Talk:Donetsk People's Republic/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

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

There are three questions on how to characterize the legal status of Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples Republics in the lead sections of the corresponding articles:

1. (Q1) Should DPR and LPR be described as "breakaway puppet quasi-state(s)"?
2. (Q2) If the answer to Q1 is no, should they be described as "Russian-supported breakaway state"?
3. (Q3) If the answer to Q2 is no, how should they be described?

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• *Support"Russian-supported breakaway state". Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Definitely not #1, because adding lists of adjectives is not the best writing. Pick the most useful adjective; if that is breakaway per #2, then that one seems good. More generally on the title of the RfC, what legal framework is being referred to, and do we have any reliable sources that discuss what they are within that legal framework? CMD (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• No to Q1. "Puppet state" has a negative connotation and "quasi-state" is uninformative and confusing. "Puppet quasi-state" is probably a neologism and to me sounds like a convoluted way of saying that something has gone seriously wrong there. Per MOS:LEAD the first paragraph should identify the topic "with a neutral point of view" and "not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject".
  Yes to Q2 "Russian-supported breakaway state" is neutral, informative and concise. In the discussion here above I also proposed "Russian client state" or "partially recognised breakaway state". See Artsakh (breakaway state), Transnistria (unrecognised breakaway state), South Ossetia (partially recognised state), Abkhazia (partially recognised state), Kosovo (partially recognised state), SADR (partially recognized state), Somaliland (de facto state), Northern Cyprus (de facto state). Comparison with Kosovo is striking: "breakaway puppet quasi-state proclaimed within the territory of Ukraine", on the one side, and "partially recognised state in Southeast Europe", on the other. More consistency would be desirable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

extended discussion of the above comparisons.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It's problematic to compare the DPR and LPR to Kosovo. There's an entire article about this phenomenon, the Kosovo independence precedent. The situation in Kosovo is considered to be of a sui generis nature by Europe. Only Russia and a few other countries have viewed Kosovo as setting a "precedent". Russia has in the past used the situation in Kosovo to justify its support of the DPR and LPR breakaway republics, which has been rejected by Europe. In my opinion, Kosovo's situation is unique because its independence came hot on the heels of the breakup of the entire Yugoslavia (and, notably, Albania has always been separate from Yugoslavia). Kosovo was perhaps okay with being ruled by a multi-ethnic Yugoslavia that included Croatia, Bosnia, etc. However, when Kosovo eventually found itself being ruled exclusively by the ultra-nationalist Serbia, the Kosovans decided that they weren't going to allow themselves to be ruled by a single foreign ethnic group. The Soviet Union obviously also broke apart into many states, but the situation is not quite the same as Yugoslavia (partially due to the relative dominance of Russia within the USSR, whereas Serbia was only seen as the leader of Yugoslavia to a small extent). More comparable is the breakaway of Artsakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, and Chechnya. These places basically are more similar to Kosovo, since they broke away during the wider breakup of the Soviet Union. The situation in the DPR and LPR is different because these two areas were pulled away from Ukraine by Russia during the modern era. I think it's a stretch to say that the DPR and LPR are directly connected to the breakup of the USSR. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC) Also, compare the populations of Serbia and Kosovo. Serbia has 6.8 million inhabitants, including Vojvodina and excluding Kosovo. Meanwhile, Kosovo has 1.8 million inhabitants. The aforementioned Vojvodina is an autonomous region of Serbia (similar to Kosovo's former status) that has a population of 1.9 million (within 6.8 million of Serbia), which is around 2/3rds ethnic-Serb and contains various ethnic minorities. Comparing Kosovo's population with Serbia (excluding Kosovo), and considering that most inhabitants of Kosovo are ethnic-Kosovo Albanians, we can see that Kosovo has over 25% the population of Serbia. And, if Kosovo were a part of Serbia in the present day, its population would comprise over 20% of the total population of the country. So, clearly, Kosovo is too big for Serbia to simply rule over as a minority ethnic group. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC) Another important detail... Albania, which is obviously closely connected to Kosovo by ethnicity and culture, has a population of ~2.8 million as of 2022. Compared to Kosovo's population of 1.8 million, that's not really a lot bigger, is it? If Kosovo and Albania were one state, Kosovo would comprise around 40% of the total population of the country. So, as you can see, Kosovo is obviously a big deal for Albania considering that they are nearly as big as Albania itself and are located right next door. And Kosovo isn't some small breakaway region of Serbia considering that it is effectively equivalent to 20% of Serbia. This situation is starkly contrasted against the DPR and LPR, whereby Russia's population is enormous compared to these two statelets, and even Ukraine's population is still significantly larger as well (combining the DPR and LPR, they comprise around 10% of Ukraine's population, excluding Crimea, and Crimea itself has a surprisingly small population as well). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC) Long story short... We do not need to have consistency between these various states with limited recognition. Each situation is different, and it is not helpful to make comparisons and set precedents. We need to assess the DPR and LPR situations independently of most international affairs. Only relevant to mention is the war in Ukraine and the actions of Russia in this war, and that's it. Even mentioning Georgia is going off-topic. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC) Another point: I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Artsakh was basically defeated by Azerbaijan (the claiming state) in 2020, with most of its territory getting absorbed into Azerbaijan. The remainder of the territory is completely surrounded by Azerbaijan, the self-ruled area has been forced to politically submit to Azerbaijan in a peace treaty that was brokered by Russia (there was a "Lachin Corridor" to allow movement between Artsakh and Armenia, but I think it was closed recently). If the peace treaty had not been signed, I think Azerbaijan could have taken the whole territory, perhaps with some major losses. Azerbaijan used the treaty as a way to secure an easy victory without suffering more losses. The war is as good as won for Azerbaijan. So, it's basically irrelevant to mention Artsakh either way, because it is doomed now. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Q2 is the simplest although what I really want to say is "Russian-supported breakaway state with limited recognition" (attempting to secede from Ukraine) and...too long. Selfstudier (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  unrecognised state is the term that was used for Rhodesia - self-declared autonomous region and proto-state is used for the rebel "Republic of Logone" Marlarkey (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support #1 - I support the first option, and if not the first, then the second (*with the caveat that we must call the territories "quasi-states" rather than "states"). I don't see what the problem of having a list of adjectives is. Alternatively, we could refer to the DPR and LPR as "disputed territory" and then elaborate in another paragraph about the details of the situation. But those adjectives are basically already there to serve the purpose of succinctly explaining what these territories are. We definitely cannot refer to them as "countries" since no sane person (aside from a Russian sympathizer) would actually agree with that assessment. Calling them "partially-recognised states" is just as bad as calling them countries. We can only refer to them as territories of some kind or another. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  My proposed alternative that has not been listed yet above is breakaway republic. This is supported by several sources that have been listed below. It's a good alternative to "breakaway state" because the word "republic" is literally inside of the names of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic. Furthermore, there is no objection to the fact that they have broken away from Ukraine. Nobody is denying that they were ruled by Ukraine prior to 2014; this is non-controversial (the exact same way that I've said with Kosovo in some of my comments lower down in the RfC discussion). The term "de facto state", as listed by @Gitz, is not particularly neutral in comparison to the other term "quasi-state". In my opinion, both of these terms have the exact same problem of non-neutrality and ambiguity. If there aren't too many sources using the term "de facto state", then I'm afraid that it is also invalid. By the way, I've just noticed that Gitz's username is really "Gitz6666", although they've changed it to display as "Gitz". This is incredibly confusing for the purpose of pinging them. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier - The comment above may be of interest to you. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  You can propose it under Q3, a difficulty for "non Q2" ers is that opposition to Q2 is being diluted between different options. leaving Q2 a clear favorite (atm). Selfstudier (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  To be honest, the term "state" is actually confusing for some people as well. On Wikipedia, it is regarded as a normal alternative to "country". However, as someone who lives in Australia, I can tell you that the word "state" can also refer to a subnational unit, effectively synonymous with "province". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  If not "breakaway republic", then "breakaway entity". I'm still against referring to these entities as states. Maybe "polity" is a good alternative. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm also going to suggest "breakaway territory". Indeed, "territory" seems like a neutral term to me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Wild alternative, but it is perhaps possible to not define what the DPR/LPR is in the first paragraph or sentence. We could instead simply phrase the opening sentence this way. "The Donetsk/Luhansk People's Republic was proclaimed in April 2014 by pro-Russian separatists, breaking away from Ukraine. The DPR/LPR seeks to be recognised as a sovereign state, whereas Ukraine continues to claim the breakaway republic as its own territory. The United Nations and the vast majority of the international community supports Ukraine's claim, whereas Russia and a few other countries have recognised the DPR/LPR as a sovereign state." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier - This option above may also be of interest to you. Effectively, I have not defined anything in absolutist terms in this opening paragraph/sentence, which leaves it up to the reader to decide what is what. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  I still prefer Q2 as a neutral correct description in keeping with many sources. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Avoid defining a state, i.e., a type of organisation, by its current external political relations. Definition should be relatively long-lasting and should not need changing with each change in international environment. So, quasi-state will be ok for me; puppet state less preferred but acceptable, but anything "Russian-supported" is plainly outside of definition. Russia does provide support to DPR in many areas while it does not in others. Similarly, DPR supports Russia in certain areas. Mutual relations between states are usually a complex matter, they cover not only public international law but also such matters as energy, transport, communication, private international law, migrations, recognition of academic titles and professional qualifications, etc. Mutual dependence of countries on each other is a very common thing (e.g., Japan depends on Russia for gas, which can theoretically be presented as Russia supporting Japan with energy needs) and should not, in my view, be made a core part of the definition. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  The support of Russia should definitely be mentioned somewhere in the intro, because Russia has been using the DPR's and LPR's pre-2022 territory as a launching ground in its invasion of Ukraine, in the exact same way that it is doing with Belarus. The fact that the DPR and LPR are essentially accomplices of Russia in its 2022 invasion of Ukraine is extremely notable. Of course, @Mzajac would argue that the DPR and LPR cannot be classified as "co-belligerents" due to being possibly directly controlled by Russia, but that's a separate issue. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Obviously, DPR and LPR troops are directly involved in the invasion of the wider Ukraine area alongside Russian troops as we speak. This is extremely notable. The DPR and LPR are either co-belligerents of Russia in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, or they are simply controlled by Russia are are basically extensions of Russia itself rather than something markedly separate. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Russian puppet quasi-state in Ukraine, although not conventional, would be accurate, precise, and comprehensive, and capture the defining characteristics. All three adjectives have independent meaning. —Michael Z. 14:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, a lot of people seem to have a problem with the term "quasi-state", but as I've pointed out in the section below, the term "quasi-state" is really just a jargon that was invented by Wikipedia (not exactly, but almost). There aren't going to be a lot of sources using this term since it doesn't really exist in normal speech outside of this website. The term quasi-state means "something that is similar to a state". "Quasi" is a prefix of Latin origin that means "almost". It is somewhat comparable to "Pseudo", meaning "False", of Greek origin. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  That’s not even almost true, it’s false. Please stop repeating it in discussions.

  Quasi-state is a term in international law. It is also a good term because its meaning is self-evident, or easy to look up the meaning of the prefix quasi- (“apparently but not really”) in any dictionary for anyone who doesn’t know it.  —Michael Z. 20:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  I doubt that it is a term of international law (which?), perhaps a term used by international lawyers. Not sure where it originated, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World, Robert H. Jackson 1990, perhaps, he makes the point that it is not the laws as such that have changed but the political treatment of states that might otherwise be considered deficient in some respect. "Quasi-states therefore exist and survive by virtue of the East West balance of power which has endured throughout the entire period of Third World decolonization and independence." Selfstudier (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  I’ll correct myself, it’s a term in the field of international relations, not a legal term.

  Also, the first cited reference in the lead of “Quasi-state” gives a subject-specific dictionary definition: Grant & Barker 2009, Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law pp 493, 580:

  A term sometimes used to describe entities with many, but not all, the criteria of statehood . . . which are nonetheless possessed of a measure of international personality. . . . a term of international relations, and certainly not of international law, it connotes former colonies . . .

  DLNR are not exactly the definitive examples. Reading the definition, I think pseudo-state might be better, but this suffices. —Michael Z. 22:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Or we have in 2006, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249706388 The Sustainability and Future of Unrecognized Quasi-States "The study of quasi-states has been marred by an unfortunate terminological confusion. Sometimes, this term is taken to mean recognized states that fail to develop the necessary state structures to function as fully fledged, ‘real’ states. At other times, ‘quasi-states’ is a designation given to regions that secede from another state, gain de facto control over the territory they lay claim to, but fail to achieve international recognition. The author proposes that, in order to clear up this confusion, recognized but ineffectual states ought to be referred as ‘failed states’, while the term ‘quasi-states’ ought to be reserved for unrecognized, de facto states." Lot of cites, not a law specialist though. Selfstudier (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  2019, Unrecognized State Entities & Evaluation of Emerging States in the 21st Century makes an attempt at dealing with all the terminology "The amount of terms denoting territorial units with attributes without international recognition is large and persistently increasing. Existence of terms like unrecognized states, de facto states, pseudo-states, state like entities, states within states, contested states, and even wannabe states (Anderson 2012:183), only supports that statement. The only thing that the enumerated terms reflect is the end of simple perception of the world." Interesting that he still refers to all as "states" regardless of adjective.(proto is another). Selfstudier (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia has adopted a niche, non-widely-used term and has developed it into something matter-of-fact. As such, Wikipedia has contributed to the increased usage of this term. Wikipedia is largely intertwined with the international relations academia, some of whom are known to edit articles here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  The term is from the relevant subject field. See if you can remove “niche” terms from articles on math, chemistry, and physics, too.

