republic in the header. Incidentally, my recent edit includes that very same information in the first section after the header. I think that this information is key for any self-respecting encyclopedic article on the subject, did you perhaps disagree with how I wrote it? Heptor (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Population of the republic

The civilian administration of LPR provide an estimate for the population living on the territories under their control. According to https://glava-lnr.info/content/obshchaya-informaciya, the population of the territories under control of LNR was approximately 1,197,000 people in February 2015, excluding the refugees who left to Russia or Ukraine [tr. note: left permanently or left temporariliy being undetermined]. I tried to add this to the article, but got reverted. I think official information from LPR may be used here for non-controversial statements such as population estimates. They are certainly no less reliable then population estimates by other semi-functional states. It was also clearly stated that the number is an estimate, and this number is an important piece of information to have in the article. What seems to be the problem? Heptor talk 23:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Estimates from a WP:BIASED source should not be included in the infobox for an unrecognised state/entity... particularly given how old they are (dating from around the period when the LPR declared itself to be an entity). While such content may be WP:DUE in the body of the article (explicitly with attribution), I would still tend to argue against it given that there are no other sources for the estimate, and that the entire article is seriously out of date. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
There is updated and perhaps less politicized information from the LPR's bureau of statistics: http://www.gkslnr.su/files/chisl_260418.pdf. It estimates the population at 1,464,039 inhabitants in 2018. The report duly points out that it had to use somewhat circumstantial methodology, and points out the need for a general census. So this estimate is unfortunately not terribly precise, but this seem to be the best one available. Or is your objection more general? Heptor (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Another source for the population statistic: https://geopoliticalfutures.com/four-years-luhansk-peoples-republic/. Heptor (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Human rights section

I think it reads like a Criticism Section. It also no longer seem to be current, and at least some of the material is of questionable integrity, ref the discussion a few sections above about the homosexuality prohibition (such as it is). I think much of the content needs to be either moved to the "historical" section, or split into a sub-article. As there are controversial POV implications, I would like to gather opinions on the issue before I make these changes to the article. Heptor (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Need more pictures

Anyone has recent pictures from LNR that they would be willing to donate to Wikipedia? Just follow https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard Heptor (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Missing from the intro

I just noticed that a piece of information is missing from the introduction paragraph, that seems to obfuscate its logical cohesion. Between the fact that LPR declared independence and the fact that it is not recognized by Russia and Ukraine, it should be mentioned that there was a war where Ukraine attempted to re-claim LPR and that they were stopped with assistance from Russia. Presently the article seems to assume that the reader already knows about the war in Donbass, but such assumptions are antithetic to the purpose of the article. This inclusion will probably become controversial, so I would like to discuss it prior to modifying the article. Heptor (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Heptor: I'm in absolute agreement on this issue. If you go back to earlier incarnations of the article (2014 & 2015), there is some form of introduction to the inception of the polity in the lede, as well as a far more concise 'history' section immediately after the lede. No, we cannot assume that the reader is aware of the polity, or how it was founded. Somehow, the article has been redacted over time to exclude salient information, and the 'history' section has been relegated to a position way down in the body of the article with only hatnotes to the main articles. The structure has been turned on its head with geography and demographics, sports and culture(?), etc. taking precedence over the 'meat and potatoes' information that is available (and reliably sourced) about the state, not what an unrecognised state has to say about itself when there are no reliable sources to back up the veracity of what they say about themselves. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: Thanks Iryna, I'm happy to see you are back on WP! I added a brief introduction of the War in Donbass in the lede, and also moved the "History" section further up as you suggested. Heptor (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@Heptor: Cheers for that. Yes, those few tweaks have made an improvement, although I'm not sure as to the population estimate being reintroduced into the infobox. If it's used, it should be in the body and be attributed as being an estimate by the LPR (the RF entry is a reiteration of the estimate given by the LPR, so there are no other independent sources for the tally). Ultimately, if it is to stay in the infobox, it needs to be attributed WP:INTEXT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
We do present population counts from many semi-functional states where the professional quality and integrity of the statistics may reasonably be questioned. In case of LPR, they may have motivation to under-report the number of refugees that fled the republic, even though personally I don't see any indication that this statistic is unreasonably off mark. I attributed it in-text, hope it's OK now.
I agree with you that the "Sports and Culture" section is a bit thin right now, hopefully it will expand over time. Heptor (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove the "need to be updated" template

Given the recent improvements in the article, I would like to suggest that the "{{update|" template may now be removed from the top of this article.Heptor (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

For the article in it's entirety, yes I agree. I don't agree that all of the sections are up to date. Information on the status of elections, for example, is extremely dated. There's still some work to be done to get it up to scratch. Certainly, the "Sports and culture" section is redundant. One entry for an independent football team does not qualify for a section boasting such a comprehensive title. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I struggle to find independent reliable sources about anything that happens in the Republic other than war... The sources tend to focus on conflict unfortunately, it seems, ever since Herodotus. Heptor (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@Heptor: Yes, I'm in the same boat. The problem is that it is still essentially a war zone (albeit de-escalated), and martial law is in place. This would make it nigh on impossible for truly independent journalists to be able to safely move around the region, much less report on conditions there. I guess that the article is stuck in a rut until such a time as conditions change and it's possible to get something other than heavily WP:BIASED sources from either extreme reporting on the LPR. Unfortunately, it's probably going to be a long wait. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Area

