Talk:International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic

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

Nicaragua[edit]

Should they not be listed next to Syria for their similar stance? https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/nicaraguas-ortega-defends-russias-stance-over-ukraine-2022-02-22/ --Magnús Hjálmarsson (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2022 (GMT+1)

Representative office in Turin, Italy[edit]

@Derim Hunt - By definition, a representative office that is "unrecogised by the host state" is not a real representative office, let alone an embassy. I have explained to you several times exactly why this is the case, and yet you have repeatedly refused to accept my analysis, have labelled my removal of the contents from the other article as "vandalism", and have now inserted this misleading content into the current article. It goes without saying that I will promptly remove it again, and I think you should not add it back in unless you provide very good reasoning in this section here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to myself... The closest thing I can find to an "International representation of country" article is "List of diplomatic missions of Taiwan" or "List of diplomatic missions in Taiwan" (or insert any other country there). A diplomatic mission is basically an embassy or a quasi-embassy. A quasi-embassy is an institution that behaves as an embassy in all but name (i.e. the two countries don't have official diplomatic relations), and it's recognised by both the guest state and the host state in its limited capacity. If the embassy is not recognised by both parties, then it becomes a pseudo-embassy since it's unofficial at that point. Therefore, in my view, the only correct way to interpret the "International representation of DPR and LPR" article is as a list of diplomatic missions. And in this sense, most of the contents of the article was misleading given that a lot of these diplomatic missions weren't actually recognised by the host state, making them pseudo-embassies. @Derim Hunt, who originally created and wrote most of the contents of the now-deleted article, claims that I have "no idea what I'm talking about", and also "no idea what he is talking about". However, he has neglected to explain exactly what he is talking about, so as far as I can tell, I'm correct in my analysis. He has not yet provided a coherent response as to how I'm wrong about these DPR/LPR embassies being "pseudo-embassies" on account of being not officially recognised. He has also admitted that these pseudo-embassies are not officially recognised, as seen in this edit: 1. If these institutions are not embassies, then what are they? And if they aren't embassies, then are they even NOTABLE enough to be written about on Wikipedia in the first place? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never included misleading information in any Wikipedia article in context with the so-called DNR and LNR. The user Jargo Nautilus has no clue of the para-diplomacy of non-recognized states and is eager to delete information regarding the two separatist republics. The representation offices already led to problems in Italian-Ukrainian relations (as was written in the Jamestown article) and the information should be included in this article (after the last article was deleted after vandalism). Derim Hunt (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is "para-diplomacy"? Please define this term, as I've defined my own jargonistic terms above. Because, as it stands, this term means nothing to me until you define it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Literally the opening sentence of that article that you've hyperlinked above is "Paradiplomacy is international relations conducted by subnational, regional or local governments."
By this definition, are you saying that Donetsk and Luhansk are subnational, regional or local governments? Because, as far as I'm aware, they are claiming to be independent sovereign states. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

For anyone wondering what is the background of this dispute... Basically, an article previously existed with a nearly identical title to the current one, except that it was about "representation" rather than "recognition" (honestly, these two words are nearly synonyms and they should have never been separate on this basis alone). The article was primarily about the embassies of the DPR and LPR, which is a very close topic to the current article. Most of the embassies in the article were not real embassies because they had been unilaterally established by the DPR and LPR, and they did not at all represent any kind of official state-to-state relations. As such, I deleted most of this information on the charge of being FRINGE. After I had deleted all of the FRINGE information, the article was left with just the embassies of Russia and South Ossetia, making it very short. I then suggested that the article be deleted due to not being NOTABLE. Another editor ended up deleting the article on the charge of "POVFORKING". The information about the Russian and South Ossetian representation has been deleted in the process. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Representation and recognition are not "nearly synonyms". I hope, someone adult will raise her/his voice in this discussion and end the vandalism of one certain member of the Wikipedia community. Derim Hunt (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two titles of the articles look nearly identical. Also, please point me in the direction of another article that has the title "international representation of such and such". Because, as of yet, I can't find one. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure the “representation” article did not pass WP:notability requirements and I support its deletion. The three Italian offices are only mentioned in the Jamestown article about Italy–Ukraine relations in passing. I notice that it characterizes them as “quasi-diplomatic offices are lobbying for the separatist cause,” and tries to strike a balance by quoting sources that call them “illegal” and “symbolic.”