  “Intertwined with academia”? “Are known”? Tell us what’s wrong with that, what you propose to do about it, and provide evidence it’s true. —Michael Z. 21:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• A quasi-state "is a political entity that does not represent a fully institutionalised or autonomous sovereign state", while a puppet state "is a state that is de jure independent but de facto completely dependent upon an outside power and subject to its orders." The states have limited international recognition, and they seem to have their own governments, "parliaments" and other structures that make up a state, so they are not quasi-states. That said, it is fairly clear that they are completely dependent on Russia to function - they have the Russian ruble, their army is supplemented by the Russian army and siloviki, and they have no appreciable degree of independence wrt foreign affairs, so it is fair to call them Russian-controlled puppet states (particularly since the DPR and the LPR were proxies for Russia's war until February 2022, and are now its allies). Now, as to sources, these guys couple both terms at the same time, but that seems excessive; the label is indirectly asserted here. Most of them, though, name DPR and LPR as "breakaway" or "self-proclaimed" states. Self-proclaimed is probably no longer relevant as they already have some recognition, so describing them both as breakaway and Russian puppets is IMHO the best solution. "Russian-supported breakaway state" is an understatement - Pinochet was obviously supported by the United States but that doesn't mean he was a US puppet - if we took out Washington after the coup, he would likely still have ruled Chile. Here, however, the involvement of Russia is much deeper, and if we remove Russia, DPR and LPR lose their raison-d'être, so it's better to say they are Russia's puppets. It is a loaded term, but one which is correct in these circumstances. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  I would argue that DPR and LPR are quasi-states because they do not have defined borders. As @Mzajac has pointed out many times, the DPR and LPR's borders are impossible to define after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, especially since they are seemingly trying to expand their borders beyond their pre-2022 frontiers. If you look at the map info for the territories of the DPR and LPR, you will see that editors have been continually expanding the borders to match the new frontiers of the 2022 Russian invasion. However, we cannot say with complete certainty that these are the actual new borders because it can easily be argued that Russia actually has the supreme control over these territories. It is currently impossible to draw a line between Russian control of occupied Ukrainian territory and control by the DPR and LPR. At best, we can suggest that there is "joint control". However, implying that the DPR and LPR control the territory exclusively, without Russian involvement, is highly dubious. The only borders that were more reliably defined were the pre-2022 frontiers, which have been depicted in various reliable sources for several years (2014/2015 to February 2022). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Per the declarative theory of statehood it requires all four criteria to be met: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. DLNR arguably lack all four (ever more “former” Russian officials keep showing up in their governments). Quasi-state is more accurate than state to define them.. —Michael Z. 17:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yet it is not obvious that "quasi-state" means an entity which lacks some necessary features of state according to the theory you mentioned. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• No to Q1 My primary concern is that "puppet" is a rhetorically-loaded, non-encyclopedic term unfit for the lead. The formulation in Q2 is acceptable to me. Q2 is a cumbersome phrasing which, while not ideal, should adequately address the concerns of editors who might otherwise want "puppet." JArthur1984 (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  How is "puppet" non-encyclopaedic when it has been used to describe various historical entities, such as Vichy France, the Italian Social Republic, and Manchukuo? I will remind you that Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia describes things as they are. If the DPR and LPR are determined to be puppet states, then we should describe them that way, regardless of one's feelings. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't disagree, if independent reliable sources describe them so, and thus represent a significant view, then so can we. Do they, though? Selfstudier (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• It should be described either puppet quasi-state as in current version or simply quasi-state. I agree with comments by Szmenderowiecki above, i.e. this is not a "de facto state" because it is completely dependent on Russia. This is de juro a part of Ukraine, but de facto a part of Russia or simply an occupied territory, at least right now. Accordingly, No to Q1 and No to Q2. My very best wishes (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes to Q3. Now, when the territories of both "republics" have been significantly expanded by the occupying Russian forces, they both should be described as simply "territories occupied by Russia". My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think you meant "Yes to Q1". If so, please correct and remove my comment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstood my comments. What I said is that they have a formally organized government, so they can't be called quasi-states, as this implies that they are not fully formed yet. LPR and DPR both have everything what an independent state needs on an institutional level - the govt, the legislature, the courts, the army, the police etc. and these organs exercise their duties in some way, and they even have "citizenship" (whatever DPR citizenship means). But they are definitely puppets in that the main positions of power are either directly controlled by Russia or controlled by proxy, so we can easily say they are controlled by Russia and are UA's occupied territories. Btw, you also can't say de facto part of Russia because Russia considers these republics independent. If they organise Crimea-style referendums and announce the result we all know regardless of the actual vote, then yes, but not before that. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Q1 - no, because I think leaving only "quasi-state" (no "breakaway" and no "puppet") or defining it as an occupied territory would be best. And no, based on the arguments above, this is simply not a state but occupied territories directly and de facto ruled by Russia (it does not matter what official lies about their "independence" Russian state promotes). Note that the territories of both "republics" are now expanded due to the ongoing occupation, which supports the "not a state" argument. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a good guide for this discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

extended discussion about theories of statehood.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

My analysis of the theory of statehood for the DPR and LPR... 1. Population --> This is not well-defined after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine since we cannot determine who is actually a "citizen" of the DPR/LPR as opposed to a foreigner (i.e. Ukrainian) under occupation. I am sure that most people in the north of the former Luhansk Oblast, which has been almost completely occupied by Russia as of September 2022, would refuse to identify as citizens of the LPR. 2. Territory --> This is not well-defined after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine since we cannot say with absolute certainty which exact territories are ruled by the DPR and LPR as opposed to Russia. It is currently impossible to draw a line between the DPR/LPR and Russia after the invasion, although it was possible to draw a line before the invasion with the pre-2022 frontiers. 3. Government --> This is well-defined since there are self-declared DPR and LPR governments that we can easily point to. Whether they are "real" governments is a different story. But the fact that they exist is easy to see. 4. Sovereignty --> Sovereignty involves both actual control of a territory (and its citizens) and international recognition. The DPR and LPR don't really have 100% control of their territory and citizens because it can be argued that the supreme sovereignty lies with Russia (on account of the fact that Russia is currently invading the entire country of Ukraine, and the DPR and LPR have been swept up into this wider invasion). In terms of recognition, Russia does actually recognise the DPR and the LPR as independent sovereign states (irrespective of the actual details of the situation on the ground), and a few of Russia's allies have also recognises the DPR and LPR. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC) The "fully-formed government" is not the only qualifier to determine something as a proper state as opposed to a quasi-state. The other big detail is whether the entity has defined borders. The DPR and the LPR currently do not have defined borders, so at best they can be described as "a government". See my comments above. The DPR and LPR's borders have become nebulous after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. They were better defined before the war, with the pre-2022 frontiers. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC) Sorry to partly disagree. My reply: 1. Population --> Unknown 2. Territory --> There is no stable territory. The war is ongoing. 4. Government --> There is no independent government. All government figures are appointed or at least directly approved from Moscow. 5. Sovereignty --> There is no "sovereign authority over a specific territory" (see 4.) and there is no specific territory. The territory is occupied by Russian army; the DPR units are commanded by Russian military officers. Conclusion: this is not a state, but merely an occupied territory. My very best wishes (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC) WP:OR. Take a look at Bosnia Herzegovina when it became a UN member state. It failed at least two Montevideo criteria to even be a state and yet it was admitted as a full member, Montevideo is not the be all and end all, it is politics as much as law. See Political Realities of Recognition of States Contrary to the Bindings of International Law Example "... There is no rule that the land frontiers of a State must be fully delimited and defined." (North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgement, ICJ Reports 1969:3). Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC) But DPR and LNR fail all criteria of a state, at least right now, during the war. This is currently just an occupied territory with an administration appointed from Moscow, and effectively many parts of these territories are administrated by Russian army and FSB. The boundaries of these "states" are changing every week.My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Independentness is not an indicator of whether a government exists, just of whether it is legitimate. There are various governments of countries around the world that can be considered illegitimate to some degree, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Myanmar military junta, North Korea's entire existence, etc. But nobody denies that a government exists in these cases. A government is still a government no matter whether it is a theocratic fascist Marxist absolute monarchical military dictatorship or a liberal democratic republic. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Good example! The Taliban and the Myanmar junta rule themselves, legitimately or not. But the DPR and LNR administrations do not rule themselves, they are simply executing orders from Moscow, in addition to their claimed "territories" currently occupied by Russia and partly owned by Ukraine.My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Do you know this from personal experience or do you have a RS to share? ⅞ Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Well, this is just a common place for anyone familiar with this subject. For example [2], "On Friday "people's governor" Denis Pushilin, a neatly dressed local businessman apparently handpicked [by Moscow] for the role" (that was in 2014). But they are even less "states" right now during the war, when they do not have any stable de facto territory or population. My very best wishes (talk) Truth is, we know very little about the balance of power and external relations of the Republics, and we need reliable sources to write anything accurate on the subject. Common-sensical considerations are often flawed: for instance, I read that local pro-Russian elites and criminal organisations are important in the political system of the Republics and not entirely malleable by Moscow. And states are territorial political communities, but I've never read that stability of territory and stability of population are prerequisites of statehood. We should abide by our policies and guidelines, especially WP:V and, with regard to this RfC, MOS:OPEN. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC) Truth is, the government of DPR has no more sovereign rights than the government of Komi Republic, possibly less.My very best wishes (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Q2"Russian-supported breakaway quasi-state" of the options presented thus far. Could also say "Russian-supported breakaway quasi-state with limited recognition." This is a tricky balance. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you realize that Q2 means DPR (including all the currently occupied territories!) is merely a legitimate state supported by Russia. I do not think this can be at all supported by sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This is quite tricky, an argument is being made by some that Russia's recognition (based on the contested doctrine of remedial secession) is illegal. Else if it is legal then they could make a defense pact ( Russia signed with the leaders of the DPR and LPR treaties on friendship, cooperation and mutual aid) with the recognized states and then they are not occupier but defender there (and occupier outside of there). I doubt we want to get into the complexities of that argument in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you define "defence", but considering the fact that the DPR and the LPR have ostensibly (being shown to) been expanding their territorial frontiers throughout the 2022 Russian invasion of Urkaine, surely this war must be viewed as primarily offensive? If the DPR and LPR were truly defending themselves, they wouldn't be trying to grab more territory. The facts on the ground just don't support the narrative. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment. Once again, ""Russian-supported breakaway state" (Q2) means they are legitimate recognized states supported by Russia. It does not even say "unrecognized" states. My very best wishes (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

They have been recognized by Russia, Syria and N Korea so it would be inaccurate to say unrecognized. One can argue that these recognitions are illegal, that's a different thing. "breakaway state" need not imply legitimate either. Secessionists either end up off and running or get reabsorbed. Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Why would "Russian-supported breakaway state" imply that they are "legitimate"? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "legitimate" (morally justified? entitled to rule? generally obeyed? capable of entering into international treaties?) but whatever you mean by it, if you want to convey that they are legitimate you'd better say it explicitly and use the word "legitimate". None of those meanings follows from the description "Russian-supported breakaway state". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Q2 for now.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Q1 The situation is very complex because the Kremlin has flooded the region with (10s or 100s of) billions of dollars to corrupt the politics and economics of Donetsk institutions and businesses, and there isn't really any precedent in history, so it is very hard to describe. In the coming years, it will be documented much better, but in the meantime, it can be described as a puppet state. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Q2 doesn't say "puppet state". Did you mean Q1? Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  It is a poorly constructed set of questions. It is not a break-away state. Just a puppet state. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  OK, you have written Support Q2 which is ""Russian-supported breakaway state", it sounds as if you want either Q1 or Q3 (you say what it is). Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think you are right. This is confusing. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  It is not a breakaway state, because the people didn't support a break from Ukraine, even though there is a big cultural and political divide between east and western Ukrainians. It is definitely impossible to call it a breakaway state now, as most Russian Ukrainians did not support Putin's decision to invade, even if they did have a more pro-Russian sentiment before. That sentiment was influenced by money from the Kremlin for many but also nostalgia for the Soviet era for some. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Then it sounds like you may want to change what you bolded in your !vote to indicate you support option 1 (referring to Donetsk as a puppet state), not option 2 (referring to it as a breakaway state).  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 06:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  You are right. I will change it to Q1 now. IntrepidContributor (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Q1, second preference being Q2, third preference being something along the lines of "de facto quasi-state dependent on Russia". I know we don't usually explicitly refer to states with limited recognition as "puppet states." There are a handful of other states that you could arguably call puppets; there's a case to be made that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are also Russian puppets, and less so Transnistria, and there's even some sources that would describe Artsakh as an Armenian puppet. We seldom refer to any of them as puppet states (though I can think of a few pages on the encyclopedia that currently do). But I think there's a remarkable difference between these other entities and the DPR & LPR in terms of just how frequent it is to see sources describe them as puppets. The Donetsk and Luhansk/Lugansk People's Republics are, more so than any other partially recognized states, referred to as puppet states by secondary sources. Referring to them as such is not inappropriate.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Suport Q3 or Q2. The term "puppet" is a biased term and based on the random sources in table 2 below is of undue weight to be included in the lead. Table two in fact shows that the term puppet on average never shows up. Also, from table 2 it is clear that the term puppet is equivalent to the more neutral qualifiers such as: (Russian backed, Russian supported, Russian controlled, Moscow backed, pro-Russian, Moscow's, or [no descriptor]). Based on the random results of table 2 the term "puppet" violates WP:impartial (i.e. WP:NPOV): "Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article." [highlighting by me]

Building on Jargo Nautilus's suggestion below I suggest the following lead sentence:

"Donetsk People's Republic is a breakaway state in the Donbas region of Ukraine. The Russian-backed republic is currently occupied by Russian forces and does not have clearly defined borders because of ongoing war."