The area of the claimed territory needs to be added to the article. 13:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC) 80.123.48.223 (talk)

Do you have sources for this data? Heptor (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
If you do, then by all means, please proceed and add it to the article, or post it here on the talk page if you have any questions or if you for any reason want your addition vetted before publishing. Thanks, Heptor (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Ukraine and Russia: People, Politics, Propaganda and Perspectives

There is a very interesting collection of articles on the conflict in Ukraine, published by E-International_Relations: http://www.e-ir.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Ukraine-and-Russia-E-IR.pdf. A heads up, I will be adding material from this collection, especially to the "Historical background" section. Right now this section appears a bit run-on, abruptly starting with the 2014 revolution. Heptor (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Language policy

Another potential area of improvement: the article repeatedly alludes, but never clearly states, the Ukrainian language policy as an important driving force behind the separatist movement in Lugansk. Per Language policy in Ukraine, Russian language was given the status of regional language in Ukraine in 2012, along with other minority languages including Hungarian, Moldovan and Romanian. This decision was controversial and resulted in actual fistfights in the parliament. This law was repealed on 28 February 2014, just six days after the protesters took over the power in Kiev. I think the article should elaborate this a bit more than it presently does. Heptor (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Fistfight in parliament was done by people against this law. To give people the impression that pro-Russian Ukrainians started to shoot dead Ukrainian soldiers because of these fistfights is absurd.... Besides you are telling (or have been told) halftruths about this language law because the repealing of the law was vetoed by the then acting Ukrainian President. See the lead of the Language policy in Ukraine Wikipedia article (well referenced). You also don't seem to understand that protesters did not take over the power in Kiev but were given this power because President Yanukovich fled Ukraine (see: this New York Times article). I do remember that the (unsuccessful) 28 February 2014 reapeal attempt did give (I am not sure how many) Russian speakers in Ukraine the idea that they would be "ethnic cleansed" as in the Yugoslavia Wars. The article could elaborate on this, but if so it should also mention the disinformation about the 28 February 2014 reapeal attempt. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for joining on the discussion Yulia. Re what you write, "To give people the impression that pro-Russian Ukrainians started to shoot dead Ukrainian soldiers because of these fistfights is absurd", this would of course be an oversimplification. The language policy (and, implicitly, cultural policy) did however play a major part in the motivation for the rebels. If they were justified in their concerns is another matter, and it should of course also be discussed. The article would be improved if their motivations were elaborated. What I've seen so far is that the language policy is discussed, but it is not clearly stated why it is relevant. Heptor (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

If you do research on this.... I would like more to find out why no rebellion started in other (mainly) Russian speaking parts of Ukraine (like Mykolaiv Oblast and Dnipropetrovsk Oblast). What I think happened in the Donbass is that there were plenty of angry (at the new Ukrainian government) locals but that these people were molded into terororistic organisations (with membership multiplied by Russian citizens and Russian soldiers) by the Russian government. The Surkov leaks are 1 indication that I am right. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to say that I agree with everything you wrote above, although I'd rather use a more neutral "paramilitary" or "separatist" instead of "terroristic". Checking the Surkov Leaks with much interest. Heptor (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Although, upon closer examination, stating that the membership of the LPR rebel fighter force was multiplied by Russian citizens and Russian soldiers seem to be hard to substantiate. See for example this NY Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/world/europe/behind-the-masks-in-ukraine-many-faces-of-rebellion.html. It was summarized in [1] as "in Most of the leaders and fighters were Ukrainian citizens: miners, small businessmen, and former military". So there were some people from Russian coming over, and certainly a lot of materiel, but there is little reason to suspect that there was a little-green-men style of invasion like in Crimea. Heptor (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Giuliano, Elise (2015). "The Social Bases of Support for Self-determination in East Ukraine". Ethnopolitics. 14 (5): 513–522. doi:10.1080/17449057.2015.1051813. ISSN 1744-9057.

