Talk:Donetsk People's Republic/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Infobox size

Something's wrong with the infobox. It's too big. I think it has something to do with @Mzajac editing the map captions. Have a look at the Luhansk PR article's infobox as well. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, Done. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

"Considered" vs "Recognised" by the United Nations as part of Ukraine

@Kashmiri - I noticed that you changed the status in the info-box from "Recognised by the United Nations as part of Ukraine" to "Considered by the United Nations as (to be) part of Ukraine". From what I can tell, you are technically correct since the United Nations doesn't have the capacity to "recognise" sovereign states. With that being said, in all of the other Wikipedia articles where this is applicable, namely Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Artsakh, Northern Cyprus, and Somaliland, the descriptor "recognised" is used instead of "considered". Note: The other states with limited recognition all have more complex situations; Taiwan doesn't even have a status entry, whereas Kosovo, Palestine and Western Sahara (SADR) have more nuanced status entries. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that no status descriptor would be be best. As far as I gather, the UN considers the land claimed by the DPR to be part of Ukraine, however it has no consideration whatsoever towards the quasi-state; it's a nothingburger as regards legal recognition. Much like I'm not aware of any UN statement "recognising", say, the state of Kansas as a part of the US. Or, am I wrong? — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Some UNGA resolutions referred to a commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders, extending to its territorial waters:

• United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262
• United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1

 —Michael Z. 22:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes - to territory, i.e., land (... Deplores the 21 February 2022 decision by the Russian Federation related to the status of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine), and not to the (quasi-)legal entities called "republics". Land vs administrative structure. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2022

In the article the form of governance of DPR is listed as "Puppet state" but citations #7 and #8 dont substantiate that claim. 174.215.222.51 (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Both citations clearly call it a puppet state. Citation 7 even does so in the title of the article. — Czello 07:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The discussions we had here did not deliver a clear consensus on how to best describe the legal status of the Republics. If I'm not wrong, the two main options are to retain "breakaway puppet quasi-state" or to adopt "Russian-supported breakaway state" (other plausible options are "partially recognised state", as Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Kosovo, and/or "Russian client state"). In the next few days I intend to open an RfC on this.

I have one doubt though. The question(s) will be substantially identical for Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples’ Republics. Should we have two separate RfC on the two talk pages or should we rather have one single RfC here and link to the RfC on the talk page of LPR? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

"Partially-recognised state" is a big no-no because there is not enough evidence that the DPR and LPR are actually functionally able to be classified as states. At best, they are "statelets" or "quasi-states" or "proto-states". If they are truly puppet states of Russia, then it goes without saying that they aren't really states in that scenario either.

"Russian-supported breakaway (quasi-)state" is potentially a viable option. I lean in favour of "breakaway puppet quasi-state". We have to refer to them as quasi-states, not as states. And "client state" is also problematic since that suggests proper statehood, more so than "quasi-state".

Personally, I believe that your intention to hold such an RFC is an indication of your sympathies towards the Russian war effort, but I will first try and debate this RFC proposal civilly.

@Mzajac, you may want to look into this. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The "statehood" of a self-declared state is on a spectrum. Kosovo leans towards being fully functional as a sovereign state. South Ossetia and Abkhazia aren't really as functional. The DPR and the LPR are either the same level of functionality as South Ossetia and Abkhazia or significantly less functional. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The Eastern Donbas is not free. https://freedomhouse.org/country/eastern-donbas/freedom-world/2022 Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

What constitutes a "state"? Are Donetsk and Luhansk less of states organisationally than, say, Nauru or Tuvalu? How can we measure that? We see that Donetsk and Luhansk have a more evolved and advanced administration than many microstates. At what level of organisation do we draw a line between a state and a non-state? — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

One of the main objections to recognising the statehood of the DPR and LPR is that it is unclear how much of the territory is controlled by Russia directly versus by the proxy DPR and LPR governments.

In this sense, we cannot define the DPR and LPR by land boundaries (such as depicted in the info-box maps), but only by their self-declared authorities.