This article has some WP:due weight problems. I don’t really care if it mentions that DLNR have fake embassies to try to look legitimate, but that is trivial and and deserves no more than a passing mention.

But does this article really deserve a huge list of recognition and non-recognition status with each and every state? Do we have such lists for uncontroversially real states? Looks like it’s working much too hard to get attention. Can we not boil this down to a paragraph essentially saying that almost no one recognizes them?

In terms of recognition, the most important thing is that the Russian Federation has been using these republics that have existed completely at its whim for eight years against the sovereignty of Ukraine, and has really upped the game starting from February 21. That’s what 85% of a recognition article should be about. The rest only serves to artificially inflate the legitimacy of these manufactured Russian dependencies. —Michael Z. 03:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no mention if the representation offices are only mentioned in passing. But currently, they are deleted – again. They could be used as unofficial channels and the public needs to know, that they exist. I don't understand, why the mentioning is always deleted here. Derim Hunt (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained to you already how Taiwan, a state with limited recognition, has representative offices too. However, the key difference is that these are REAL embassies that are only not named as such in order to not anger the People's Republic of China, which claims Taiwan as its territory. These Taiwan representative offices actually serve the purpose of a real embassy, exchanging passports and other official diplomatic services, but they are often named under euphemisms like "cultural and economic office of Taipei".
Meanwhile, the so-called representative offices of the DPR and LPR don't actually have the capacity to carry out official diplomatic services, at least not in a degree that would be deemed legal by the host state (i.e. the country that the embassy is located inside of). DPR and LPR embassies are literally just advocation agencies of the DPR and LPR, serving absolutely zero purpose as a diplomatic institution for civilians. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia actually has a highly-detailed article about this exact topic that I'm discussing. --> De facto embassy || Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"But does this article really deserve a huge list of recognition and non-recognition status with each and every state? Do we have such lists for uncontroversially real states? Looks like it’s working much too hard to get attention. Can we not boil this down to a paragraph essentially saying that almost no one recognizes them?"
--> Thank you @Michael Z. for this. The pages (also concerning the Georgian occupied territories) get way too detailed - as they have close to universal non-recognition which could be duly noted. As for the unofficial "representative" level, a sentence in passing noting that the regions proxy leaders prop up their quasi-legitimacy with unofficial and unrecognized offices in third countries would be enough, add a reference and that's it. What would be truly interesting and possibly informing for a reader is to try to explain why certain countries are targeted for unofficial representation (such as Italy, which is also a specific target for South Ossetia with unofficial reps). Labrang (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that near-universal non-recognition is not necessarily a grounds for exclusion. The main example I would point to is Somaliland, which, as far as I can tell, is basically the East African version of Taiwan. Somaliland has absolutely zero official recognition from UN member states, yet it is unequivocally an independent country in all but name (at least, according to the way that I see it). The main reason that I think Somaliland is legitimate is that it doesn't have a patron state, so it's basically an entirely self-contained entity, which removes any notion that it might be a puppet state under the control of an outside power. With that being said, Somaliland might be an exception to the rule. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points and I agree. Labrang (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Somaliland's patron state is Ethiopia and the yellow press "arguments" by Jorge have nothing to do with real international relations. –– Derim Hunt (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no convincing evidence that Ethiopia is a patron state of Somaliland. If anything, the biggest supporter of Somaliland is the United Kingdom, but even that relationship is one of apathy and neglect. So, please stop spouting nonsense, Russian activist. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Internationally renowned scholars like Francis Owtram write that "Ethiopia plays the role of a patron state for Somaliland", but I guess that is irrelevant because the great Wikipedia user Jargo Nautilus considers IR scholars writers of "fringe nonsense". – Derim Hunt (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The context here is misleading, although the writer does explain it in the first paragraph that you cited. Indeed, the only reason for Ethiopia to have any interest in Somaliland is in order to have access to a sea port. However, you will notice that Ethiopia doesn't just use Somaliland for access to the sea; it has also used Eritrea and Djibouti in the past, just whomever is available. Furthermore, this only indicates that Somaliland and Ethiopia have strong strategic mutual interests. It doesn't indicate that Ethiopia somehow fabricated and created Somaliland out of nothing. On the other hand, evidence does suggest that the Donetsk and Luhansk PRs were initially created and subsequently controlled by Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Russian activist, this is one of the first articles I've found upon searching for Somaliland's relationship with Ethiopia. The article was written on January 5, 2022, in the context of the Ethiopian Civil War (Tigray War). | Ethiopia preparing for war with Somaliland | Quote: "It would take hours, if not days, for Somaliland to muster its forces to repel an Ethiopian invasion." | Now, if Somaliland is actually a client state of Ethiopia, then why would Somaliland be needing to fend off a potential invasion from Ethiopia in a territorial conflict? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not only South Ossetia, but Abkhazia as well.
It is included in the article with one sentence and one footnote now.
–– Derim Hunt (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Abkhazia as well. Wasn't a deliberate exclusion ;-) Labrang (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(In reply to "Looks like it’s working much too hard to get attention.") - I think the issue here is that Wikipedia editors are unwilling to differentiate between an "unrecognised state" and a "quasi-state", so they are working through the "one drop rule" to determine whether such an entity is noteworthy enough to be written about in the conventional manner. Taiwan is the most obvious example of a legitimate "unrecognised state", i.e. a state that exists in all but name. I don't think anyone aside from the Chinese seriously believes that Taiwan doesn't exist, considering that it has a population of 25 million citizens, many of whom are quite vocal about their situation, and even many of the non-vocal ones are still noticed worldwide due to the economic and geopolitical significance of the island on a global scale (mainly due to the US-China and Japan-China rivalries). With other entities that have limited recognition, it is more controversial on whether to even regard them as a "state" or instead as a non-state entity. The others that are commonly cited are Palestine, Kosovo, Western Sahara (Sahrawi ADR), Northern Cyprus, Donetsk PR, Luhansk PR, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh), and Somaliland. Out of all of these, I would say that Somaliland is non-suspicious considering that it doesn't have an obvious patron state and is basically just in a 1vs1 dispute with Somalia. This is ironic considering that Somaliland is the only one out of these with no official recognition from any state, although it has unofficial recognition from the United Kingdom, Taiwan, and others. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, this article does serve one major function. In the face of increasing pressure from the Russian government (which is currently at war with Wikipedia!) and pro-Russian activists, this article serves as the definitive authority on the political status of the DPR and the LPR. Russian activists will never stop trying to write more articles about the DPR and the LPR. This article is basically a big slap in the face, saying that "this list of ~70 countries opposes Russia's recognition of the DPR and the LPR". There is no way for Russian activists to bypass this article. On the other hand, if we were to delete this article, they would simply recreate this article to their own liking. Which, in my opinion, would be a worse scenario if left unchecked. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the state that the "Representation DPR LPR" article was in before I started editing it. - International representation of DPR and LPR (Old Revision) || Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the orginal is a lot more direct. The list of those opposing recognition includes those with ambiguous positions, such as China. The citations do not reflect clear opposition to the recognition. They simply have not recognized the breakaway states.
One solution is to change "Opposing Recognition" to "Nations not Recognizing".
From citation on China's stance:
"Wang Wenbin: China’s position on the Ukraine issue is consistent. We believe that all countries’ security interests should be respected and upheld. True security should be common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable." Debiant (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have made this change, as it clarifies that while positions differ, none of those listed officially recognize sovereignty. Debiant (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal[edit]

I propose that the section “Positions taken by states and organizations” be split into a separate list called “List of positions taken by states and organizations on recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic.”