Map of Ukraine

I noticed that this map recently got removed from the article, with the explanation that it is "not correct picture". It is cited in E-International_Relations, and I don't see any incorrect information on this map. Is there something in particular that warrants this map to be removed? Heptor (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The map is indeed not correct - the Budjak area and the Northern Bukovina were annexed in 1940.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Ymblanter, I agree that we can't use it. Heptor (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Lugansk instead of "Luhansk"

Acc to the entity′s English language sources (Lugansk Media Centre and also Russia′s official media outlet TASS: Lugansk People’s Republic head resigns), they use this (″Lugansk″) transliteration of their name. I cannot see any reason why we should use the received transliteration normally used by Ukraine for the city of Luhansk -- the entity does not recognize itself under Ukraine′s jurisdiction and is regarded by Ukraine′s gov accordingly (as Russia′s proxy). Their primary official language is Russian and this is how Russian letters are normally transliterated: ″г″=″g″.Axxxion (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I am aware that there have been discussions of the issue, but those have been largely beside the point: we are not talking of the common English usage here, as there is no specific native name for it. This is plainly a matter of how we transliterate. Google hits that google "Luhansk" vs "Lugansk" are likewise irrelevant, as we talk of a political entity not recognized by Ukraine who extends its jurisdiction over the city that they normally transliterate as "Luhansk".Axxxion (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, the arguments to the contrary would be the still widespread use of "Luhansk" in the international media, and also the fact that the LPR is officially bi-lingual. It would imply that that both "Luhansk" and "Lugansk" are correct transliterations. On a side note, I think that it is quite applaudable of the LPR leadership to respect the cultural freedoms of the Ukrainian speakers who live on the territory of the republic. Heptor (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
By the way, in case you didn't know, naming of articles on Wikipedia follows WP:COMMONNAME, not the stated official names. Heptor (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
So, WHAT is the common name? Not for the city, but for the LPR?Axxxion (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Friend, read the policy, it's all there. If you think there is a case for the move (in line with the policy, that is), please submit a move request. If you find good reasons and state them well I might yet support it. Thanks, Heptor (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the undiscussed move of the article. Please use the WP:RM procedure.-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact remains that the current version of the name in the title is unsourced, i.e. not based on anything apart from nonsensical rants accusing me of bad faith, insanity (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Axxxion) etc. Naturally, I amnot about to be engaged in such ad hominem discussions on ANI.Axxxion (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The only actual reason for such bias that I can detect is that there is a tendentious aversion to using Russian-language-based versions of proper names where it is actually appropriate and due yet avoidable under a flimsy pretext. The most egregious example of this bias is the article Navahrudak, which uses the Belarus-language version (whereas Russian in fact has equal status in that country and is spoken by the overwhelming majority), and remarkably reads: "Navahrudak (Belarusian: Навагрудак), more commonly [SIC!] known by its Russian name Novogrudok (Новогрудок)". So much for vaunted COMMON USAGE!Axxxion (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The current version of the name in the title is used by Wikipedia because that is what English-language publications such as The Economist use.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The issue is that you ignored consensus and performed a controversial move without following proper procedure. Ymblanter explained it to you on your talk page and you wrote that you understood his explanation[43]. Heptor (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Toddy1: thus far, this is just your allegation: show me refs to "Luhansk people republic". As for alleged consensus, the fundamental Guideline of the Wiki is WP:VERIFIABILITY of any statement unless it is an obvious fact. So far this article′s title is in breach of this Policy; and consensus was based on a misleading premiss of "Luhansk" being same as "LNP". As a side comment, I find Ukraine′s tendency to render their ″г″ as "h" in English (as opposed to ″g″) to be motivated by propaganda politics and not grounded in phonetics: their sound Ukrainian pronunciation: [ɦ] is one of the way the Russian ″г″ is usually pronounced in the southern regions (south of Kursk roughly), it is same as Greek ″gamma" (γ, i.e. a fricative "gu"), still rendered as "g" in English as it is a voiced consonant still, not a voiceless one as "h" suggests.Axxxion (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
"show me refs to "Luhansk people republic"": https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/112-ua-new-leader-luhansk-peoples-republic-appointed.html https://sputniknews.com/tags/tag_Luhansk_Peoples_Republic/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/21/power-struggle-shakes-breakaway-republic-eastern-ukraine-armed/ Heptor (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)'
Even more interestingly, https://dnrsovet.su/the-possibilities-of-donetsk-and-luhansk-peoples-republics-development-discussed-in-lugansk/ Heptor (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
What it is called in Russian or Ukrainian is of no relevance. Nor does it matter how the words are pronounced in Russian or Ukrainian. All that matters is what it is called in English - preferably by publications in English-speaking countries - like England.
You can find more by searching Google News for www.economist.com luhansk peoples republic-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Well and good, but the name in the article is unsourced while the issue is not obvious. "What it is called in Russian or Ukrainian" is relevant unless you refuse to understand what we talk about here. As far as "Lugansk" is concerned, the name is basically the same in both lingos (Луганс[ь]к), moreover it is pronounced virtually same way by both Ukr-speakers and local Russian-speakers; the issue here is very narrow: how they transliterate it. By putting the English "h" for ″г″ (the letter used both in Ukr and in Russ), they obviously want to make it look different from the normal Russ way of Latin script translitaration, simply for difference′ sake, at the expense of phonetic logic. Therefore, this is inevitably a political issue.Axxxion (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