Or some variation on the above without the use of the biased term "puppet". --Guest2625 (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Suport Q2 or Q1. For more encyclopedic reasons, I support Q2 over Q1. However, it is a fact that in reality, these states are more accurately described by Q1. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Suport Q1 – DPR and LPR are obviously puppet (quasi)states (puppet state: "de facto completely dependent upon an outside power and subject to its orders." – Moscow freely determines and changes the authorities of both republics, freely issues orders (e.g. forced conscription to the army); local authorities are completely subordinated to Moscow). Aotearoa (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

If the majority of sources label the situation as such (which the sampling below doesn't show), then why not use the neutral phrase "Russian-controlled breakaway quasi-state" which means the same thing as the contentious phrase "Russian-puppet breakaway quasi-state".--Guest2625 (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The sourcing below demonstrates that both "puppet" and "breakaway" have been extensively used by RS. "Russian-controlled" and "Russian-occupied" could be acceptable synonyms as long as we word it in a way that suggests that the "DPR" itself is controlled by Russia and that Russia is occupying a part of Ukraine (as opposed to implying that Russia is occupying the DPR), but if we're willing to say that, then why use euphemisms at all? Why should we sacrifice objectivity to reach a false balance between what mainstream RS say and what a WP:FRINGE pro-DPR minority want to believe?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The sourcing below demonstrates that both "puppet" and "breakaway" have been extensively used by RS False, Guest 2625 explained below that as regards "puppet" there is no weight in RS It should be noted that puppet never showed up in any of the random searches using those key words. Breakaway is otoh, used extensively. Selfstudier (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Guest 2625 explained below that as regards "puppet" there is no weight in RS I did a ctrl+f to re-read all of Guest2625's comments, and I've not the slightest clue what you're referring to. Nothing they've said even claims to invalidate or contradict the fact that sources refer to the DPR and LPR as puppet states. The two tables demonstrate that the same 22 outlets have used both terms. How you came to the conclusion that the term puppet has "no weight" while breakaway alone is "used extensively" is beyond me. They're both widely used.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'll quote it in full and let me know which part is not clear.

"...Personally, I do not like the use of the term "Russian puppet", since it is a biased term, which means generally the same thing as: (Russian backed, Russian supported, Russian controlled, Moscow backed, pro-Russian, Moscow's, or [no descriptor]). The words in parentheses are the terms that are found in the second table above which was created by doing a google search of: "breakaway" + "Donetsk" + "republic" + the source from each row in the first table. Then a random result article was opened and the above descriptor sentences were copied. This process should give a general idea of the due weight for the different descriptors. It should be noted that puppet never showed up in any of the random searches using those key words." Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

So in other words, this is vaguely gesturing towards imagined cherrypicking? Even though we cited the exact same number of sources from the exact same outlets, you're baselessly alleging that one of these source tables holds all the weight and the other holds none of the weight? Is that a correct assessment of what you are saying? We already had a lengthy back-and-forth which we hatted and moved. It's already known that no number of sources from no number of outlets, no matter how reliable, would convince you to stop claiming that the term isn't used by RS. When 10+ wasn't enough I came back with 20+, but you've only doubled down with the most nonsensical excuses for dismissing them all. If I had any reason to still believe you're acting in good faith I'd find even more, but AGF has its limits. To avoid yet another wall of text, I will not respond to you going forward.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm repeating what @Guest2625: said. Although it seemed pretty clear to me, perhaps he will explain better than I can. Selfstudier (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the sheer number of sources using "puppet state" (as explained by others, one should make a randomised search in order to assess whether it's mainstream/neutral or fringe/biased), but I'm more interested in the claim that DPR/LPR are entirely controlled and directed by Russia. Do we have RS on the relations between Russia and the people's republics? I mean, a puece of investigative journalism, a well-docemented study - something more substantial and informative than a mere label. Our dedicated article says very little on this and I wonder how we know what we believe we know about it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

First, you may want to consider that this source goes into detail on the level of direct Russian involvement in the DPR, rather than merely labeling it a puppet without elaborating. You may find this quote to be of some interest:

The “people’s republics” that appeared in eastern Ukraine in 2014 are often described as separatist, pro-​Russian or even Russian-​occupied. Their real status is probably best described as puppet states, a well-​known phenomenon in the post-​Soviet space. However, as long as Moscow continues to deny any direct involvement, its relations with the de-​facto authorities in Donetsk and Luhansk can only be highly informal. While there is plenty of evidence describing heavy Russian influence, any comprehensive analysis of Moscow’s role is limited by the lack of official confirmation. Signs of direct Russian involvement have been observed since the earliest days of the conflict in the Donbass in spring 2014. When pro-​Russian protests broke out in Donetsk and Luhansk in early March, local media reports suggested that many participants were Russian citizens. This view was shared by Serhiy Taruta, the then newly appointed governor of the Donetsk region (Taruta 2014). Other observers noted that the protests were highly synchronized, suggesting that they were directed from outside, i.e. Moscow. The suspected Russian involvement became much more open one month later, when armed men led by former Russian intelligence officer Igor Girkin (also known as Strelkov) seized key administration buildings in Sloviansk on April 12 and Kramatorsk one day later. This daring commando operation fundamentally changed the conflict from largely peaceful protests to a violent struggle, first with local police and then with Ukrainian forces, who arrived in Kramatorsk on April 16.

Second, with all due respect, it sounds like you're asking for us to ignore RS in favor of OR -- that no matter how many confirmed-to-be reliable, secondary sources term it a puppet state, that we should question and doubt this unless we know how the RS came to their conclusions? That's not how it works. If you want, we can add to the article information from the source above and from other sources to reaffirm what it says, but I take strong issue with thinking we should ignore RS until we know how they know what they know.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

A 2015 FT article is given as support for puppet in the lead. I have marked it as fv since nowhere in it is DPR referred to as a puppet state. Try something else. Selfstudier (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Re above quote, The “people’s republics” that appeared in eastern Ukraine in 2014 are often described as separatist, pro-​Russian or even Russian-​occupied. Their real status is probably best described as puppet states, a well-​known phenomenon in the post-​Soviet space. The author of that piece is Nikolaus von Twickel (he is also in the byline so plugging his own article) "Since 2016 he publishes newsletters on political events in the "People’s Republics" on civicmonitoring.org." ie he is basically a blogger and that is just his opinion, completely unsuitable for stating "puppet" as a fact in the lead (it could possibly be added somewhere in the article body as attributed opinion but even then, I think it lacks weight). Selfstudier (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Vanilla Wizard for the source. I don't find it particularly convincing though. It is relatively old (2018), not authoritative (the author is a non-notable freelance journalist) and it even says explicitly that we know quite little about the relations between Russian and the People's republics. Now, I'm not suggesting we should ignore the sources, but I believe that a handful of news articles (some of which from not reliable outlets: The Sun, Metro, etc.) describing DPR/LPR as "puppets" (but more often describing their leaders and governments as puppets rather than the republics themselves) is not sufficient for justifying the use of a disparaging word in the opening sentence of the article (which is contrary to MOS:LEAD). We might be prey of WP:RECENT here while we should strive for a detached, encyclopedic tone and approach. Describing the republics as "puppet quasi-states" is not likely to bring the war to an happy end - IMHO it will only diminish then authoritativeness of this encyclopedia in the eyes of its readers. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Not quite sure how to respond to the implication that editors are under the illusion that describing Donetsk as a puppet on Wikipedia will "bring the war to a happy end" - that's a very bizarre thing to put in your response.

I tagged all the unreliable sources with a red "Generally unreliable" tag in hopes that editors would know to ignore those ones and only focus on the ones worth reading (no one is suggesting we cite them), but unfortunately it seems to have led to the exact opposite: editors fixating on them to the exclusion of the reliable ones.

I also think it's impossible to interpret any of the quotes as implying that just the governments or leaders of the republics are puppets, while the state entities themselves are actually legitimate. See my reply to Selfstudier in the hatted back-and-forth, they're quite obviously referring to the republics themselves. But I also have to ask, if the Donetsk People's Republic has a government which is a puppet of Russia, headed by a leader who is a puppet of Russia, why would it be incorrect to call it a Russian puppet state?

There's also the elephant in the room that some of the sources are exactly what one would want: "Generally reliable" outlets explicitly stating that the republics themselves are quote "puppet states", but I've yet to see any editors even briefly acknowledge this in their opposition to the term on the basis of sourcing.

As for what you said about the above quote from a freelance journalist, the author themselves cites quite a lot of sources that we could look at individually if you wish, but I don't think there's much utility in that at this point. I'd say I feel like I've been sent on several wild goose chases for sources throughout this discussion, but that would imply that the sources were hard to find when in reality they weren't; the hard part is that there's always some explanation for why they're not enough and should be dismissed, whether that's because some of them said "The Donetsk People's Republic, a Russian puppet government in Ukraine rather than The Donetsk People's Republic, a Russian puppet state in Ukraine", or because 3 out of 22 were unreliable (even though the rest were reliable), or because there was a mix of sources from before and during 2022 (because I guess it's possible for Donetsk to stop being a puppet state between 2018 and 2022), or because we've decided that sources can't just be reliable news articles, they must be specifically investigative journalists (but not freelance investigative journalists, it has to be someone with some unspecified credentials) diving deep into the ins-and-outs of the relations between Donetsk and Russia (to the extent that it's possible for any person to do that). This RfC will probably close with no consensus anyways, so there's not much value in pouring any more time or effort into arguing. You guys have a good day.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Three sources were just now added (as a bundle) to the article purporting to support the use of puppet state in the lead. I have removed two of them, one an opinion piece (it says so at top left of the source) unsuitable for stating something as a fact anywhere in the article, never mind the lead, without attribution and the second being an article authored by Nikolaus von Twickel as discussed above, a freelance blogger pushing his own article, equally unsuitable for stating anything as a fact. I have left the Telegraph source, merely a passing mention in an article about "the Kremlin's first senior woman officer to die in the conflict". Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

You told me to replace the Financial Times article in the lede (even though I didn't add it there in the first place), so I did. The author discussed above is not a blogger. This article was published on behalf of the Center for Security Studies of ETH Zurich, a public research university in Switzerland, by three postgraduate International Relations researchers. Your description is wholly inaccurate. Any further discussion about the lede should be in a separate section as it's out of the scope of this RfC.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Against policy, WP:NPOV, WP:WIKIVOICE two opinion sources have been cited as fact without attribution. Apart from that, it is considered poor form to do this while an RFC about the matter is in progress and could be seen as an attempt to sway the outcome of this RFC and therefore this discussion belongs here. The inability to locate strong sources for "puppet" when it is straightforward to locate suitable sources saying breakaway, de facto and so on, ought to suggest something. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bloomberg one is an op-ed. The other two are not. Apart from that, it is considered poor form to do this while an RFC about the matter is in progress You told me to in your last message. Might I remind you of when you said A 2015 FT article is given as support for puppet in the lead. I have marked it as fv since nowhere in it is DPR referred to as a puppet state. Try something else.? It was poor form of you to decide during an RFC to add a tag to the source in the article and then tell me that for some reason I am the one who needs to change it, despite not being the editor who added the FT source to the article. You are exceptionally hard to work with. Again, discussion about the lede should be in a separate talk section. We can discuss removing the Bloomberg article if you're willing to have a good faith conversation about it.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not in the habit of edit warring so have left the revert in place while tagging the inappropriate citations as non NPOV. Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Russian-supported breakaway state" is the most accurate description of these 3. Segaton (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
• "puppet state of Russia in Ukraine" - Q1 feels fairly clumsy, "quasi" part doesn't seem essential, Q2 is a non-starter because it severely downplays Russian control over these entities.--Staberinde (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
• No to Q1. That's opinion. SUPPORT Q2. PREFER Q3: unrecognised state established by Russian military occupying forces. Unrecognised state was the description applied to Rhodesia after its unilateral declaration of independence, by adding that the unrecognised state was established by Russian military occupiers it recognises the reality of the circumstances in which it came into being and hence its illegitimacy. BTW Republic of Logone is described as 'partially-realized, self-declared autonomous region and proto-state' Marlarkey (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Q2, "Russian-supported breakaway state" is the most correct and neutral definition.--Mhorg (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

As far as I am aware, they have no legal status in international law. Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Options 1 and 2 both describe them as "states". Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 uses the terminology of "quasi-state", which means "something that is similar to a state". This means that it actually is not exactly referring to them as "states". That's why I prefer "quasi-state". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

proto-state ??? Marlarkey (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It's more complex. There's no such thing as "legal status in international law". — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not true. International recognition of a Unilateral declaration of independence can be considered a "legal status in international law". IntrepidContributor (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

If "breakaway" is commonname for "secessionist" then breakaway is good. "de facto state" is a common usage for states that lack substantial recognition.Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The term "breakaway" means that the territory has broken away from a larger country (obviously). Meanwhile, the term "secessionist" is more ambiguous because it doesn't clarify whether the territory is still a part of the larger country or not ("separatist state" is even worse).