The list is too long and detracts from the article. The prose section has about 580 words, while the list has over 4,700.

The list is also not encyclopedic, doesn’t meet basic notability as a standalone list per WP:LISTN. (If there are sources that support its inclusion by treating the entire group as a subject, please link them.)

And so doesn’t belong because WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. After splitting, it should be subject to a deletion proposal. —Michael Z. 17:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That title is a bit absurdly long, but yes, I do think it's common practice to create a sub-article when a sub-section of a main article becomes larger than the rest of the main article itself. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My main area of "expertise" is Taiwan, although I am interested in various other countries and territories. Taiwan is arguably the most important state with limited recognition in the world (not counting China, Cyprus, Israel, etc.). The interesting thing about Taiwan's situation on Wikipedia is that it doesn't actually have an article titled "International recognition of Taiwan (Republic of China)". Instead, Taiwan has two articles that cover this topic to some degree, namely "Foreign relations of Taiwan" and "Political status of Taiwan". Note that the former article implies that Taiwan is indeed a country with foreign relations, rather than a mere breakaway state. If anything, this article about Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR should be renamed to "Political status of the Donbas region", or something along those lines. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, except this is not about the historical mining region but about the Russian proxy governments. How about Political status of Russian separatists in the Donbas or Political status of Russian separatists in Ukraine, to borrow the language of news media? —Michael Z. 13:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "...Russian separatists in the Donbas" is more accurate since "...Russian separatists in Ukraine" is not precise enough, given that the majority of sources discuss the Donbas republics primarily, almost completely ignoring the other proposed Russian-backed republics in other parts of Ukraine, such as the "Kharkiv People's Republic". In order to be more specific, we have to go with "Donbas", which is a shorthand for "Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic", because that's just too long for an article title.
The title that I'm happy with is "Political status of Russian breakaway republics in the Donbas". The alternative "Russian separatists" doesn't make as much sense, in my opinion. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the republics are partly Russian in nature, having been founded by Russians and Russian agents (Borodai, Girkin, Bolotov, Pashkov, etcetera), having a number of (“former”) Russian government officials on their governments, having stated the intention of becoming part of Russia, having imposed Russian passportization (presumably all or most of “Ukrainian” leadership are now Russian citizens too), Russian ruble, language, education system, religion, and being armed by and dependent on Russia for their existence. Since the start of the open invasion, more sources are now referring to the territory as Russian controlled or occupied rather than separatist-controlled.
There are now planned referendums for Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Russian separatist republics where much of the same Russification is being imposed, with little pretence of local support.
Donbas is shorthand for the two Donbas oblasts of Ukraine, not for “Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic,” which occupy territory in the Donbas (and there’s now a claim to territory outside of it, in Rozivka).[1] That title is not too long, if those are the words it takes to represent the subject. —Michael Z. 17:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, the title that I've proposed is roughly equally as long as the title that is already in use. However, the distinction is that this title is much broader in scope than the current title, which I think might be very useful for reshaping the narrative that is being presented by this article at the moment. As you have mentioned before, this article has an undue weight problem and perhaps doesn't reflect a neutral point of view. On the other hand, an article that discusses the entire political status of these two breakaway republics will allow for alternative points of view, i.e. aside from just advocation for the recognition of these two republics as sovereign states, which is the current state of this article.
By the way, the title itself, despite being a bit oddly-worded, has some interesting features. The usage of "Russian" as an adjective to describe the two breakaway republics might be controversial, but it's a preferrable shorthand to "Russian-backed", "Russian-controlled", or "pro-Russian". The two breakaway republics are simply Russian. Meanwhile, the two quasi-states can indeed be described as "breakaway republics"; this matches both their COMMONNAME as well as their technical status. As for the final detail, "in the Donbas", this is used as an alternative to "Donbas, Ukraine" or "Ukraine". "Donbas, Ukraine" won't work since the Donbas is not an official internal subdivision of Ukraine but instead a broader historical region (compare: Siberia in Russia). Meanwhile, the fact that "Ukraine" is omitted means that we are not definitively taking Ukraine's side in the conflict, although we are inferring that Donbas does indeed belong to Ukraine (which you can figure out if you search for the "Donbas" article on Wikipedia or simply read the introduction of this very article). With that being said, the descriptor "Russian" (for the breakaway republics) implies that we are taking the position that the breakaway republics are indeed associated with Russia, rather than completely independent from Russia. So, this title presents a POV that is simultaneously negative towards Russia and yet not entirely positive towards Ukraine either. A middle ground, if you will. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of differing POV versions of this title that I've suggested.