This is English language Wikipedia. It is important to say in the article what local people call the subject of the article. But for the purpose of the article name, the only thing that matters is what the subject of the article is called in English.
If nobody wrote in the English language about the subject of the article, then it would be relevant to discuss how best to transliterate into English. And in that case I would agree with you. I do not like the way that politically motivated transliterations are used on Wikipedia. But the Luhansk People's Republic is a subject that people do write about in English, so we have to use the normal English language name for it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I understand and share the concern about transliterations having a political implication. There is a movement to enforce cultural and linguistic conformity within Ukraine, within the official sphere at least. This goal is politically contentious, since a large portion of the population speak Russian natively and many of them object to this movement quite intensely. English transliterations is a hot political issue in Ukraine, and we should, as always, be ware of attempts to use Wikipedia to advance politics. In case of Lugansk and Lugansk People's Republic I think it's a moot point however: the region is no longer a part of Ukraine, and the LPR officially uses both Russian and Ukrainian. So there no longer a case to prefer one over the other for the sake of neutrality, both transliterations are fine. Heptor (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I hear what you say, guys. But Toddy1′s comment "we have to use the normal English language name" is not exactly as relevant and applicable here as in cases like Moscow, Kiev, Germany, i.e. where we have truly established English-language names, which are often significantly different from the native name. Again, we talk about the name of an entity that claims to be a state (country); as is often the case with country′s names, at least a part of this name is actually a translation into English of the name as it is officially used. Thus, we do not actually speak of the "common English usage" here, we do in fact speak of the official version of a state′s name, yet we lean towards the transliteration practice of an outside state, which has a different official language as well as this rather bizarre (unscientific) transliteration policy. Anyway, I amnot pressing the point for a move, just explaining my position to make clear that it is not motivated ideologically/politically, rather the other way around.Axxxion (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, Axxxion, it has been made clear to you that if you want to change the title from the COMMONNAME, it should be addressed via an RM, not incessant arguments on the talk page. Your point was clear from the offset. However many times you continue to rehash your arguments - and convolutions thereof - you are not going to trump policy by bludgeoning other editors. Secondly, the entity you are talking about is not even recognised, so why are you pushing the 'what they call themselves' line? NPOV means that we follow what reliable, English language sources from the Anglosphere call the entity. In fact, this belies your claim that you are not pushing an "idealogically/politically motivated" line, because that is precisely what you are doing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy: First, you are not here to "make clear to me" anything. I do need any cleaners. I am actually discussing the article, which is not forbidden and do not "disrupt" anything. YOU as well as a few others on this thread as well as on ANI here, conversely, tend to discuss mostly ME as a person (my "behavior", my "pattern" for years, my sanity, etc). THAT is truly disturbing and indeed demonstrates a certain pattern of being morbidly concerned about my personality. The reasons for which are best known to yourseves.Axxxion (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Yryna; I′ve just read your last post on ANI about me: I did enjoy it quite a bit. Very thoughtful of you. Very perspicacious too. I am now being accused by you there of the host of transgressions that I had never even heard of before. Definitely you might be indulging in some sort of "bludgeoning" (or "flogging") too by doing so?Axxxion (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Please pay attention: this is an issue for an RM, and the only argument for a change is WP:IAR. Given how long you've been editing English Wikipedia, you should be aware of policies and guidelines by now as you've been told time and time again. I have no qualms about an RM and am, quite honestly, on the fence as to the outcome. What you are ignoring is that it is not a recognised polity (whether any of us think it should or shouldn't be). You are, however, going on and on over the same ground... so such 'discussion' is plain disruptive, as is pointing the finger at other editors and saying that they're being unfair, and that you're being hard done by. Whether you recall or not, we've had both agreements and disagreements over article content (including titles) in the past, so I'm not riding the coattails of other editors' opinions as to your problematic behaviour. I know you to be a competent and articulate editor, but you honestly don't know when to stop. If you truly believe this issue to be of great significance, start a well thought out RM, but please stop the badgering and assumption of bad faith. By now, you must surely know this to be an underpinning principle of editing. I'm seriously not intending to be patronising (so apologies if it seems that I am): I'd suggest reading the 'one against many' essay. Of course most editors working in particular subject areas are bound to formulate an opinion as to the subject, and articles all over Wikipedia can truly get ensnared in the clutches of POV interest groups. What you must be certain of is that this is such a case, and then use the right available tools offered (without WP:GAMING) in order to follow up your position. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy: As has been noted by an admin on your ANI thread Re me, your claim I disrupt anything by discussion is a non-sequitur. Nobody is forcing any one, incl you to continue. If you belive there is nothing to discuss, abandon it: in fact, I intended my post made at 16:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC) to be valedictory on this thread (perhaps even on Wiki generally, as I feel a bit tired and depleted by it all). Yet, you picked up where I left off and you do it addressing me in a fairly personal way, albeit without infra dig comments about my "sanity" such as made by User:Heptor ([44]; intriguingly, he and I seem to see eye to eye on the subject matter of this discussion). Therefore, I will allow myself to make two points here. 1. I do acknowledge that my moving the article was rash and probably a misstep. I had read the prior discussion on the matter and my impression was that there is no definitive consensus on the matter (I may have overlooked smth); secondly I did not see (still do not, as my ref I recently put was deleted) any RS to support the name in the title. It appeared to me (and I still think so) that it would make sense to adjust the