It is not possible at the moment to declare that the lands claimed by the DPR and LPR are under the effective control of the two regimes. As I've argued before, Russia is the ultimate sovereign after the February 2022 invasion, controlling occupied territories directly in the midst of its war against Ukraine. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

We might only be able to make an informed assessment of the situation after the war in Ukraine completely ends. However, by that point, the territories that are claimed by the DPR and the LPR may very well be completely retaken by Ukraine. At the end of the day, these discussions may be rendered moot in the event that both statelets are completely disintegrated, which is a real possibility at this rate. It might have been possible to determine the situation before the war, but it certainly isn't possible now whilst the war is at its height. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

As for Nauru and Tuvalu, I would say that both of these entities are countries (or almost that). Nauru's territory is not actively claimed by another country, so no one is really contesting its status (which is an important distinction!). Tuvalu is somewhere in-between being a country and being a dependency of New Zealand. New Zealand doesn't really claim Tuvalu's land directly, but it effectively operates a protectorate over Tuvalu. Most micro-states are not accepted as countries because their land is actively claimed by an established sovereign state, so bringing up that topic is not very helpful in my opinion. The better comparisons would be with other partially-recognised entities, such as Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, and Artsakh. These entities are what you should be discussing, not Nauru and Tuvalu. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand that you're eager to further discuss the substantive issue, but I intended this section to address the procedural question: should we have one single RfC (Donetsk + Luhansk PR) or two separate ones (DPR and LPR)?

Besides, we could discuss here the formulation of the questions. What about the following draft?

There are three questions on the legal status of the Donetsk and Luhansk "Peoples’ Republics":

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

I ping some editors who might want to share their views on this: @Czello, JArthur1984, Alaexis, and Mzajac: Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The first point is definitely hard to prove, whereas the second point can probably more easily be proved. So, in all likelihood, if the first can't be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, then we will probably go with the second.

As for having a joint RfC, well, logically, we should. However, I've previously suggested to merge the two articles into one (i.e. merge "DPR" and "LPR" into a single "Donbas breakaway republics"), but that was strongly rejected. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not necessary to use the scare quotes for "People's Republics", because regardless of what we characterize these geopolitical groupings as, those are their names.

I generally agree with this formulation.

But is this an article-wide question, or a question of how it should be described in the lead? We should specify.

My own position on this was based on how it should be characterized in the lead (the first sentence, if I recall correctly) JArthur1984 (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that these questions concern how to characterize DPR and LPR in the lead section and do not impinge upon the content of the article. I'll avoid the scare quotes, as suggested. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and I think this is a prudent and wise to address in RfC. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Human Rights section

I cleaned-up manual templates "Undue weight" and "duplication" because I didn't see here on talk page comments about "Human Rights" what to clean-up or rewrite. PoetVeches (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The relevant comments might have been archived by a bot. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Ooops, yes, there was a big discussion on archive re Human Rights that I didn't notice. Thank you for acknowledgement. If you think there an urgent need for the maintenance templates, you can back them. My opinion, it looks there is just a need to shorten a bit the section (and all article), because the article looks very long. PoetVeches (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2022

Change the formatting to "was" rather than "is", as the republic is no longer extant as of today, September 30, 2022. It is now de facto absorbed into Russia. 85.250.40.179 (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Not quite, see discussion above, needs Duma ratification. Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Annexation

DPR and LPR and Kherson and Zaporijia will be annexed tomorrow. Should we change the infobox like to Republic of Crimea? Panam2014 (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

It'll probably shift that way, and we'll see what reliable sources say happens. Procedurally though, I don't think there is a need for an RfC here given an event that hasn't happened yet alongside no previous discussion. CMD (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: it will occur on next hours. Panam2014 (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

It probably will, but I can't read the WP:Reliable sources that will come out after that now. CMD (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree, best to wait, I removed the RFC tag pending developments and more discussion prior to any RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