1) "Political status of independent sovereign states in western Russia" --> Comically pro-Russia
2) "Political status of sovereign states in the Donbas region of Russia"
3) "Political status of self-declared states in the Donbas region"
4) "Political status of breakaway republics in the Donbas" --> Middle ground minus anti-Russian POV
5) "Political status of Russian breakaway republics in the Donbas" --> Middle ground with anti-Russian POV
6) "Political status of Russian puppet states in the Donbas area"
7) "Political status of Russian proxies in the Donbas provinces of Ukraine"
8) "Political status of Russian separatist entities in eastern Ukraine" --> Comically pro-Ukraine Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop moving the Overton window. No. 8 is neither comical nor objectively inaccurate or non-neutral: every word is objectively accurate and supportable by reliable sources. Of course we can’t be unaware of the irony of “Russian separatists” in Ukraine, but the media routinely refers to Russian intelligence colonel Girkin as a “separatist leader.” —Michael Z. 17:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the one who has moved the window. Indeed, even my "moderate" suggestions would be deemed biased by certain editors here at Wikipedia. The DPR and LPR-related articles are mostly low-key. Activity surrounding these articles is very uncommon, which is why so much nonsense written by Russian activists gets codified into law, such as that ridiculous "International representation of DPR and LPR" article, which has recently been revised and deleted. On the other hand, activity surrounding the actual invasion of Ukraine is extraordinarily intense. But anyway, in my experience, articles surrounding the country of Taiwan, which I'm more familiar with personally, are often placed under extreme unwarranted scrutiny by hawkish partisans. In comparison, the DPR and LPR articles are under barely any scrutiny. However, if they were, my so-called "neutral" suggestions for the title of this article would not be deemed acceptable. I am presenting a title suggestion that I believe is just barely acceptable enough to avoid being reverted by a hawkish editor if they happen to walk by this article. Anything that explicitly advocates a pro-Ukrainian view, no matter how accurate it is, will be an immediate candidate for deletion by these people. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mzajac - Are we going to move this article or not? My proposed title is still "Political status of Russian breakaway republics in the Donbas", unless you can come up with a better alternative. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble following t all the previous discussion, but that title sounds acceptable to me. —Michael Z. 13:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure how to go about this, but considering that this is a major and potentially controversial change, I think we are going to have to use a "Requested Move" process in order to make this change, rather than just do it unilaterally. There also needs to be some serious planning of how to arrange all of the other information related to this issue. i.e. where do we slot in everything else, what is the main topic of discussion, article structure, etc. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With that being said, in the meantime, we can definitely already start a "Proposed Split" process to move the information about "responses to the Russian recognition" outside of this article. Obviously, that will create a new article rather than condense all of the information together, but it's definitely a lot easier and less controversial to do this than to move (rename) this entire article. The information about the responses might not be of high notability, but the information has already been compiled, and it seems pretty accurate and has reliable sources. So, we will then have to have a separate discussion about how notable the information is. In my opinion, the information will almost certainly remain standing, i.e. the split-off article will not get deleted, considering how much information there is and that reliable sources have been used to back it up. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I think your attention should be drawn to two other major anomalies on Wikipedia regarding the DPR and LPR. Firstly, both quasi-states have been included in the list "list of states with limited recognition". Secondly, both quasi-states currently possess templates about their foreign relations, despite the lack of articles about their foreign relations. --> Template:Foreign relations of the Donetsk People's Republic; Template:Foreign relations of the Luhansk People's Republic. They currently also possess lists titled "List of diplomatic missions of the Donetsk People's Republic" and "List of diplomatic missions of the Luhansk People's Republic", but these lists are easily eligible for deletion (not just redirecting them, but fully deleting them). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR subsections: "Recognition and international relations"[edit]