name as per how it is spelt in English by this entity/polity (i.e. LNP) itself. Now, you say repeatedly: "the entity you are talking about is not even recognised, so why are you pushing the 'what they call themselves' line?", "you are ignoring is that it is not a recognised polity (whether any of us think it should or shouldn't be)." And so what? You are a competent editor and you obviously seek to be even-handed; but I see no logic in your ′not even recognised′ argument. The valid question for us (wikipedians) is whether they warrant an article. Second, what we should call them? The question is actually very moot, as this is not a geographical name in a strict sense. This is a polity that is not recognized indeed. Therefore, their self-designation is not normally used by the government in Kiev, while the U.S. government in official documents uses the phrase "the so-called “Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR).” " (in quote marks). To me, the logical solution is to use their self-designation as the title name exactly because they are not recognized and consequently there is no established common use name for them. 2. As you have begun to discuss the political aspect and you apparently have personal interest in the topic, while living far off (probably all your life) (based on what you say on your personal Page), I will also allow myself to share my perspective on the matter, being a person who lived in USSR/Russia most of my life and spent significant time in Ukraine too. I will be very blunt too. I have almost no doubt that Ukraine, as a political entity, will cease to exist within the next couple of years, probably even before this year ends. Amnot saying this because I fancy such eventually, I rather not. But I know the realities and the likely trajectory of the chain of events that were set in motion in spring of 2014. Ukraine would have a fair chance of surviving and even eclipsing the RF if they had been less nationalistic in an extremely narrow-minded, chauvinistic way. They had an objective historical chance to present themselves as a freedom-loving alternative to a stifling KGB-run RF; instead, they chose a path appropriate for little nations with rural mentality and they are set to become one. The alternative way would have included proclaiming both languages having equal official status in the entire country and probably restoring the historical name for the country. I understand it would be exceedingly controversial because of RF′s appeals to "Russian world", but this fear of calling themselves "Rus′" betrays the fundamental insecurity of the notion that underpins their statehood. They fear to truly lay claim to the historical heritage of the Kievan State (i.e. Rus′), the way Moscow did some 5 centuries ago. At the same time, the current regime in Kiev has made so much to antagonize the Kremlin (often without real need) that the Kremlin will crush it no doubt, whatever the cost; they are just awaiting an opportune moment, which is nigh. As I said, no need to continue this thread if you are not inclined to do so.Axxxion (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Axxxion, the issue of the ANI discussion isn't if we agree or disagree about politicis, its about you stirring up conflicts where you should listen to the consensus, assume goood faith and behave with utmost civility. Heptor (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
By the way, politically I think this discussion is outdated. It used to be a hot potato when LPR was a part of Ukraine, and the 'h' in Luhansk was by some felt as forced cultural assimilation against the mainly Russian-speaking population of Donbass. Now it's almost the opposite. There is a significant Ukrainian-speaking minority in LPR. LPR seems to go to a least some length to represent their interests: Ukrainian is one of the two official languages of LPR, it is still taught in schools and spoken by a significant minority of the population. LPR also happens to be primarily known internationally by its Ukrainian name. There don't seem to be any political implications. Heptor (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Heptor. I agree on the linguistic/demographic aspect. Still, I believe that as long as we use their official self-designation for our article′s name, we ought to adhere to the way they spell it, as there does not exist any "recognized" Ukr designation for them, apart from the "temporarily occupied areas".Axxxion (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Axxxion, again, we don't use official self-designations on Wikipedia. This policy very much applies across the board. If you wish to change that, you need to bring this discussion to WP:COMMONNAME (not that I think that you should). Also, do you have sources for the statement that the 'g' is official? All you gave is a link to the Lugansk Media Center. It could be the specific preference of that outlet, not an official declaration. Heptor (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
You may also be interested in checking out WP:OFFICIAL. It's a supplemental page to Wikipedia:Article titles, I just found out about it myself. Heptor (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Heptor: Hard to follow your reasoning: We do use THEIR (LPR′s) self-designation in this article′s title, as the "LPR" is indeed their self-designation. The letter 'g' in "Lugansk" is about common phonetic (transliteration) sense, as I have noted above (English "h" is a voiceless sound whereas we have a (largely) voiced sound here in the original, no matter who says this name). That they prefer "h" for rendering "г" in Ukraine is a good illustration of a mount of unscientific absurdities that the current regime in Kiev is trying to build their edifice on.Axxxion (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Axxxion, are you actually paying attention to your WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments? This is plain WP:ADVOCACY and soapboxing. The article is not written on behalf of the LPR, your political inclinations, my political inclinations, or Heptor's political inclinations: it is purportedly an encyclopaedic article written following reliable sources. I don't even know what variant of the English language or Ukrainian you think you're representing with the 'voiced' and 'voiceless' "h" business... and Russian doesn't have an "h". You've not managed to come up with any new arguments, and are simply rehashing the same arguments used here (and related articles) over the issue, so please stop using this talk page as a forum to keep pushing your personal political views. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@Axxxion: I meant that we don't use the official self-designations as the deciding factor for naming the articles on Wikipedia. Did I really need to clarify that? Of course, if the the official self-designation happens to be the common name, as is quite often but not always the actual case, then we do indeed use that as the article title. Otherwise, per Harpy. Heptor (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@176.114.211.96: do you actually have the post stamps you mention[45]? Scan and upload, maybe? Heptor (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That g again