In my opinion, the terminology "breakaway state" doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation. For example, Kosovo is undoubtedly a breakaway state from Serbia. Nonetheless, I personally support the independence of Kosovo. I don't object to the descriptor "breakaway" for Kosovo, because that's exactly what it is. No one is pretending that Kosovo wasn't previously a part of Serbia prior to 1999 (UN administration) or 2008 (self-declared independence).

"De facto state" implies that the state actually functions like a state. "De facto state" is a common way to describe Taiwan, which is generally considered to function 100% as a normal country, even though it is not (officially) recognised as a normal country by most of the international community. On the other hand, it will be quite difficult to argue that some of the other more "fringe" cases actually operate as normal countries. Among the list of self-declared states, my personal opinion is that Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo, Somaliland, Northern Cyprus, all function more or less as proper countries, with varying degrees of recognition. Meanwhile, Western Sahara is barely functioning as a country, but it's recognised by the United Nations as a "non-self-governing territory", and the actual government itself (the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic) is a member of the African Union, so that's good enough for me. As for Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, the situation is muddier due to Russian influence in these regions, but I will point out that these three regions all declared independence during the breakup of the Soviet Union, rather than 20+ years later (as in the case of the DPR and LPR). As for Artsakh, well, I would have argued that it was country-like prior to 2020, but now that it has lost so much of its territory, I think it is soon going to be absorbed completely into Azerbaijan (or have a chance of some kind of arrangement with Armenia, maybe a population transfer or some political concessions), so it's barely a country now. Artsakh is also influenced by Russia, but that's less important than the fact that it's got even more influence from Armenia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: In the collapse box I've started gathering some titles on the legal status of DPR and LPR, but I think that these sources can be more useful for expanding the article than for answering the RfC. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, we do need sourcing to some extent, we can't just accept some statement x or y without some analysis of the sources. Is it actually the case that the balance of sources (ideally scholarly) describe these entities as "breakaway", "puppet" or "quasi" or whatever? I will try to add some more in the collapse box. Selfstudier (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Realistically, not many sources describe these entities as "quasi-states" since that's not a very common word outside of technical jargon. It's basically a catch-all term to describe various different entities that are similar to a state (but might not 100% qualify as proper states). With that being said, I've seen the news outlet Al Jazeera refer to these entities as "statelets", which is a similar term. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Al Jazeera "Moscow-backed statelets in Ukraine". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to say it outright; we do not need sources to describe the DPR and LPR as "quasi-states" because the term is basically a Wikipedia-exclusive jargon that very few people actually use outside of this website. We instead need to find sources that describe the DPR and LPR as being "similar to a state but not quite a state". Anything like that would place them into the category of a quasi-state according to Wikipedia's own definition. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, "breakaway" and "puppet" most likely do need to be directly quoted in the source material. So, only "quasi-state" is exempt from this rule given how unusual of a term it is. Given that "breakaway" and "puppet" are used in normal speech outside of Wikipedia, they actually do need to be literally stated by the source material. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Nothing is exempt from the need for citation if challenged, especially a term like "quasi-state". I would insist on a citation for that usage. Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

We may as well delete the entire "quasi-state" article on Wikipedia then, since most of the information in that article can be regarded in the same way. As I said, the term is more or less a Wikipedia-invented catchall. With that being said, the same applies to the article "list of states with limited recognition", which was also effectively invented by Wikipedians. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Take it to afd if you think that's the right thing to do. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The notion of "quasi-state" in exceptionally confusing and our article on the subject unfortunately doesn't help much. In international law it usually refers to entities that do not qualify as states but enjoy "legal subjectivity" under international law, that is, they can enter into treaties with states. The typical examples are the Holy See and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Quasi-state is a good word. Its meaning is self-evident, and quasi- is easily looked up in a dictionary by anyone who doesn’t get it. It is not made up by Wikipedia, but is sourced in the relevant article. —Michael Z. 06:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The word is not the problem, it is dueness, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It is irrelevant that Kazakhstan calls them quasi-states, that's just a political opinion, what we need to know is whether it is a "significant viewpoint", if there are scholarly sources calling them that, please add them to the sources box if so. Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

One needs something very recent because everything has changed with these "republics" during the war. I think "Quasi-state", "proto-state" or any other kind of "state" is not good right now. In the current situation of the expanded territory occupied by Russian forces, they are simply occupied territories, without stable population, stable territory or independent self-governing.My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you’re dancing around the distinction between the Russian-sponsored political entities (whatever one calls them), their claimed territories (which have been fluid, but lately claimed to be at least the territories of the corresponding Ukrainian oblasts), and the Ukrainian territory de-facto controlled by Russian forces including their subordinate DLNR army corps. We can refer to all of these things, but they can only be defined with some level of uncertainty. —Michael Z. 18:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I've also started a table of sources which use other terms beside "puppet" to describe the two states. Anyone is free to expand the source list. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

In my view, the problem with "puppet state" is not that it is not supported by sources, but that its use is contrary to MOS:OPEN and MOS:FIRST. It is also at odds with comparable articles like Transnistria, etc. We should avoid defining/identifying the subject of the article using disparaging words, and the political term puppet state is biased. Using "client state" or "protectorate" would be in principle more encyclopedic although equally questionable from the viewpoint of settled practice - we usually say "de facto state" or state with limited recognition. See List of states with limited recognition. I'm not against using "puppet state" in the body of the article and possibly even in the lead section (with attribution), but i think that both MOS and NPOV prevent us from describing DPR and LPR in that way in the opening sentence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to a section in the article body devoted to the different viewpoints only that we should be careful when asserting something as a fact in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, in my opinion, you are confusing "NPOV" with the "false balance". Just because something is seemingly disparaging, doesn't make it false. You understand that we as Wikipedia editors have no obligations to please anyone? Our job is to present the facts, not to appease certain people. If the facts say that the DPR and the LPR are puppet states, then that's how we should describe them. Of course, I'm not saying that that's how we *must* describe them. I'm just saying that there's nothing inherently *wrong* with describing them that way. Just because it hurts your feelings, doesn't make it illegal. Must I remind you that Wikipedia is not censored? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Territorial extent of the DPR and LPR

This topic is relevant to the RfC. In the introductory paragraph of the Donetsk People's Republic article, it says that the DPR is "proclaimed inside the territory of Ukraine". After this, it says that the DPR "claims the entirety of Ukraine's Donetsk Oblast as its territory". This is crucial information because the DPR does not control 100% of the Donetsk Oblast. Effectively, this means it does not control 100% of the territory that it claims. Furthermore, as far as I'm aware, the DPR claims direct succession to the Donetsk Oblast, according to the theory of the succession of states. This is comparable to the dispute between North Korea and South Korea, whereby both regimes claim to be the sole government of the entire Korean Peninsula. Effectively, the "Donetsk Oblast" is split between Ukraine's Donetsk government and the separatist Russian-backed Donetsk People's Republic government.

Luhansk Oblast is in a similar situation, except that around 99% of the oblast is controlled by either the LPR or Russia.

It should also be added that, both in the case of the DPR and the LPR, it can be argued that Russia is the supreme sovereign over the occupied territories in the context of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. At best, the territories can be described as "under joint occupation by Russia and the DPR/LPR". Arguing that sovereignty exclusively lies with the DPR/LPR, without any influence from Russia, is dubious. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Who says that about claims of state succession? It is not like Korea. Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts have never had statehood and there can be no state succession from them. Ukraine is a unitary state, not a federation. —Michael Z. 07:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Theoretically, the theory of the succession of states can apply to both national and subnational entities alike. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Dubious. Please cite some sources applicable to this situation. Or at least some that support “DPR claims direct succession to the Donetsk Oblast.” —Michael Z. 18:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Quasi-state

Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law (3 ed.) Edited by: John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker, contains a short entry (few lines) on the concept of quasi-state:

A term sometimes used to describe entities with many, but not all, the criteria of statehood ... which are nonetheless possessed of a measure of international personality. See Holy See, Sovereign Order of Malta

The key-notion is that quasi-state possess a measure of international personality: the Holy See and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta enter into treaties, maintain diplomatic relations, issue passports. Also the old European Communities, now European Union, have been described as "quasi-state" for that reason: they have legal personality under international law and can sign treaties. From the view point of international law, the case of DPR and LPR is the opposite one: they are fully-fledged states (centralised political communities ruling over a population and a territory) that cannot exercise certain prerogatives of (external) sovereignty because they haven't been recognised by other states (apart from Russia and a few others). But there's nothing new there, and there's no need of looking for striking new words for describing states with limited international recognition. Why can't we just use the same words we use for Transnistria or Abkhazia? But the basic question is: do we have an HQRS describing DRP and LPR as "quasi-states"? Or is this just a piece of OR? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The entire Wikipedia article about Quasi-States uses the "State that doesn't possess all characteristics" definition, not the definition that you've described here. It is possible to instead refer to the DPR and LPR as "statelets" or "proto-states". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the Holy See is a bad example of a quasi-state because it is effectively a full-fledged sovereign state in its own right, having been recognised by the majority of the international community as being such. The Holy See possesses a defined territory and a defined albeit tiny population. Demographically, the Holy See isn't a normal country because it only has 5% women and 95% men, so obviously it draws its population primarily from outside of its own borders rather than having an internally self-sustaining population. Nonetheless, the status of the Holy See as a legitimate sovereign state (albeit a very weird one) is not contested.

It's the same sort of deal with the Order of Malta. The Order of Malta is recognised as a full-fledged sovereign entity (albeit not a sovereign state in the traditional sense) by the majority of the international community. The Order of Malta's status is uncontested, and it doesn't even seek to be recognised as a normal country in the first place. The Order of Malta is more of a glamorous institution than anything else, akin to transnational corporations like Facebook and McDonalds, for example. The Order of Malta doesn't have territory and doesn't even seek to acquire territory, although it historically actually did possess some significant territories.

I would personally describe neither the Holy See nor the Order of Malta as quasi-states since they are basically 100% sovereign outright. The Holy See is 100% a sovereign state, whereas the Order of Malta is 100% a sovereign entity and is currently the only sovereign non-state entity that is widely recognised to exist in the world. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Bear in mind that it is possible for one word to have multiple definitions. Just because you have found *one* definition of a quasi-state, that doesn't mean you've found the *only* definition of a quasi-state. So, it is entirely possible that both definitions are valid. Your definition doesn't automatically negate the other definition. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

My point is that the term "quasi-state" is confusing (and NPOV), as I said above - and a fellow editor dusagreed with me. Multiple definition=confusing, ambiguous term. We should avoid using it in the lead. Plus it is not supported by RS with regard to DPR and LPR: so it's also OR. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Assume you mean "non NPOV" (or POV). Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The term "quasi-state" isn't confusing to me. It is perhaps only confusing to you. I will point out that the alternatives "statelet" and "proto-state" still exist. Alternatively, we could use the word "entity". I will say that it's definitely against NPOV to use the expanded-territory maps to depict the DPR and LPR in their info-boxes. The maps that are currently in use show the entire area that is currently occupied by Russian troops, but this implies that the entire area is under either DPR or LPR rule, when in fact it's under Russian rule. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps so but not the subject of the RFC. We can't use quasi state if it has multiple meanings because how does the reader know which one is meant. Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I changed my comment to "against NPOV". As for the term "quasi-state" having multiple meanings, I was not even aware of this up until Gitz brought up the other definition. I didn't even know that the other definition existed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