The DPR and LPR main articles on Wikipedia each have a subsection title "Recognition and international relations" (for the DPR, and for the LPR). Around two weeks ago, I heavily revised the structures of both the DPR and LPR articles, mainly in the introduction but also in the various subsections as well. The DPR article already had a decently well-written section about recognition and international relations, but the LPR's corresponding section was a bit lacking, so I rewrote the LPR's version whilst leaving the DPR's version as it originally was.

I have noticed that both the DPR and LPR articles essentially have longer prose in these subsections than this article has in its own introduction. When adding in this article's subsection "History and current state", the prose is slightly longer, but not by much. Meanwhile, the rest of this article is just the main list, "Positions taken by states and organizations", which is potentially a slightly off-topic discussion that deserves its own separate article.

To me, this a bit silly considering that the subsections of the DPR and LPR have a "Main article" template at the top that directs readers to go to this article in order to find more information. However, this article doesn't exactly have much more information in the prose parts. Indeed, to some degree, it has even less information than the original DPR and LPR articles' subsections. This article primarily has more information contained within the main list, but, as I said, it is a bit off-topic. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've gone ahead and rewritten both of these two sections again. Now, they look nearly identical to one another. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WAIT (Split Proposal might not be the best option here)[edit]

I just said I was going to do a split proposal a few minutes ago, but I just realised something. If we were to split the article "List of positions..." out of this article, then the actual contents of this article that would be left over would be meaningless. There's almost nothing of substance in this article apart from the "List of positions". Effectively, this means that the main topic of the article *is* the list of positions. Which, effectively, means that we are looking (again) towards changing the scope of the article altogether, albeit not to as severe degree as making a "Political status..." article, as I suggested in the sections above.

Indeed, what I think we actually have to do is to rename this article from "International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic" to "Russian recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic". You see, around 90% of this article exclusively talks about Russia's recognition of the DPR and the LPR, more so than any other country's recognition (e.g. Syria and North Korea, especially). Furthermore, the huge portion of the article that talks about international reactions to the recognition is basically a subsidiary of this topic of Russian recognition. Further still, the majority of the responses to the recognition, as well as the act of Russian recognition itself, took place at a very specific time in history; the 21st of February, 2022, and the days and weeks following from that. Overall, this article's de facto scope is actually based on a single event that took place within a single country, i.e. the event of recognition, taking place in Russia (or by the Russian government). So, the scope of the article is clearly a lot narrower than "international recognition". There's hardly any international recognition to speak of; it's basically just Russia and Russia's proxies.

Overall, I suggest that we rename this article to "Russian recognition...". Awaiting a response from Mzajac. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More analysis (Split proposal)

Tbh, this whole situation may prove fruitless. As seen with this Wikipedia search, the title "international recognition of (insert polity here)" is overwhelmingly a common name of articles of a similar type. --> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=international+recognition+of&go=Go&ns0=1

Articles of a similar type pertain to: Abkhazia (with South Ossetia), Bangladesh, Israel, Kosovo, Palestine (state), Sahrawi ADR (Western Sahara), Transnistria, Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (regime).

Similar topics that have a different type of title include: Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh), Crimea, Somaliland, Taiwan (v2). The alternative titles are generally either "political status" or "foreign relations", if not both. <-- Indeed, this provides an argument for transferring the title of the DPR-LPR recognition article to "political status".