I see that the discussion about the spelling of Luhansk/Lugansk People's republic is coming up again. Since both spellings are grammatically correct and politically contentious, I suggest that we keep the existing spelling as it is. There is a precedent for mixed spelling in e.g. the Kiev article. I use both variants in my contributions, in order to avoid political bias. See e.g. [46]. There seems to be a lot of effort going into this useless discussion, I wish some of this effort went into improving the article instead. Heptor (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

In English Wikipedia we should use modern English names for titles and in articles. When mainstream English media reports about Luhansk they use the spelling "Luhansk". Also because mainstream English media reports about Luhansk they use the spelling "Luhansk" it is the most recognisable name of the city In English Wikipedia we use commonly recognizable names. To use both variants in your contributions is very friendly, but does make for very inconsistent (and in my opinion bad) Wikipedia articles. Who wants to read a book where the main character is called "Fred" on most pages but "Fret" on others? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Unlike Fred/Fret, many people have strong feelings about spelling Lugansk with g or with h. I think it's a good idea to use both spellings in the article. It's a reasonable compromise that would reduce the level conflict and would be considered as more NPOV by the readers, at a small cost in terms of a less consistent writing style. Heptor (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Current status

Hello Yulia Romero. You recently added an item in the article infobox stating that the status of LPR is an "Unrecognized state. Recognized by the UN as part of Ukraine." Could you please provide a source for this? In particular for the statement that UN recognizes LPR as a part of Ukraine, I can't remember any UN resolution recognizing any particular territory to be a part of Ukraine. Heptor (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This map produced by the UN's cartographic section show's the international border recognised by the UN.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
This does not mean that the UN endorses it though.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
This map isn't an endorsement, it states as much in the lower right corner of the map. Heptor (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for repeating what I just said.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Had to be clear. Imagine if someone were to overlook that disclaimer in the lower right corner before posting? Heptor (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Just made an edit with reference that LPR is recognized by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 as part of Ukraine. I don't know why Heptor is making a big deal of this.... even Putin says that LPR and Donetsk People's Republic are a part of Ukraine.... (although he wants these parts to become more autonomous). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Nothing's wrong with asking for sources, is there? The GA resolution you linked to discusses Crimea. The nearest it gets to discussing Lugansk is point 1, where GA "Reaffirms its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders" [emphasis added]. It does not go beyond reaffirming its commitment, nor does it discuss Lugansk or Donbass explicitly. Russia does recognize LPR as a part of Ukraine, as you state. Heptor (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Re "Putin says that LPR and Donetsk People's Republic are a part of Ukraine", could you please point to the specific text in the interview? Should be added to the article maybe. Heptor (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The interview does not state this.... This is a Wikipedia talkpage and I don't feel the need to reference everything I say on a Wikipedia talkpage. I have just became a semi-retired Wikipedia editor because I don't find editing Wikipedia that interesting anymore.... Only if Wikipedia articles become nonsense I want to get involved. You don't do harm to Wikipedia as far as I can tell. Although you and I seem to have different perspectives on current Ukrainian history. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I can feel your pain about retiring. I wanted to add what you wrote on Putin to the article. Maybe I'll find another source somewhere. Heptor (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

To me also Heptor (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Category

I'm a little bit new here, so please excuse me if I'm wrong about anything, and then explain what I did wrong. Okay the question/complaint I have is that: Why does the national anthem have its own subcategory under government? It seems odd to me especially as it is unique to this article, although I don't want to mess it up if someone did something correctly. Sorry to bother. Flalf (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This looks like an opportunity to improve the article. Where should this text be moved to?Heptor (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
We should either put it at the intro to the article or it should be given its own article Flalf (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Have to say I'm concerned it wouldn't be notable enough for the intro section. It's just one sentence, so it isn't currently large enough to make its own article. How about the "Constitution" section? Heptor (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC) PS: Unless you mean to expand it? Now that would be great! Heptor (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that would work. Flalf (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I moved it, and it looks okay to me. Flalf (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. Heptor (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Human rights in the early stages of the war

The section Human rights in the early stages of the war unfortunately looks like a Criticism section, that is a section dedicated to negative material. This section is presently a collection of factoids, and does not read like an organic whole. There are problems with verifiability. For example, the sentence "The UN detailed growing lawlessness, documenting cases of targeted killings, torture, and abduction, carried out by Luhansk People's Republic insurgents" had recently been reinstated. I could not find support for this sentence in the provided reference, and it presents an over-simplified picture of the situation in early 2014. Many armed groups and mobs were operating on the territory of the Luhansk Oblast at the time, with little in common except hatred for the revolutionary government in Kiev. There were many cases of in-fighting between those groups. Referencing to them as one whole at this time is imprecise, has a feel of war-time propaganda. A rewrite of this section is quite overdue. Heptor (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Start Class

This looks more like a C-Class to me. I don't know just throwing that out there. Flalf (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. An upgrade is overdue. Heptor (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Unrecognized state?