And now? Panam2014 (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Lol. You do realize that WP is not a breaking news channel, right? Read the notice at top of 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine. What's the big hurry, let's collect up some RS. Also we should see what is being done for Luhansk People's Republic and others. Selfstudier (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The annexation is official. Panam2014 (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I also have seen it in my news feeds. Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It needs ratification by Duma to be 100% official? Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and Putin needs to sign it. The DPR has not ceased to exist yet and the article for "Donetsk People's Republic (Russia)" should be deleted. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I moved that one to Draft:Donetsk People's Republic (Russia). I don’t think a new article about the thing should be created just to legitimize Putin’s signature. —Michael Z. 22:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I propose to split the article into the DPR/LPR (2014-2022) and the DPR/LPR (subject of Russia) PLATEL (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I saw for Crimea there two articles, Republic of Crimea as well as Autonomous Republic of Crimea but then there is not a Russian occupation of... article as there is for these newly annexed areas. Selfstudier (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Since the DNR and LNR existed as de facto breakaway states for numerous years (unlike Crimea), new articles should be created for present Donetsk and Luhansk. MicroSupporter (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree. This article is about the Donetsk People's Republic, an independent state for 8 years. From now on, this state ceases to be independent, ceases to be a country, and becomes a new federal subject within the Russian Federation. This requires a new article. Vgaiyfi (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock

There is Donetsk People's Republic (Russia) being prepared, I see. I didn't look for others. Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It hasn’t been a real state nor independent. Please don’t write that in articles. —Michael Z. 22:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we need a RfC.--Panam2014 (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

If you don't know how to set up an RFC properly, please don't try to do it. If there is agreement, it is possible that we may decide without an RFC. I would have thought the problem is the same as for Luhansk, do we need to do it twice? Selfstudier (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, is it this article you want to change or Donetsk People's Republic (Russia)? Selfstudier (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The question is controversial. So we need a proper RfC. Panam2014 (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Which question? Originally you said "change the infobox like to Republic of Crimea". RoC is the Russian federal subject. Selfstudier (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Splitting the article is controversial. Panam2014 (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You can use WP:SPLIT to split an article formally although if there is a consensus, it's not always necessary. When you say split can you be more clear about what you mean? Split how? Selfstudier (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

PLATEL above said "I propose to split the article into the DPR/LPR (2014-2022) and the DPR/LPR (subject of Russia)" is that what you are referring to? Selfstudier (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. There are 3 AfD (excluding for now for Donetsk) if there are consensus to keep so the split is consensual. Panam2014 (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Let me go read those. Why is the Donetsk not nominated for AfD, do you know? Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Moved to draft? Hmm, there is precedent of Crimea so probably they will end up keep but who knows, WP:CCC. Selfstudier (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

We have an article for Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. We need a formal discussion about the four. Panam2014 (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

All the issues are being discussed at AfD so it is probably best to wait to see what happens there. Since there are many eyes and here only a few. Selfstudier (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You could open an AfD for Donetsk. Panam2014 (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Above, it says has been moved to draft Draft:Donetsk People's Republic (Russia), I don't really understand the logic of that but it doesn't really matter, it will get resolved the same way as the others in the end. Selfstudier (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have moved it to article. Its content is enough to not consider it a draft. In addition, several articles already link to it, and in this way it will be easier to continue improving it. Vgaiyfi (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Blocked sock

It is like Luhansk. I can't find any AFD for Zap the discussion link goes to Kherson, maybe they are considering together. Selfstudier (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2022

Change all the "is" to "was" since Russia annexed the territory. 2A00:1851:8017:8383:E0E7:4D34:2B17:5A3B (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

"Breakaway Puppet Quasi State"