If you read the three scholarly articles on the subject I put up, it is clear there is no unanimity about the meaning. Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Not my problem or main concern. I will say thought that the alternative that is being presented, "de facto state" is not neutral either and can potentially also be considered to have multiple meanings. In order to use the term "de facto state", we must have sources. As far as I can tell, hardly any of the sources below use this terminology. Indeed, from a quick glance, the most common terminology would probably be "breakaway republic" (republic, not state), so, ultimately, I think that's what we should probably use. "Breakaway republic" is also my own preferred term; I don't really use the "puppet state" terminology because it can be perceived as biased, regardless of whether it is supported by evidence or not. So, ultimately, my vote is towards Q3, because Q2 says "breakaway state", but I prefer "breakaway republic", which is not the same thing. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

de facto state has not been proposed in the rfc afaics although someone could propose it under Q3 if they wished. It is quite common, three of the sources in the original sources box mention that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It has been proposed by @Gitz in this comment above: ...we usually say "de facto state" or state with limited recognition. It has also been proposed by you (@Selfstudier) in this comment above: "de facto state" is a common usage for states that lack substantial recognition.. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I have chosen Q2, so has Gitz. If I want to change it to Q3 (something else) I will let you know. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• "A term sometimes used to describe entities with many, but not all, the criteria of statehood". OK. Perhaps it did satisfy some of these criteria (such as more or less stable territory and population) before the invasion, exactly as some of the references below say. However, after the occupation by Russian army of significantly larger territory and during the active warfare there is no stable population and territory. Neither is their "government" independent from Moscow. This is Russian army, and the DPR forces is subordinated to Moscow. NONE of the statehood criteria are currently satisfied. This is currently neither a puppet state nor a quasi-state. Not a state. This is merely an occupied territory. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Pretty much, I agree with this statement. Prior to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, I might very well have supported the description of the DPR and LPR as "de facto states". Not anymore. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Atm, the lead says "...proclaimed within the territory of Ukraine, which is militarily occupied by Russia and Russian-backed separatists." which I would have thought covers the point although I am not convinced it is exactly the right wording. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think that formulation covers MVBW's point. They would like us to describe DPR/LPR as Russian "occupied territories", and the pro-Russian separatist forces simply as "Russian" forces [3] - so basically they would like us to get rid with the very notion that DPR/LPR exist as self-standing political and military entities, and replace it with the notion that they are a mere facade, a cover-up for Russian intervention in the area. The problem with this is that is 100% WP:OR, with no supporting source whatsoever. Even those who speak of "puppet state" don't deny that they exist as a political community capable of ruling effectively over a territory and a population (that is, as a state). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, you completely misinterpreted my words. I am only saying these entities belong to occupied territories, and we have already a list of such territories where DPR, LNR and Crimea are already included. I am saying something very much obvious, something that is already reflected on our pages per RS. It was already an occupied territory before the war. But it is even more so when it lacks any stable territorial boundaries and population due to the active warfare. No, it does not "exist as a political community capable of ruling effectively over a territory and a population" because there are no stable territorial boundaries and population at the first place. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Russian occupation of Donetsk Oblast says "...came under the control of the Donetsk People's Republic, a Russian-backed breakaway state located within it." Of course WP is not a source so we can't take that as support for Q2. (Russian occupation of Luhansk Oblast is similar) Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"Russian occupation" (the title of the page) means occupation by Russian army, and this army obviously took the leading part in the "liberation". The cited source does say that the territories newly occupied by Russian forces/army was subordinated/transfered by Moscow to the same DPR administration. But it does not change the argument about the lack of stable territory. They only claim whole Donetsk Oblast of Ukraine, but they do not have it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't usually edit pages in this area, the only one was Azov and I stumbled on that accidentally. But having had a look at the mini mountain of "occupation" pages, one thing is clear, there is a lot of confusion over what constitutes an occupation, never mind what a "state" is. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. You seem to limit your understanding to military presence alone, missing the key characteristic which is the independence of the three branches of the government. While the executive branch of the DPR/LPR government is strongly dependent on Russian support, at least politically, the situation is different as regards the judiciary. As a matter of fact, the judiciary structure in the DPR/LPR is completely independent of the Russian judiciary structure and, obviously, Russian laws do not apply on the territory of DPR/LPR. Similarly, the legislative branch is formally independent from the Russian Duma. In my view, DPR/LPR bear all hallmarks of a state (albeit strongly dependent politically and security-wise on its larger neighbour) and labelling these organisms merely as "occupied territories" would be akin to, say, refusing to accept the statehood of the State of Palestine just because it's under military control of another state.

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, both DPR and LPR came to existence only to further Russian political interests. But this is a fairly common occurrence - many states are only there because big powers have decided to create them. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Bibliography on the legal status of DPR and LPR

Petrov, Roman (2021-12-06). "The Legal Systems of the Donetsk/Lugansk People's Republics". Unrecognized Entities: Perspectives in International, European and Constitutional Law. Brill & Nijhoff. doi:10.1163/9789004499102_011. Korotkyi, Tymur; Hendel, Nataliia (2018). "The Legal Status of the Donetsk and Luhansk "Peoples' Republics"". The Use of Force against Ukraine and International Law. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press. doi:10.1007/978-94-6265-222-4_7. ISBN 978-94-6265-221-7. Sammut, Dennis (September 26, 2019). "Clarity and consistency versus fudge and constructive ambiguity in the European strategy of engagement with de facto states". The Foreign Policy Centre. De Waal, Thomas (December 2018). "Uncertain grounds: Engaging with Europe's de facto states and breakaway territories". Carnegie Europe. Kilibarda, Pavle (2022-03-02). "Was Russia's Recognition of the Separatist Republics in Ukraine 'Manifestly' Unlawful?". EJIL: Talk!. Retrieved 2022-09-01. Jankovic, Sava; Roeben, Volker (2022-03-12). "Russia's Recognition of the DPR and LPR: The Revival of the Constitutive Theory of Recognition?". Opinio Juris. Retrieved 2022-09-01. Tetyana Malyarenko & Stefan Wolff (Jan 15, 2019). The Dynamics of Emerging De-Facto States: Eastern Ukraine in the Post-Soviet Space. Routledge. (Intro) The conflict has also led to the establishment of yet another de facto entity (or in fact, two) feel free to add more references to this bibliography

Table of sources describing Donetsk and Luhansk as puppets

Discussion of sources describing Donetsk and Luhansk as puppets

Are there links to some of those sources that describe them as puppet states? Selfstudier (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC) I'm glad you asked. To start, here's some of the sources used in the Donetsk People's Republic article and the Puppet state article: [4] [5] [6] And here's just a few other sources describing the People's Republic states in Donbass as puppets, this is by no means an exhaustive list: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC) I'll add that not all of the sources I just linked to are equally good; some of them are solid, but some of them are deprecated. This was just a quick search to demonstrate that the term had widespread use.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC) The first three, the ft is an article from 2015 talking about Putin's effort to create one, so no. The third one is an article written by 2 Ukranians so not that one either. The second one might be OK, I will have a closer look at that one. I will look at the other in due course but at a glance I can tell you the Express, Mirror and some others are not suitable rs for this. Selfstudier (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC) We can go through them one by one if you wish. Doing so in a back-and-forth would create an eyesore of text, so I think it'd be better for me to create a table breaking down how each source uses it and how reliable each source is. Give me some time and I'll get back to you.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Even if there exists some number of suitable RS, I am not that impressed with what looks like a google search to hoover up every mention in what might be a RS (even the Sun is in there, really?), my inclination would still be Q2 as due and puppet state undue. Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Sorry, but I'm afraid "it looks like you used Google" is a pretty toothless criticism. The question is "do an abundance of reliable, secondary sources term the DPR/LPR as puppets?" - is it even possible to answer that question without using a search engine to look for sources? not that it matters at all, but Google is actually not my preferred search engine  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC) @Selfstudier, what have you got against Ukrainians? Do you always check the nationality of authors to weed out the untrustworthy types? Writing an article on a subject in Ukraine and actively omitting sources by Ukrainian is the definition of making a colonial encyclopedia. It’s offensive. I think you should reexamine your prejudices or avoid editing articles on Ukrainian subjects. —Michael Z. 23:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC) I wouldn't include Russian sources either, there are many saying the exact opposite of what Ukrainian sources say. Those views can be included if attributed to their authors but not to support statements in WP voice as fact. What is offensive is your presumption. Selfstudier (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC) @Selfstudier: I've added Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#Table of sources describing Donetsk and Luhansk as puppets. There are a couple dozen sources there, many of which are regarded as generally reliable. If you are still not convinced, I'm afraid I'm going to need to see an equivalent list of sources for a term other than "puppet state."  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC) The first one in the list is the FT and it uses the WP:HEADLINES (headlines are not RS) instead of a proper quote in context. It is a January 2015 article referring to Putin's ambitions "Given such targets, many western intelligence analysts are coming to the conclusion that Mr Putin is no longer trying to carve out a semi-autonomous region within Ukraine or gain geopolitical bargaining chips but — having made the calculation that Kiev is lost to Moscow’s influence for good — he is trying to create a new, economically viable puppet state outside of it." This is not support for using puppet state in the article lead as it predates all the recent events and is speculation by analysts as to Putin's motives (in 2015). The list does not need to include unreliable sources, it's just superfluous information of no value. What would be useful is scholarly sources (book/journal) or expert opinion using this terminology for the current situation. Selfstudier (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC) As I stated before your first reply, and then reiterated acknowledgement of in the table (there's a reason why I added the RS/P rating column), the only reason why unreliable sources were included was because I'd done a quick, cursory search to see if the term had widespread sources. I feel that you've been excessively fixated on the fact that I linked to two unreliable ones as a way of conveniently ignoring the numerous reliable ones which do the same (I've not yet seen you acknowledge them in any of your comments).  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC) As I said, it was obvious that you had done a "quick cursory search", next time try reading them as well. Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC) I'm finding it increasingly hard to believe you're acting in good faith here. Of course I read them, that's how I created a massive table of quotes from the bodies of the articles. But you continue to not acknowledge any of the reliable sources which explicitly state in the article bodies that the Donetsk People's Republic is a puppet state, and instead you cling to the fact that one of the dozens of sources I cited was deprecated. You specifically asked me to link you to the sources, and I provided far more than enough. What will it take to get you to read them? Or were you never interested in them to begin with?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC) I read the first three straightaway as you can see from my comments and then there were a bunch of obvious unreliables and the reliables at the bottom of the list speak about puppet leaders and governments not puppet states. At that point, I kinda stopped looking, waste of time, the "dozens" (it's not even two dozen) probably reduce to 3 or 4 if that. Putting up such a list and claiming it supports puppet state is what is bad faith. Selfstudier (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC) "Puppet governments not puppet states"? You do realize that these sources pretty explicitly said that by "puppet governments" they mean the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic states, right? You're not actually arguing that the sentence Luhansk and Donetsk people's republics—a pair of puppet governments isn't describing the two as "puppet states" because it used the word "governments", are you? Really? Or that Russia also installed puppet governments inside the two so-called republics of Donetsk and Luhansk could even theoretically mean that they're not Russian puppet states, but just Russian puppet governments in otherwise legitimate states? Or likewise, that all of the sources which called Pushilin a "puppet Leader" (e.g. Russia's puppet leader in Donetsk implies that Donetsk itself isn't a puppet, just Pushilin? What good-faith analysis of those sentences could possibly lead one to the conclusion that these sources aren't saying the DNR itself is a puppet? I'm sure you could find a way to claim that the Russian puppet state Donetsk People's Republic doesn't call it a puppet state, either. Or maybe there's a reason why you haven't commented on that one and instead keep pointing out things that I myself acknowledged before your first reply, like how the Financial Times article is paywalled and The Sun is deprecated. I don't think there's any point in continuing this conversation, I don't think you actually wanted an answer to the question Are there links to some of those sources that describe them as puppet states? I think I'm going to hat this back-and-forth to prevent any further clutter to the survey.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC) The second one is a reprint of an article (from 2018) that appeared elsewhere (the byline includes the author, whose current occupation appears to be freelance journalist and blogger). Apart from that, it says " Their real status is probably best described as puppet states, a well-​known phenomenon in the post-​Soviet space. However, as long as Moscow continues to deny any direct involvement, its relations with the de-​facto authorities in Donetsk and Luhansk can only be highly informal." So this one is no good for describing the current status either. Third is the Guardian (from 2014!) and the comment "according to Igor Todorov, a professor at Donetsk's university. The first was that Russia would annex the east of Ukraine, as it did last month with Crimea. The second was that Moscow would install a puppet regime analogous to the one in Trans-Dniester, the breakaway Moldovan region next to western Ukraine, he said. "The Kremlin will decide at the last minute." is an opinion that needs attribution as well as being about the situation years ago. I may get around to looking at the rest at some point. Selfstudier (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC) The fact that one of the articles was written by two Ukrainians does not automatically negate it. This is a "false balance" interpretation. NPOV does not require an observer to be outside of the arena of interest. Any articles that are written by Ukrainians and Russians alike can be considered valid if they are following the correct academic procedures. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC) This comment is either in the wrong place or wrongly indented, who are you replying to? Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC) I am replying to you. Why did you move my comment? I am specifically replying to this sentence of yours above: The third one is an article written by 2 Ukranians so not that one either.... Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Well, you can leave it here if you like, it seemed clearer where I put it. Up to you. Selfstudier (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Various sources describing the Donetsk and Luhanks People's Republics as puppets