The main article "international recognition" redirects to "diplomatic recognition".

Well, overall, we can see that there's about a 70% lean towards "international recognition" and a 30% lean towards "political status" (or foreign relations). So, clearly, international recognition is winning here. With that being said, there aren't that many articles of this type to begin with, so we only have a really small sample space to compare. As for the main article, that article isn't necessarily an authority on the primary topic, since we have no way of knowing exactly how notable that topic is as opposed to the redirect destination.

Overall, this may be way too much over-analysis, but it could even be useful for other articles of a similar type, such as the Abkhazia (with South Ossetia) one. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed one special article on Wikipedia that could actually support my argument for moving this article to "Russian recognition" as opposed to "international recognition". That article is: United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel. Indeed, surprisingly, this article has a huge amount of diverse content, for such a seemingly simple topic. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another similar article that uses something else instead of "international recognition": Political status of the Cook Islands and Niue (see also: Foreign relations of the Cook Islands, Foreign relations of Niue). These two don't 100% fit the bill since they are not really separatist regions but are instead dependencies of New Zealand that are seeking greater sovereignty through legal means. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of this article (it's relevant)[edit]

Surprisingly, this article was actually created on May 21, 2019, which can easily be checked in the article's history navigator. The first revision is here: 1. I was surprised to discover this information just a few minutes ago, since I thought this article would have been made directly as a reaction to the Russian recognition on February 21, 2022. The fact that the article was initially created much earlier than this is both interesting and concerning. For one thing, it suggests that the original creation of the article was purely based on ORIGINAL RESEARCH rather than on any tangible notability. This topic has really only become notable starting from February 21, 2022, or perhaps in the prior leadup to this event (Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). The article really should not have existed between May 21, 2019 and February 21, 2022. It would have been easily eligible for deletion. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the article - An update[edit]

Bearing in mind that I've discussed the title of this article extensively in the recent past, I believe that the current title of the article is the best option. This is because the current title is precisely correct. Ostensibly, there are two self-declared republics. Regardless of whether you personally recognise them or not, these two republics are both seeking international recognition as sovereign states. Prior to 2022, this would have been considered an UNDUE WEIGHT issue because the DPR and LPR could be seen as "fringe" movements. However, now that Russia, a real country, has recognised the DPR and LPR as real countries, the issue simply cannot be ignored. Russia's recognition of the DPR and the LPR has the exact same weight as Turkey's recognition of Northern Cyprus, for example. Regardless of the validity of Russia's recognition, it is extremely significant in the eyes of international law. Two other countries have also recognised the DPR and LPR, namely Syria and North Korea. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for the massive list of countries saying "we explicitly don't recognise the DPR and LPR", I believe that this list should stay in the article, despite how cumbersome it might be. There's simply no better alternative; we cannot split off this list considering that it makes up around 90% of the content of this article. There is also no appropriate way to create an article around the split-off information... I can't think of a good title for such an article or a good way to frame it. The current arrangement is the best. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for a "foreign relations" article about the DPR and LPR, well, I believe that any information about this topic should basically just be thrown into this article. I agree that it is preferrable to reduce the number of content-fork articles about the DPR and LPR if possible. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-supporting “supporters”[edit]

The heading “Countries and entities that supported recognizing the DPR and LPR as independent states” is silly, because it lists countries that refused to recognize the DLNR’s independence. They literally belong under “Countries and entities that did not recognize the DPR and LPR as independent states,” but because someone was recorded making noises sympathetic to Russia, they are omitted from that section and re-defined as “supporters” that didn’t actually support.

Is this a group defined by any source, per WP:LISTN? The quotations can be included in the article text, or elsewhere as appropriate, but this article section and misleading heading should be removed unless it’s backed by WP:RS.  —Michael Z. 20:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree this is very strange. Perhaps that content still can be included as "Reactions" by the non-recognizing countries. My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_the_Donetsk_People%27s_Republic_and_the_Luhansk_People%27s_Republic&oldid=1212833093"