Geez this is the least neutral POV I've seen on Wikipedia in a while. It's a state with its own government. How dare the liberals of Wikipedia deny territorial integrity to the Novorossiyan people of Donetsk & hide behind a "protected page". The language must be adjusted, perhaps the simple "partially recognized state" used on every other page 73.97.248.215 (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say, and this description is adequately sourced. — Czello 18:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The IP address is closer to correct here, despite IP address' unnecessarily hostile tone. "Puppet" was not adequately sourced. The FT source claimed Putin's goal to create a puppet state, and the Washington Post article was only an opinion piece. Puppet is also contentious label that did not belong in the opening paragraph, even apart from the sourcing issues. This created a problem with NPOV and also Wikipedia guidance on the lead, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view[.]" I've substituted with the neutral phrasing "Russian supported" and appropriate sources. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I find myself mostly in-agreement with JArthur1984. For the opening sentence, I think “breakaway quasi-state” is enough. What I would say we could add (in the opening paragraph, even) is something mentioning how it’s widely considered — at least by the media, I’m not sure if any governments/governmental agencies have used the term “puppet/puppet state” — a puppet state, while this label is challenged by Russia and the Donetsk PR. If we had some sources from governmental agencies referring to it as a “puppet state” I suppose I couldn’t argue much with the opening sentence as-is, though. But just because we “know” it to be a puppet doesn’t mean we can include it, that would begin to fall under a violation of WP:OR, I would say. MWFwiki (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Many states have been called puppet states (for example TRNC [1] and the Houthi government of Yemen). It doesn't automatically follow from this that we need to characterise them as such in the lede. DNR is not universally referred to as such by reliable sources. Here the Guardian calls them proxy states and self-proclaimed republics. Alaexis_¿question? 08:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

There is very little difference between a proxy state and a puppet state. However, there is indeed a difference between a self-proclaimed republic and a puppet state. Nonetheless, most sources do actually describe these statelets as "self-proclaimed states that are under heavy Russian influence/control". They are simultaneously puppet states and self-declared states. It's not a case of either or. They can be, and they are, both. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@MWFwiki and @Alaexis: I would personally be willing to delete "Russian-supported" in the first sentence as well, but I was trying to be modest in my edits. I recognize that there's a less obvious result on that issue. "Puppet," however, was not a well-sourced word and far too contentious a label for the first sentence and should absolutely be removed. That's a point someone can make elsewhere in the article if necessary: "Some have argued that DPR is a puppet state..." "(Specific person) stated that DPR is a puppet state..." JArthur1984 (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that "Russian-supported" should stay in the lede. Almost no one, whether in the West, Ukraine or Russia, denies that Russia has been providing military, economic and diplomatic support to LNR. This is one of the main facts about it and deserves to be in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 16:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to have created confusion -- I also agree "Russian-supported" should stay in the lead, my comment was about whether it should be in the first sentence. DPR's Russian support is long-standing and non-controversial; it belongs in the lead. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

My comrades... Why is it so contentious to merely label these statelets as "Russian-supported"? They were not just Russian-supported, they were Russian-created! It's a no brainer that they are Russian-supported... I can't believe that people are even uneasy about adding this descriptor. At the present time, Russia is trying to take Wikipedia to court for documenting the entire Russo-Ukrainian War. This is the type of regime that we are dealing with here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

For those unacquainted, here is a reference for Russia's war against Wikipedia.

- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-20/russia-looks-to-punish-wikimedia-foundation/101255940 Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe that Western people are unable to understand totalitarian/authoritarian perverty. I used to live many years in a Communist country so I understand. Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a "puppet state" or "proxy state". "Russian-supported" is WP:WEASEL. Since "puppet state" is more straightforward than "proxy" that's what we should go with. Volunteer Marek 19:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Neither of the sources cited supported the "proxy" claim. One was an opinion article. One said not that it was a puppet, but Putin seeks to create a puppet.

"Puppet" is contentious in that it is a loaded term, implying that there is no organic support for the self-proclaimed states from the people within. But there is How about "Russian-backed," and we can make that clear in a neutral way?