Website name	Quote from source	URL	WP:RS/P rating
Financial Times	Ukraine fighting points to Russia designs for puppet state (article body is paywalled)	[22]	Y Generally reliable
ETH Zurich	the “people’s republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine, arguing that though they may be best described as Russian puppet states,	[23]	Not mentioned, likely reliable (public research university)
The Guardian	The first was that Russia would annex the east of Ukraine, as it did last month with Crimea. The second was that Moscow would install a puppet regime analogous to the one in Trans-Dniester, the breakaway Moldovan region next to western Ukraine, he said. "The Kremlin will decide at the last minute."Certainly Russia is treating the "Donbass People's Republic" as a dignified government-in-waiting.	[24]	Y Generally reliable
Daily Express	targeting data on the location of the puppet ‘Ministry of Internal Affairs” in occupied Donetsk.	[25]	N Generally unreliable
The Chosun Ilbo	Like the Luhansk People's Republic, the DPR is a Russian puppet state proclaimed in 2014 in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbass.	[26]	Not mentioned, likely reliable (regarded as a newspaper of record for South Korea)
Daily Mirror	Denis Pushilin, the head of the Donetsk People's Republic [DPR], a pro-Moscow puppet state in eastern Ukraine,	[27]	? No consensus
The Sun (United Kingdom)	According to Russian newspaper Kommersant, missiles hit the private office of Denis Pushilin, the leader of the pro-Putin puppet state Donetsk People’s Republic.	[28]	N Deprecated
Free Press Journal	Olga was a colonel who oversaw a division of rocket artillery that was sent into Ukraine as part of the militia of the Donetsk People's Republic, a puppet state of Russia.	[29]	Not mentioned
The Telegraph	The 52-year-old from Donetsk was a colonel commanding a unit in the forces of the Russian puppet state Donetsk People's Republic that has been accused of shelling civilians.	[30]	Y Generally reliable
MENAFN	The lack of success on the front does not allow the Russian Federation to set a final date for the so-called 'referendum' on the puppet pseudo-formation 'DPR' joining Russia.	[31]	Not mentioned
i (newspaper)	Russia’s puppet government in the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic in Ukraine	[32]	Not mentioned
Metro (British newspaper)	Kachura was colonel within the forces of Russia’s puppet state Donetsk People’s Republic	[33]	N Generally unreliable
National Review	the Muscovite businessman who is serving as prime minister of the Putin puppet “Donetsk People’s Republic,”	[34]	? No consensus
Detroit Free Press	Russian puppet governments are making similar plans elsewhere in Ukraine.	[35]	Not mentioned
Euractiv (quoting the Czech government)	The Czech foreign ministry said on Twitter on Tuesday that it would not comment on the claims of “a Kremlin puppet regime not recognised by anyone.”	[36]	Not mentioned
Taipei Times	Initially, the only territorial ambitions Russia officially declared were confined to the administrative borders of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, which the respective puppet “People’s Republics” claimed as their land.	[37]	Not mentioned
The New Voice of Ukraine	Among them was a known local crime boss, ex-councilmember of the Donetsk puppet authority, and owner of the entertainment center “Bermuda”, Yuriy Krykulenko.	[38]	Not mentioned, likely biased
ABC News	The Donbas contains two provinces, Donetsk and Luhansk, that touch the Russian border and since 2014 have been controlled by two puppet separatist governments that Moscow armed and helped establish.	[39]	Y Generally reliable
BBC News	US officials believe annexation is on the cards, and Russia's puppet leader in Donetsk, Denis Pushilin, has said referendums would make sense when Russian forces complete the capture of both regions. The outside world would regard any vote as a sham, but he sees the result as "obvious".	[40]	Y Generally reliable
Bloomberg News	The vote confirms the Kremlin has reluctantly decided to hang on to the puppet states it helped carve out.	[41]	Y Generally reliable
The Economist	And some take in fighters from Russian-backed militias in the Luhansk and Donetsk people's republics—a pair of puppet governments in eastern ...	[42]	Y Generally reliable
Newsweek	Some Kremlin allies, including puppet Donetsk separatist leader Denis Pushilin, have called for Azov prisoners to be tried in Russian courts.	[43]	Y Generally reliable
Politico	Russia also installed puppet governments inside the two so-called republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. The local councils of Donbass elected before the war did not support Russian aggression, so Moscow created military dictatorships in the occupied territories, which initially were run by Russian citizens. Later, the Russians were replaced by local collaborators.	[44]	Y Generally reliable

Table of sources describing Donetsk and Luhansk as breakaway/other descripitor

Various sources describing the Donetsk and Luhanks People's Republics as breakaway/other descripitor

Website name	Quote from source	URL	WP:RS/P rating
Financial Times	As Vladimir Putin announced that his decision to recognise two Moscow-backed separatist states in the Donbas extended to large swaths of Ukraine-controlled territory, the Russian president made it clear his options were not at an end. (article body is paywalled)	[45]	Y Generally reliable
ETH Zurich	Russia’s economy is in a deepening recession as a result of the costs of supporting breakaway statelets in eastern Ukraine, western sanctions and collapsed oil prices.	[46]	Not mentioned, likely reliable (public research university)
The Guardian	Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has announced that he is recognising two breakaway territories in eastern Ukraine as independent.	[47]	Y Generally reliable
Daily Express	The area is one of two breakaway republic's backed by Moscow.	[48]	N Generally unreliable
Daily Mirror	Mr Aslin was handed the death penalty for "mercenary activities" at a court in the Russian-backed breakaway Donetsk People's Republic in eastern Ukraine.	[49]	? No consensus
The Sun (United Kingdom)	Russia gave their backing the separatist forces which formed breakaway republics in Donetsk and Luhansk.	[50]	N Deprecated
Free Press Journal	Russia has ordered its troops to move into into two breakaway regions of eastern Ukraine run by Moscow-backed separatists - the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics (DPR and LPR)	[51]	Not mentioned
The Telegraph	Boris Johnson condemned Vladimir Putin's decision to recognise the breakawayUkrainian republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.	[52]	Y Generally reliable
MENAFN	Later, pro-Russian separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine declared the independence of two breakaway“people's republics,” which were not immediately recognized by Russia.	[53]	Not mentioned
i (newspaper)	The Russian-backed breakaway states have been controlled by separatists for eight years, with Mr Putin recognising them as independent states in February this year.	[54]	Not mentioned
Metro (British newspaper)	Days earlier, Putin had given another address confirming his decision to formally adopt the breakaway republics in Donetsk and Luhansk, a move which was already effectively a declaration of war.	[55]	N Generally unreliable
National Review	Russian president Vladimir Putin on Monday recognized the independence of the eastern Ukrainian enclaves of Donetsk and Lugansk, which have have been under the de-facto control of pro-Russian separatists for years.	[56]	? No consensus
Detroit Free Press	In 2019, four people were charged with murder for their roles in the crash. The suspects – three Russians and a Ukrainian – were part of the leadership of the pro-Russian "People's Republic of Donetsk" breakaway republic.	[57]	Not mentioned
Euractiv	The DPR is one of two breakaway Russian-backed entities in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine that Russia says it is fighting to liberate from Ukrainian forces.	[58]	Not mentioned
Taipei Times	North Korean state media released a statement from the ministry after formally recognizing two Russian-backed breakaway self-proclaimed republics in eastern Ukraine as independent states.	[59]	Not mentioned
The New Voice of Ukraine	But the retired General also complains that the leadership of the Russian Federation so far has not recognized the results of the referendums of independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, the self-proclaimed breakaway entities in Ukraine’s east.	[60]	Not mentioned, likely biased
ABC News	Russia-backed separatist forces have controlled two breakaway republics of eastern Ukraine's Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in Donbas since 2014, following Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula.	[61]	Y Generally reliable
BBC News	He added that the fate of the men was a matter for the pro-Russian, breakaway Donetsk People's Republic.	[62]	Y Generally reliable
Bloomberg News	President Vladimir Putin announced he’s recognizing two self-proclaimed separatist republics in eastern Ukraine, a dramatic escalation in Russia’s standoff with the West as the U.S. and its allies continue to warn it could soon invade its neighbor.	[63]	Y Generally reliable
The Economist	In a move that seemed to take Europe to the brink of war, Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, officially recognised the breakaway “people‘s republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine, and said he would deploy Russian troops to them.	[64]	Y Generally reliable
Newsweek	The Donetsk People's Republic is a breakaway state located in Ukraine and was formed by pro-Russian separatists following the "Revolution of Dignity."	[65]	Y Generally reliable
Politico	It is also disrupting the Kremlin’s plans for an offensive in eastern Ukraine to establish a land corridor between Moscow’s breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk with Russian-controlled Crimea.	[66]	Y Generally reliable

closure?

If I'm not wrong (I might: I'm on mobile) it's been a while since we had new voices in this RfC. Maybe the time has come to ask for a closure? Or is it too early and we'd better wait for new contributions? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Can go up to 30 days, if there is consensus reached, can be less. Maybe leave it a bit longer, it's only been a week. Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

My general opinion is that this survey has gone nowhere. Have we contributed anything useful? Not really. Have we made any progress? No. Is anything going to change? Maybe, but we didn't need an entire survey to do that. Literally any changes could have easily been made with a bold edit if they were within reason. The only purpose of holding a survey was to try and push a more extreme POV alteration, which has not worked as far as I can tell. There is overall no consensus. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not my reading, there are 6 votes clearly in favor of Q2, then there is one who has only said not Q1, 2 that specifically said Q1 and 3/4 with versions of quasi/puppet, preferring quasi. The "extreme POV" is what is there currently not what is proposed. Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

My point is that you guys wasted a lot of time and resources on arguing over something that could have been changed without a second thought. Clearly, both of you are trying to push some kind of an agenda that is totally unnecessary and overblown. Effectively, we are arguing over nearly nothing. I don't think anyone was opposed to changing the description if you had sources and a good reason. But both of you guys came into this discussion without sources and without a good reason, so you decided to start this fake debate over nothing in order to waste everyone's time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see, well over 50% of the debate is taken up with your personal opinions backed up by zero sources. And I will thank you to be WP:CIVIL in the future and avoid casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I did not cast aspersions. I accused you of wasting time, which you did. I explained in the leadup to the survey that it was useless, and I was proven correct by how useless it has turned out to be. Notice that this entire discussion has basically been a SOAPBOX on behalf of you and Gitz, and it has not provided any positive results. The entire survey could have been avoided, and you could have implemented your desired changes without using a survey. My entire point is that the survey itself is useless, not the actual suggestions that you are making. You made a survey in order to push your changes, but the survey was unnecessary since the changes were not significant enough to warrant a survey. Hence, I am accusing you of wasting time, which is exactly what you did and are continuing to do. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

both of you are trying to push some kind of an agenda & both of you guys came into this discussion without sources and without a good reason, so you decided to start this fake debate over nothing are aspersions, all that is required is an apology not an excuse. Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Nope, I accused you guys of trying to push a POV without sources. If you had come into the discussion immediately with sources and had made a simple proposal on how to make changes to the article, all would have been well. The problem is that both of you, especially Gitz, took it upon yourselves to escalate this ridiculous discussion into an entire RfC, which was unwarranted. We don't need RfCs over something as trivial as what you guys are discussing. You guys are literally discussing one sentence that could have been changed with one bold edit and some reliable sources. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I would remind you that this topic is subject of discretionary sanctions. Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a useless reminder and seemingly a threat, so I will ignore it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

See your talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, I don't recall anyone in the above threads actually opposing your changes if they had been reliable. From what I recall, not even I myself had been fully opposed to the changes. The only point to holding this RfC was to try and force a change. Effectively, the changes could have probably been implemented without using the RfC, but the RfC was weaponised in order to bypass whatever obstacles Gitz had perceived beforehand. This can be seen as disruptive behaviour since RfCs are generally only to be implemented in situations that absolutely require them. If you can implement a change or host a discussion without using an RfC, then you are supposed to do that first before launching the RfC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The RFC is running, you have !voted and commented yourself in it so it's a bit late now to complain that is not a valid RFC, there will be a close at some point and then we will go from there. Selfstudier (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The RfC is biased because the options that it has presented are restricted. It presents only the original wording, a very specific second wording, and a vague third wording. As you can see in the above discussion, many other suggestions have appeared that never showed up in the original listing. As such, we should really hold this RfC a second time with all of the valid suggestions in order for it to be fair. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, this should have been raised at the outset, you were one of the first to !vote and to comment (at length) in the RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I responded in criticism of Gitz. And as I've said, the RfC was flawed from the outset. I already pointed out my criticisms beforehand but Gitz ignored me. Furthermore, if I had not voted in the RfC, then the RfC would have been overwhelmed anyway. My entire point here is that the RfC was weaponised in order to force a certain POV. If I had not voted in the RfC, other people would have. I didn't have a choice whether to vote or not, because the RfC was forcing me to make a statement. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It is perfectly normal to assert "bad RFC" if desired and then let the closer decide whether the objection has merit. No-one is "forced" to do anything.the RfC was weaponised in order to force a certain POV. Seriously? Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I have never seen a protocol for asserting "bad RfC" whilst the RfC is still running. I suggested that the RfC was flawed at various points, including before and during it, and no action was taken in order to recognise my complaints. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

A protocol? It's a discussion among editors, anyone can say whatever they want within reason, If "no action was taken", it is safe to assume that no-one else agreed with that position. Selfstudier (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

There was not a 100% consensus to go ahead with the RfC and Gitz went ahead with it anyway. Make of that what you will. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Codswallop. On this talk page there are two pertinent preRFC sections, Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#"Breakaway Puppet Quasi State", which failed to deliver a consensus and then Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#Towards an RfC on the legal status of the Donetsk and Luhansk "Peoples’ Republics". RFCs get off the ground with far less discussion than that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I already pointed out my criticisms beforehand but Gitz ignored me. There’s a reason for this. Your comments are very repetitive and WP:BLUDGEON the process; occasionally they also fall short of WP:CIVILITY and show disregard for the contributors and for the sources. By repeatedly repeating yourself (as I've said ... I already pointed out), you are damaging this RfC and making it more difficult for others to join the discussion.