Luhansk 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) 00:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ruĝa nazuo: It's in the excluded entities at the bottom, I've asked the same question before :) FlalfTalk 02:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2021

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


Luhansk People's Republic → Lugansk People's Republic – "Luhansk" is the Ukrainian word for the city and the region, rather than the Russian one. Given that the entity is one that primarily espouses a Russian identity and communicates in the Russian language, and that it's English language outlets, such as the Lugansk Media Center use this spelling, it would seem fitting for it to be renamed to reflect this. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 00:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 00:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:UKRAINIANNAMES. The Russian transliteration, Lugansk People's Republic is, of course, a proper redirect, but the city and the region are part of Ukraine and the article's main title header should depict English transliteration of the Ukrainian name. Using the national language is a common practice in English Wikipedia geographical entries. Basque places in France and Spain are depicted via their French and Spanish names, not their Basque names. Places in the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus are depicted via their Greek names, not their Turkish names, etc. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Well this is not really an article about a place, rather about an entity that is in that place. Given that the organization is a Russian speaking one, and it refers to itself using "Lugansk" in English it would make sense to use that. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 04:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment WP:COMMONNAME applies here and we shouldn't automatically assume the use of Ukrainian. This article has been through renaming debates before and re-reading those will show that reliable sources use Lugansk as well as Luhansk. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The distinction, "Well this is not really an article about a place, rather about an entity that is in that place. Given that the organization is a Russian speaking one...", seems unclear. The lead sentence of the article describes the Luhansk People's Republic as "a landlocked proto-state", not as an organization. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Well a state is an organization. This is not the article about Luhansk or the Luhansk Oblast but about the Lugansk People's Republic, which is separate from those two things. It controls Luhansk, which would follow the Ukrainian names rule, but it itself is not a place, like the Republic of Crimea vs Autonomous Republic of Crimea being separate articles. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 18:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. Given that explanation, I am striking my earlier "Oppose" vote and replacing it with Neutral. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose  This was renamed by a formal request in 2015, and the request doesn’t refer to any Wikipedia guidelines that would suggest a reason to move back. But if it had cited WP:COMMONNAME, here is what the sources use (with searches performed according to WP:GOOG):
    Advanced Google Book Search, "Lu[g/h]ansk People's Republic" -Wikipedia, English-language sources since 2014, result 1.5:1 Lugansk People's Republic
    • g 755
    • h 488
    Google Scholar Search, "Lu[g/h]ansk People's Republic" -Wikipedia, result 2.6:1 Luhansk People's Republic
    • g “About 1,050 results,” 8 results actually shown on 1 page
    • h “about 1,790 results,” 21 results actually visible on 3 pages
    Google News Search, "Lu[g/h]ansk People's Republic" -Wikipedia when:14d, result 7:0 Luhansk People's Republic
    • g 2 results, both Russian state media TASS, which is flagged as no consensus in WP:RSP, but definitely biased on this question
    • h 11 results, 4 of them pro-Russian Ukrainian media 112, which is flagged as deprecated
    There’s no reason to move the article. —Michael Z. 01:30, 4 February 2021 (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.

War

@Alaexis There's not, like, a lot of reliable info coming out of the region, but it does seem clear that the LPR and DPR have been on (stalled) offense for a while. Russian state media reports their official goal is to conquer the entire Donbas. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

GordonGlottal, so they say that their goal is to control the whole territory of former Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts («установление контроля ДНР и ЛНР над всеми территориями бывших Донецкой и Луганской областей»). It doesn't automatically mean they are (or consider themselves) in a state of war with Ukraine. To give an example, the reunification of the island being the goal of the Republic of Cyprus doesn't mean that they are currently at war with the TRNC/Turkey. I think we need sources explicitly saying this to write it in the article. Alaexis¿question? 21:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I believe they've once again declared a state of war. They're mobilizing for sure. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 18:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
The major difference is, they're firing at Ukrainian troops constantly. And NYT here says they're "at war with Ukraine". That said, it is genuinely very difficult to figure out what's going on. Western media aren't reporting any Ukrainian actions, I assume to avoid helping Russian forces. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Actually you're right, the NYT do say that they are at war "Backed by Russia, the D.P.R. has been at war with Ukraine for nearly eight years," so I guess we can state it in the article clarifying that it's a been a low-intensity conflict in the last few years. Of course it's not one-sided, as the article says "Its fighters fire on the Ukrainian troops. The Ukrainians fire back. Or vice versa." Alaexis¿question? 06:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Recognized by Syria