Keep in mind the current consensus here is in favor of removing the contentious label "puppet." These issues are fair game elsewhere in the article, but too contentious for the lead. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's a few more sources that call it a puppet [2][3][4]. Calling it a puppet state does not at all seem contentious or loaded to me - because that's what they are. — Czello 20:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It is waaaaay too contentious to be right up at the front in the lead, totally goes against the style neutrality guides. Mathmo ^Talk 00:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

As I recently learned, headings and subheadings cannot be cited for a proposition. So this is just one RS using the label "puppet." JArthur1984 (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Puppet does not imply that there is zero local support. Consulting with my dictionary, it says that the DLNR are under external control (by the Kremlin). —Michael Z. 22:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

None of us are flies on the wall of the government of DPR, and don't have special knowledge of their independent operation (or not). In the interest of fairness and neutrality, I wonder how many other countries have their opening paragraph and info box as "Breakaway Puppet Quasi State"?? As there is certainly tonnes of countries who some might describe like that!! Heck, do you start of the article about Taiwan like that? Of course not! That doesn't get discussed until right at the end of the lengthy opening section about Taiwan, and even then it strives to keep a neutral tone and not exclusively write from a pro-CCP perspective. Mathmo ^Talk 02:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

1) You’re changing the subject as I was responding to a specific statement; and 2) that is a false balance: Taiwan is objectively a democratic republic originating in 1912, while DLNR are objectively complete Kremlin dependencies created by agents of Russia including Bordai, Bolotov, and Girkin in April 2014. —Michael Z. 02:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk became "independent" states when I was a teenager, whereas Taiwan in its current state is around as old as my grandmother. I don't think it's even remotely fair to compare the DPR-&-LPR with Taiwan in terms of their political status. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I have a special knowledge that Luhansk and Donetsk were part of Ukraine before 2014, if my memory serves correctly? I'm pretty sure it can be established in the historical record that these territories were, indeed, parts of Ukraine before. The same is not true for a lot of other breakaway states. For example, even the Abkhazia and South Ossetia dispute is more complex than Luhansk-&-Donetsk because they actually became independent at around the same time that Georgia (the claimant) itself did, in the early 1990s, rather than at a significant point later. One of the other examples that definitively broke away from a parent state in modern memory is Kosovo; that dispute is indeed extremely contentious, so much so that it has created the concept of a "Kosovo precedent" (which has even been cited for Donetsk-&-Luhansk). Nonetheless, Kosovo has received international support or at the very least attention from the entire global community, whereas Donetsk-&-Luhansk have barely been able to put a single embassy together. Indeed, Donetsk and Luhansk have been known to create fake embassies, violating the laws of the states that they are supposedly having diplomatic relations with, e.g. Czechia and Finland. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

"Puppet" is not a loaded term, it's a matter of fact. Indeed, a whole host of other countries and breakaway states around the world have been described occasionally as puppet states, but I'd argue that the Donesk and Luhansk PRs are two of the ONLY states (quasi-states?) in existence in the present day that unequivocally qualify as puppet states. I would compare the contemporary Donetsk and Luhasnk PRs to the historical puppet states that Japan carved out of China during or shortly before WWII, including Manchukuo and the Wang Jingwei regime, among others. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm literally getting WWII PTSD flashbacks whenever I edit or discuss articles related to the Luhansk and Donetsk PRs. It is truly horrifying (P.S. I'm not that old, but still). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

My edit to the infobox got reverted with a comment on "please stop pretending this is a real state", simply because I'd corrected it due to that being inappropriate non-NPOV to put right at the top of the article. The infobox already has "Status Limited recognition" & "De facto independence from Ukraine", that's more than enough additional clarification for what should be a brief infobox at the beginning of an article. Mathmo ^Talk 01:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