Anyway, on the point you raise: was this RfC necessary? Yes, because "bold edit", as you suggest, was not an option: the description of DPR/LPR has changed dozens of times and there's been a constant law-intensity edit war going on these articles. From 2014 to 2021 they've been simply described as "self-proclaimed state(s)", as we usually do for states with limited international recognition. Then, due to tendentious editing, they became whatever - first "proto-state", then "quasi-state", "puppet state". The description has become particularly unstable following the invasion. See e.g. in June-July alone: 21 June (adding quasi-state), 22 June (country with limited recognition), June (quasi state), 22 July (breakaway state), July (restores quasi-state). I avoid looking for how many times "puppet" has been added and removed here and from the LPR article. Note that many IP and registered users have expressed their views on the lack of NPOV in the talk page with no effect. Therefore I thought that an RfC instead of constant edit warring was appropriate. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, this is a misleading analysis from you. It is inappropriate to compare the situation of this article before February 2022 and after that date. Before that date, the DPR and LPR were not recognised by any United Nations member state country. After that date, they were recognised by Russia, which had prompted editors to change the description to align with the new status quo. As such, it is irrelevant as to what was happening in previous years. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, the examples that you've cited above were all cases of essentially low-tier vandalism. They didn't cite any source nor did they seek any consensus on the talk page. They merely pushed a certain POV without evidence. I can't help but feel that it is disingenuous to cite these edits as part of an Edit War. I would only consider legitimate edits that have been reverted to fall under this definition. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gitz - From 2014 to 2021 they've been simply described as "self-proclaimed state(s)", as we usually do for states with limited international recognition. --> From 2014 to 2021, the DPR and LPR were recognised by only one entity, that being South Ossetia, which itself largely lacks recognition. Obviously, the DPR and LPR recognised each other, but that doesn't count. There is a distinction, generally speaking, between states with "limited recognition" and states with "zero recognition". Among states with limited recognition, only Somaliland is considered to be a de facto state despite having zero recognition, but Somaliland is the exception to the rule (there are other reasons aside from recognition that we regard it to be legitimate). The DPR and the LPR were not classified as states with limited recognition prior to 2022; they had been omitted from the relevant article, "list of states with limited recognition", and they had been regarded as proto-states up until that point.

Then, due to tendentious editing, they became whatever - first "proto-state", then "quasi-state", "puppet state". --> As I said, the DPR and LPR had been regarded as proto-states from 2014-2021. In February 2022, Russia recognised the DPR and LPR, which was a significant change in their international status. As such, the DPR and LPR were promoted from the status of "proto-state" to "state with limited recognition" (they were added to the relevant list article). So, your reading of this situation is entirely wrong. The DPR and LPR actually got promoted after February 2022, rather than demoted.

The description has become particularly unstable following the invasion. --> The description hasn't become unstable due to the invasion. The description has become unstable due to Russia's recognition of the two republics, and then Syria's and North Korea's recognitions afterwards. After Russia's recognition, the status of the DPR and LPR was changed permanently from whatever it used to be from 2014 to 2021. Bear in mind that Russia's invasion occurred only three days after the recognition (which calls into question how legitimate the recognition actually is, but I digress), so it is easy to conflate the two events. But indeed, these were two separate events.

Overall, your entire analysis above is either misinformed or intentionally misleading. The status of the DPR and LPR after February 2022 has permanently changed, so the descriptions before February 2022 are irrelevant. After February 2022, the descriptions have fluctuated at times due to editors being into disagreement as to exactly what the DPR and LPR have become from this point forward. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This constant attempt to argue that the RFC is somehow unwarranted, WP:BLUDGEON, is becoming tiresome. Cease and desist, please. Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a useless comment from you. You have not addressed my points above. Please contribute with effort and not simply citing some Wikipedia policies. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

See your talk page (again). Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Do not comment on my talk page. All of your comments on my talk page will be deleted without question. You've already disregarded my first request. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I am required to first address issues at your talk prior to commencing any dispute resolution procedures and that has now been done. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I am completely within my rights to control the activity at my own talk page. If you continue to disregard my request to stop commenting at my talk page, I may very well launch an inquiry into your own activities. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You have been served an awareness notice as required, therefore the only other thing I might need to post on your talk page is notice of any proceedings in relation to that. Apart from that I currently see no need to write anything further on your talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I am confident that any "proceedings" that you launch will be thoroughly ignored by the administrators. There is already at least one other user on this talk page who has had enough of your shenanigans. All of your comments on my talk page will be deleted. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You already said that once, they are in your history whether you delete them or not. Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This conversation is eligible for deletion. Please refrain from leaving more unhelpful comments. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Delating the whole discussion maybe would be too much, but I'm happy to collapse it per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. Jargo Nautilus says After February 2022, the descriptions have fluctuated at times due to editors being into disagreement as to exactly what the DPR and LPR have become from this point forward, which is exactly the reason why we needed an RfC. So I'd say it's now time to close, and I'm quoting JN again, this fake debate over nothing and stop wasting time. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice how the leadup to the RfC basically served the same purpose as the RfC, except that it was non-official. Gitz effectively escalated the discussion to the status of an RfC, even though this was unnecessary. The discussion could have easily been held in the proposal thread, without creating an official RfC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The normal procedure, you have a WP:RFCBEFORE and if no agreement, then an RFC to obtain a formal consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

There was no genuine "RFCBEFORE" implemented. In the lead-up thread, Gitz was discussing how to create the RFC thread, not the actual topic at hand. When I myself tried to discuss the actual topic at hand, he shut me up. Do you not recall this? Look above. I expressed my criticism of the RFC, and Gitz told me that he was not interested in discussing the topic but instead wanted to discuss the creation of the RFC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

In the absence of an agreement, that's the correct course of action, else it's just an edit war, someone takes out puppet, someone else put's it back, etc etc that's the time wasting Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. There was absolutely no evidence of an edit war beforehand. I never engaged in any kind of edit war prior to this RfC, and I don't think anyone else really did either. Correct me if I'm wrong. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You have !voted and commented in the RFC. If there was cause for complaint about the RFC, then that should have been raised at the outset, not now. Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I already raised my complaints about the RfC before the RfC was held. After Gitz unilaterally started the RfC, I objected to his comments on several occasions, which is why I have commented so many times in the RfC. I voted in the RfC in order to prevent the second option from being overwhelmed. Bear in mind that the list of options was not fair as it was biased towards the second option from the outset. The third option was obviously going to lose due to how vague it was, so it was effectively a war between option 1 and option 2. However, many other options have appeared that are different from both options 1 and 2, and different from option 3 as well. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I see no complaints about the RFC anywhere else. Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I complained about the RfC in the lead-up discussion to the RfC, which Gitz effectively ignored. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

At best, we can perhaps change the description to "Donetsk People's Republic is a breakaway state in the Donbas region of Ukraine. It has been described as a Russian puppet state. As of 2022, the republic does not have clearly defined borders or population." Effectively, this means we are not definitively calling it a "puppet state" or a "quasi-state", but we are pretty much implying that it might fit these criteria. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

IMHO this would be an improvement. On not having clearly defined borders and population we need a source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I am content to wait for more input and a formal close but if you are able to get some agreement with non Q2ers, I won't stand in the way. Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, we don't even have a source that defines the borders of the DPR and LPR, so why would we need a source that undefines it? The burden of proof is on the DPR and LPR to prove their borders, not for us to disprove their borders. We don't even 100% know what territories they claim. It is suggested that they claim the entire oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk, but we only have a very weak source to support this claim at the moment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

This sentence "As of 2022, the republic does not have clearly defined borders or population." if added, needs a cite. There is a sentence in the article saying that DPR claims the oblast sourced to the BBC, what's wrong with the BBC? Please do cease with these pointless distractions. Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggest JN to reed WP:V. No irony is intended: it's a core policy and we must comply with it. It also prevents lengthy unproductive discussions originating from OR ("The burden of proof is on the DPR..." - proof of what? We are not proving or disproving anything here, it's not our job).

Unless there is a consensus on getting rid of the "puppet quasi state", which I'd welcome, I suggest we ask for a closure in the next few days. I agree that puppet state can be left in the lead with attribution ("it has been described as..."), but not in the opening sentence. I think that in the lead we should also mention that they have been recognised by Russia etc., as this is vital information which we always convey in the opening sentences of articles on states with limited recognition. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

We should not say "it's recognised by Russia" in the opening sentence/paragraph. We should instead say "it seeks to be recognised, and it has been recognised by Russia as of -insert date-" (as well as by Syria and North Korea). When we say that it's recognised by Russia, that doesn't tell us much. Recognised as what? Russia recognises the DPR as a sovereign state, on the same level as Russia and Ukraine, i.e. as an independent country. This clarification is needed, since it's not entirely clear that the DPR wants to be recognised as a country. Note: This info is already included in a lower-down paragraph, but it can be rearranged if done so appropriately. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Selfstudier, read @Mzajac's comments in earlier discussions on this talk page as to why the BBC source is not 100% trusted. So far, the BBC source only really provides a second-hand evidence of the DPR's claimed borders. We don't have a source from the DPR itself. If such a source could be provided, that would presumably be more reliable. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Secondary sources are more reliable than primary sources from WP standpoint. The BBC is green at WP:RSP, onus is on those disputing reliability to demonstrate that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The BBC source is unreliable because the BBC source itself does not cite a reliable source. As far as we can tell, the BBC source itself cites hearsay from another unreliable source. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The BBC is a reliable source by itself, that's what reliable source means, reliable for factual information. Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The BBC source is only reliable for indicating passing information. For a "deep dive" analysis into what the official borders of the DPR actually are, the BBC source is not good enough. The BBC only provides a suggestion of the DPR's official borders. In order to definitively prove what the DPR's official borders are, we need some kind DPR constitution or DPR treaty (with either Ukraine or Russia, presumably). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

This reply and other comments of yours suggest that you might have scarce familiarity with the many policies and guidelines of this community. I suggest the reading of WP:RS (especially WP:RSPRIMARY). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I've already said this before, but the BBC source itself doesn't necessarily cite a reliable source. I think the BBC simply took its info from what Vladimir Putin said, which is not really good enough. We need to have an evidence in an actual treaty. For example, if the treaty that was signed between Russia and the DPR/LPR to recognise them says what their borders are, then that should be good enough. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

In the event that the DPR and LPR do actually claim the entire Donetsk and Luhansk regions, then we can say that the DPR does not control all of its claimed territory whereas the LPR lacks control over a small portion of its claimed territory. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The above sentence is definitely an improvement from the current one. Personally, I do not like the use of the term "Russian puppet", since it is a biased term, which means generally the same thing as: (Russian backed, Russian supported, Russian controlled, Moscow backed, pro-Russian, Moscow's, or [no descriptor]). The words in parentheses are the terms that are found in the second table above which was created by doing a google search of: "breakaway" + "Donetsk" + "republic" + the source from each row in the first table. Then a random result article was opened and the above descriptor sentences were copied. This process should give a general idea of the due weight for the different descriptors. It should be noted that puppet never showed up in any of the random searches using those key words.

A possible lead sentence building off of Jargo Nautilus's suggestion above could be:

"Donetsk People's Republic is a breakaway state in the Donbas region of Ukraine. The Russian-backed republic is currently occupied by Russian forces and does not have clearly defined borders because of ongoing war."

Variations on the above sentences avoiding "puppet" would also be fine. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

That suggested sentence reads that Russia is occupying the DPR, not that the DPR is a Russian-occupied territory of Ukraine.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This is another variation (to address the above concerns):

"Donetsk People's Republic is a breakaway state in the Donbas region of Ukraine, which is militarily occupied by Russia and Russian-backed separatists. The DPR claims the entirety of Ukraine's Donetsk Oblast as its territory and because of ongoing war its borders are in flux."