In the introduction of the article, it says a territory internationally recognised, with the exception of the Russian Federation, to be a part of Ukraine. LPR has also had its independence recognized by Syria (Assad regime), and I think a few other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:79A:19:F001:7185:F22D:67C0:132 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Fake map

Currently seems to be an edit war going on expanding the LNR territory to the entire oblast. I research and follow this stuff daily, almost obsessively, and *no one* attributes LNR administrative control to extend to the entire oblast. Things like this require verifiability, so I suggest we just leave things at the status quo, in sync with the Ukraine article, until things settle, because the current map is completely WP:OR of the highest degree (It was using VK russian social networks as its source).--BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 02:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I also removed the maps in Donetsk People's Republic. These maps were altered on commons, and no longer correspond to any map I’ve seen in a reliable source (not the indicated “borders,” nor is the “claimed” territory uncontroversial, as both the proxy leaders and their Russian patrons have made contradictory declarations). —Michael Z. 16:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
For reference, here are two reliable map sources I see updating regularly, Ukraine War Map, and the more generous, Institute for the Study of War. At the time of writing, (ref) they show territory gained to the north-east of the LNR along the Russian border, and some inward gains north of Luhansk, but a far cry from the 98% control of Luhansk Oblast that was being represented on the infobox maps at the time I brought this up. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 19:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Also the UK MoD shows even less LNR control than the other sources. src --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 01:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
And the Russian Ministry of Defense showed maps with almost complete control over the Luhansk region. Representatives of the LPR also demonstrated video evidence of control over such cities as, for example, Starobilsk. I wonder whose information is more reliable - the parties to the conflict, which demonstrates video evidence of control of the territory, or the countries that are as far away from the conflict as possible and do not have complete information? 185.90.100.54 (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The location maps should show the de facto territory behind the line of contact over the last seven years, or whatever reliable secondary sources identify as DLNR.
There is a fluid battle situation now and there is no point in showing a map of speculative day-to-day territory maybe “controlled” by Russian and proxy forces, and presenting that as “borders” of the proxy republics. Such situation maps, with dates, belongs in the appropriate articles: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and the related articles on major offensives and specific battles.
I see that the battle maps linked by Black Future show “territory occupied as of” and “front lines before the invasion,” but no DLNR or its “borders.” —Michael Z. 23:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree, map should just be the pre-war contact line that was the established divisions between both Ukraine and the LNR (despite their claims to control all of the oblast). The day to day stuff can go in the 2022 thread since WP is not a newspaper or crystal ball, every inch a unit moves into contested territory doesn't need to be reported, nor draw conclusions about the surrounding area. But I dont know how to re-insert the old file since its being mangled on commons. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 01:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The LPR exercises administrative control over the territory located beyond the contact line - Stanytsia Luhanska, Shchastya, Starobilsk, Belovodsk, etc. The only reason not to publish a real map, but a map that has lost relevance on February 24 is your bias 185.90.100.54 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Article's name

Shouldn't "Lugansk" (Луга́нск) be the exact transliteration?--Mhorg (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Due official language of the republic is Russian I think officials of the republic call it Lugansk PR instead Luhansk PR. DrYisus (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment - You can propose a page rename/ move to allow the community to further discuss and come to a consensus - DownTownRich (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

it says internationally recognized with the exception of russia, should be changed to internationally unrecognized with the exception of russia 97.108.248.154 (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The sentence read in full is accurate: "It is located in Luhansk Oblast in the Donbas region, a territory internationally recognised, with the exception of the Russian Federation, to be a part of Ukraine." CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

"terrorist" citation

i have a citation for the claim "designated as a terrorist organisation in Ukraine" in the intro: https://twitter.com/ukremblondon/status/885905300624211969 Embassy of Ukraine to the UK: "This case should send a strong message to all those who are considering joining the pro-Russian DNR/LNR terrorist organizations in #Ukraine" Malarisi (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Going to a need more formal document than that. Also, calling a group a terrorist organisation is not the same as designating a group one; the latter is typically a legally defined category. CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The map of the Donetsk People's Republic

The map of this self proclaimed nation is misleading because of the fact that all the territory that they have now was gained during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Maybe just add a bit saying that the territory controlled by them was gained in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. 2601:681:0:7DB0:1E9:A3F1:DE5C:E81E (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

This page on Luhansk, Ukraine; reflects Putin's opinion that the area is an independent state and even gave Luhansk a new flag. Please change it back to whatever it originally was in terms of being part of Ukraine. 2601:240:4000:7600:F49C:2450:FF94:328D (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. This article is about the political entity. You might be looking for Luhansk Oblast. — Czello 07:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Mirovalev's article

The article is refenced twice, I believe it deserves more place here.Xx236 (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luhansk_People%27s_Republic/Archive_1&oldid=1136970386"