Other suggestions for the lead sentence or two are also welcome.--Guest2625 (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic is a breakaway state with limited recognition (put recognizing States + a cite in an efn) claiming the Donetsk Oblast of Ukraine as its territory, contested as part of the Russo-Ukrainian War. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment Discussion is probably going to be moot soon. With no consensus in sight, this discussion will probably outlast the "Donetsk People's Republic" itself. They're going to "vote" on annexation in a matter of days. Today the DPR may claim that Donetsk is a totally legitimate nation and definitely not an occupied territory of Russia, but in due time it will almost certainly claim that Donetsk is Russia and the lede will probably read "The Donetsk People's Republic is a federal subject (republic) of Russia." I don't have a crystal ball of course, but I'm inclined to believe that we can just put this issue to rest by just waiting it out. No consensus results generally default to the status quo, and clearly this prolonged discussion wasn't effective at resolving the content dispute. Reaching an agreement on if we should or should not call the DPR a puppet will probably require either a fresh new discussion after the closure of this one or some other forms of dispute resolution. Either way, this would likely take us several weeks at a minimum, which is time the "independent DPR" might not have.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. First, when the Republics will join Russia, which is probably going to happen soon, this article will not be delated, nor it will be transformed into an article on a newly created Russian oblast. It will remain as an article on the (historic) DPR and LPR (2014-2022), just like we have an article on Manchukuo (I mention Manchukuo in particular because we qualify it as a puppet state). So we'll still need to settle the issue raised by the RfC: "Russian puppet quasi-state", "Russian supported breakaway state", or (as proposed by Selfstudier here above) "breakaway state with limited recognition"? Secondly, it will be up for the closer to settle the issue but I think that the RfC sofar shows that "Russian puppet quasi-state" does not enjoy consensus and is contrary to policy (WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV) and to guidelines (MOS:OPEN). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to second guess the closer but With no consensus in sight does not seem to me to be the case, perhaps I can't count. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Jargo Nautilus has offered several ideas and his rationale is good. The discussion is too long, so I skimmed it only superficially. "Break-away states" make no sense, they are just "entities", their (pseudoindependent) existence is legal fiction. They indeed possess "administrations", biut these are dependent on Russian federal government in everything, like Tuva or Sakha are. This has been the case for many years now, I understand that initially they were rebel-controlled breakaway regions, but they've never counted as "states".Knižnik (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• I asked for a closure of this RfC, here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with @Jargo Nautilus: that the RfC is inadequately formed and restricted, and agree with @Vanilla Wizard: that current events have made this version of the debate obsolete if it wasn't already. The extensive sourcing above, in a table, backs any variation of "puppet regime" by RS's and specific nuance should have just been WP:BOLD edits with sources. If there was to be debate about adjectives it should have provided a wider variety of adjectives ("puppet" vs "proxy" and "breakaway" vs. "quasi") rather than being stuck in the Q1, mutually exclusive Q2, mutually exclusive Q3 format. The key points of the lead section in any case, come from the lead summary as a whole rather than the first few adjectives under discussion. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Does the Donetsk Peoples republic even exist anymore

It became part of the Russian federation, so shouldn’t it be considered a former state? Godzillasizedemu (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The Russians won’t consider it so until the treaty is ratified. Then it will still exist but the name might be changed. —Michael Z. 05:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The Russian Duma ratified the annexation today. As far as I understand, there is no Donetsk Peoples Republic as a seperate state any more. RadomirZinovyev (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure, I think both houses have to ratify, have they? Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Folks, stop speculating and use sources. Volunteer Marek 13:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The DPR still exists. Here’s a source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/10/03/russia-duma-ratify-annexation-ukraine/. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

According to TASS, reliable for this I think, the Duma passed and the upper house as well. Selfstudier (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Putin signed finalizing documents “to annex four regions” today “in violation of international laws.”[67] Note the text of the AP article writes “‘referendums’” in quotation marks. The article says the treaties “purported to absorb Ukraine's Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions into Russia,” and referred to “the Moscow-annexed Donetsk region, where Ukrainian forces still control some areas,” but “the precise borders of the areas Moscow is claiming remain unclear.” It doesn’t say anything ceased to exist. —Michael Z. 16:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The legalities are a bit confusing and as well slightly different for the two "republics" as opposed to the two "regions". Once we get away from straightforward factual information, I would be looking for better sourcing than newsorgs. Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The term legalities as a source of understanding is fraught because this is illegal on every level (I have heard arguments it’s against Russian law).

But that’s neither here nor there, because as far as I know no reliable source says that the DLNR ceased to exist. —Michael Z. 19:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2022

"Quasi-puppet state" in description is offensive. I request for it to be removed. If not it should also Kosovo receive the same description 196.21.153.6 (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and Kosovo is irrelevant here. If you think it should be described as "quasi-puppet state", find reliable sources that say so and bring it up on Talk:Kosovo. Kleinpecan (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The citations provided for "puppet state" have been marked as inappropriate already but we should wait for the current RFC close before doing anything further. Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The term is not offensive (but Russia’s illegal, violent, rights-violating, and atrocity-committing puppet quasi-states are extremely offensive).  —Michael Z. 19:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Of all the reasons to reword a statement on Wikipedia, being "offensive" is one of the weakest and is generally disregarded. A statement should be reworded if it is factually inaccurate or presents a warped POV. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Merging the articles "Donetsk PR" and "Donetsk PR (Russia)"

Recently, four articles were created to discuss the new entities that Russia had created inside of Ukraine, namely "Donetsk PR (Russia)", "Luhansk/Lugansk PR (Russia)", "Kherson Oblast (Russia)", and "Zaporizhzhia/Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia)". These entities aren't exactly "new" since they are really just continuations of pre-existing entities, except that they have new leadership and political status.

The articles about Lugansk PR (Russia), Kherson Oblast (Russia), and Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) have all been deleted after lengthy Articles for Deletion discussions. Only the Donetsk PR (Russia) article is left as I speak, but it is probably going to be deleted.

As such, it is most likely that we will be required to take a course of action wherein we merge the contents of the Donetsk PR article (i.e. this one) and the Donetsk PR (Russia) article.

A good place to start is this sentence that currently stands in the lead: ...the DPR was officially annexed by Russia and ceased to exist.

I believe that the DPR has not ceased to exist. It has only changed its political status and its political aspirations (i.e. change from wanting to be independent to wanting to join Russia). The entity still exists to the same extent that it did from 2014 to 2022. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Religion visualization needs help

The pie chart breaking down religious demographics looks obviously wrong. The caption says 6.8% of people subscribe to "Simply Christianity" (I might have clarified the category by calling it "Christianity generally", but maybe that term comes from the data itself). However the chart graphic makes "Simply Christianity" (cyan pie slice) look more like it's slightly over 25%, definitely not 6.8%. Also, the pink pie slice for "Eastern Orthodoxy" looks like it may be wrong too, at a glance (the pie slice looks like 25% but the caption says 28.9%). It isn't immediately clear to me which of the caption or the chart is correct. I cannot reach the linked citation to check myself (I'm getting We can’t connect to the server at old.razumkov.org.ua. as of 11 October 2022). The Futurist Corporation (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The archive link in the reference works for me.[68] The chart looks fine while in visual editing, but not in the article (although I see a cyan slice subtending about 20–30°). —Michael Z. 20:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2022

Country is Ukraine not russia 109.240.138.138 (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The DPR is a disputed entity created by Russia inside of Ukraine. In the article Donetsk Oblast, it says that Donetsk is a part of Ukraine (under Russian occupation). Ukraine doesn't recognise the existence of the DPR, which is not the same thing as the oblast. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2022 (2)

Dpr is russian backed and run regional terroristi organization In Ukraine 109.240.138.138 (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

It already says this in the lead (except the "terrorist" part is shown as Ukraine's opinion and not as a definitive fact). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

NPOV in the infobox

Pinging @Jargo Nautilus: and @Mzajac: from previous discussion. Splitting this out into specific topic.

Arguably there are as many issues with using Template:Infobox Russian federal subject as using Template:Infobox country, because essentially no reliable sources have acknowledged the annexation as legitimate, marking it as a full federal subject is unintentionally pushing a WP:FRINGE claim. Looking at how reliable sources tend to describe the "DPR" -- Perhaps the most NPOV infobox to use would be Template:Infobox war faction. Its only drawback is the lack of a map, that can be included below the infobox and the entity is increasingly nebulously defined anyway. Another option is Template:Infobox former country which is used for many similar occupation regimes or proclaimed provinces by invading occupation regimes in history. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I definitely don't like the "info-box country" option, but the "info-box Russian federal subject" option is perhaps non-optimal. In terms of representing this as a military occupation, the article "Russian occupation of Donetsk Oblast" already does that. By the way, the articles "Russian occupation of Kharkiv Oblast", "... of Kherson Oblast", and "... of Zaporizhzhia Oblast" all use the country info-box and depict the Russian-installed occupation entities instead of the military occupations. Meanwhile, "... of Mykolaiv Oblast" uses the "settlement" template. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

At this point in time, I don't think there are enough reliable sources that describe what the DPR currently is, given that its political status has changed only very recently. Previously, the DPR was usually described as either a "breakaway state" or a "puppet state". The DPR is ostensibly neither of these things at the moment. It is simply a wing of the Russian government now. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I would steer clear of the "former country" info-box since it's not so different from the country info-box. Any suggestions of land area, population, demographics (e.g. ethnic groups, religions, languages), technical information (e.g. calling code, driving side, time zone), and sovereignty (government, formation, demonym, GDP, etc) would constitute an NPOV violation. Any suggestion that the DPR was a real country prior to 30 September 2022 is an NPOV violation, which is why I was opposed to the framing of this article even before the annexation occurred. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting points. I believe Michael/Mzajac's option of making it an Infobox settlement, solves the issue with all these aspects in mind. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

A possibility is to create an article something like Legal and political status of DPR/LPR (examples are Status of Jerusalem (includes unrecognized annexed territory) and Legal status of the State of Palestine (controversial state status)). There sources could be gathered that reflect the current status (occupied, illegal, unrecognized, whatever) and then a summary of it to go in the DPR/LPR articles. Selfstudier (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

This is possible and something that can be considered. That said, the legal and political status of DPR/LPR is not really an independent subject of the entity itself when we look at RS's. It's not really comparable to Palestine which had 138 countries recognize it and actually has aimed for independence and had many international treaty negotiations and other aspects. Another article on the DPR has a risk of becoming another content fork that has to be patrolled for POV and fringe pushing edits. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

We don't need a separate article about the DPR/LPR's political status. All of that information can be summed up in a moderately-sized subsection of the two main articles (i.e. "Donetsk People's Republic" and "Luhansk People's Republic"). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention.

The current infobox is hardwired with “Country: Russia.” This is unacceptable, and I will change it immediately.

Because the current infobox is a customized {{infobox settlement}}, I will see if I can substitute that one. —Michael Z. 15:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. The template doesn’t have a place for romanized name or capital city, but these are both in the lead. —Michael Z. 15:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah: capital = seat. Fixed.

I will give the same treatment to the LNR article. —Michael Z. 15:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Great job, thank you for updating and getting this resolved, this is much better for neutral point of view. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

We should do the same for Republic of Crimea. Panam2014 (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I had made the original change to "Russian federal subject" by copying what was happening in the "Republic of Crimea" article. I am happy with Mzajac's change to "settlement", and the same should occur at the Republic of Crimea article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead

In the lead, in the second paragraph, it states: Ukraine viewed the DPR and the LPR as terrorist organisations and as Russian puppet states, with the majority of the international community sharing these views. However, Ukraine was the only country to designate LPR/DPR as terrorist organizations. That part also seems to be unsourced too. This needs clarification. Mellk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

You can separate out the "puppet state" part from the "terrorist organisation" part. Indeed, I believe that a lot of countries did view the DPR/LPR as puppet states, but the "terrorist organisation" designation is much more specific, and in that sense most countries probably didn't actually formally list the DPR/LPR as terrorist organisations in the official list/s. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Antyufeyev, where are you?

Disappointed that in all the talk of seemingly native separatists and mentions of ill-defined Russian backing there is no indication of the Deputy Prime Minister of Donetsk since 2014, Vladimir Antyufeyev.

• As an OMON officer in Latvia backed the 1991 coup.
• He and his unit murdered Latvian freedom demonstrators.
• He and his unit were transplanted by Viktor Alksnis into Moldova's Transnistria.
• His unit shot up an ambulance killing two (as I recall), blamed it on Moldovan terrorists, and used it as a pretext for Russia (let's be clear on who was in charge) to establish martial law.
• He served as "PMR" Minister of Security under an assumed name for two decades (until 2012).
• He was then transplanted to Ukraine where he resurfaced as Deputy Prime Minister of Donetsk in July of 2014 after the illegal Crimean annexation was completed—that is, the Kremlin moved on to its next target for annexation.

Let's not forget the Crimean referendum results were less than 25% support for joining Russia in line with past declining support, results accidentally released online then deleted. The recent referendum conducted door to door at gunpoint is even more tainted.

There is also no mention of Russian "volunteers" being disposed of in mobile crematoria as the separatists battled Ukrainian forces over the past 8 years before Russia's official non-invasion special military operation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Split article

We should split this article in two: one for the Puppet state from 2014-2022, one for the current Russian republic. WikiManUser21 (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

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

  Related: Talk:Luhansk People's Republic#Split article.  —Michael Z. 18:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donetsk People's Republic (Russia). Panam2014 (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Woah, sheesh... WikiManUser21 (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's the same entity. The same institution, just with different branding. It is original research to suggest that the DPR from 2014-2022 is a different entity from the DPR from 2022-present. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Not needed at this moment. Segaton (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per the deletion discussion of the Russian republic article. Nothing actually changed. Same polity, same government, same leaders, same allegiances, same name, same symbols. The only difference is they no longer publicly deny being led by Moscow.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per the previously made points, also there are no RS's to distinguish the two articles as separate. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, but pls improve the article by adding "Republic of Russia" in the infobox. WikiManUser21 (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  That was there before and it has since been removed to maintain an NPOV. The DPR is a claimed/disputed republic of Russia, not an internationally recognised one. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Split article

We should split this article in two: one for the Puppet state from 2014-2022, one for the current Russian republic. WikiManUser21 (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

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

  Related: Talk:Luhansk People's Republic#Split article.  —Michael Z. 18:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donetsk People's Republic (Russia). Panam2014 (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Woah, sheesh... WikiManUser21 (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's the same entity. The same institution, just with different branding. It is original research to suggest that the DPR from 2014-2022 is a different entity from the DPR from 2022-present. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Not needed at this moment. Segaton (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per the deletion discussion of the Russian republic article. Nothing actually changed. Same polity, same government, same leaders, same allegiances, same name, same symbols. The only difference is they no longer publicly deny being led by Moscow.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per the previously made points, also there are no RS's to distinguish the two articles as separate. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, but pls improve the article by adding "Republic of Russia" in the infobox. WikiManUser21 (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  That was there before and it has since been removed to maintain an NPOV. The DPR is a claimed/disputed republic of Russia, not an internationally recognised one. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)