NPOV means accurately reflecting reliable sources and that’s how reliable sources describe it. Volunteer Marek 01:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Nope, that's not at all the case, as I stated in my edit summary. It had only two sources, one of which was was an editorial opinion piece and the other was speculating that maybe one day in the future it might be a puppet state. (we can't state as now what it might be in the future) Am not saying such claims can't ever be in the article itself, just it is inappropriate and violates NPOV/MOS to put it so prominently right at the top of an article itself. Mathmo ^Talk 02:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Czello gave three more sources right above. NPOV means following sources. Volunteer Marek 02:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Are there WP:reliable sources cited stating DLNR have “de facto independence”? Seems to me that since the Battle of Ilovaisk they are demonstrably wholly dependent on Russia and Russian forces for their existence. —Michael Z. 03:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's more accurate to say that they have de jure independence, according to a very narrow definition of the laws (only in Russian, Syrian, North Korean, South Ossetian, Abkhazian, and internal DPR-LPR laws, effectively, as well as unofficially in Belarus, Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc.). Obviously, they don't have de jure independence according to the laws of most other countries. But yes, I would agree that they aren't truly de facto independent. On the ground, they are completely controlled by Russia, which by definition makes them not independent but instead militarily occupied. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

More sources: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] etc etc. Volunteer Marek 04:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Although DPR and LPR are sometimes called "puppet states" in the news, I agree that the expression is pejorative, creates an issue with NPOV and in any case is not appropriate for the lead section. We should remove it here and elsewhere. The expression is also slightly imprecise because it suggests that they were independent in the past, or that they should become independent in the future, while those who use the expression generally would like them to be part of Ukraine rather than free from foreign control. Anyway, there's plenty of expressions that convey the same meaning without negative connotation. Here above "Russian-supported" and "Russian-backed" have been proposed, and they are fine, but also "Russian client state" could be used (e.g., New York Times), which is better, I believe, than vassal state or protectorate, and far better than puppet state. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with the notion that calling a polity a "puppet state" implies that it was previously a legitimate state. That's just your own perception. To me, the term "puppet state" actually suggests a "fake state" more than anything. When I hear that term, that's what comes to my mind, personally. Historically, there have been cases of puppet states occupying real countries, such as Croatia and France. However, there have also been cases of fake puppet states, such as Manchukuo. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't you think that the notion of "puppet state" has a negative connotation?

MOS:LEAD says that the first paragraph "should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view" and that we should "not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject". I see that "unrecognised breakaway state" is what we say of Transnistria, we call Abkhazia "a partially recognised state", Artsakh "a breakaway state in the South Caucasus, whose territory is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan", and South Ossetia is a "partially recognised state". Compared to these relatively similar cases, our "breakaway puppet quasi-state proclaimed within the territory of Ukraine" is surprising and questionable in terms of NPOV. IMO we should replace it with something simple and boring like "Russian-supported breakaway state", "Russian client state", "partially recognised state backed by Russia". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem with comparing Donetsk-&-Luhansk to South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, and Artsakh, is that these latter four statelets are completely different from the former two. The latter four all have some small amount of legitimacy, whereas Donetsk and Luhansk have absolutely zero legitimacy. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

In reply to myself, I think it should also be noted that, as far as I can tell, I don't think Transnistria has expansionist motives towards Moldova. From what I can tell, it already controls all or most of the territory that it claims, and this has been the status quo for decades. Likewise, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are generally happy with their current borders. The only outlier is Artsakh, which lost a large amount of territory to Azerbaijan upon losing the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. | On the other hand, Donetsk and Luhansk have always harboured expansionist motives ever since they were first established, and these motives have partially been realised as a consequence of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

That’s partly a WP:CRYSTAL BALL opinion. The Kremlin intends to take all of the Ukrainian coast right up to the border of Moldova (in April the RF MOD stated an objective “exit to Transnistria” and Lavrov just stated the intention to target “a number of other territories”), where it would have direct access to its remnants of the Russian 14th Guards Army and largest ammunition dump in Europe. Transnistria exists to prevent Moldova’s full sovereignty just as DLNR exist against Ukraine’s. The difference is only Putin’s current immediate goals and opportunities. —Michael Z. 17:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I will admit that Transnistria has a really weird geographic position and shape. The state would not exist naturally without outside support (Russians), and it should either be a part of Moldova or Ukraine under historical circumstances, rather than independent from either country. Furthermore, some would argue that Moldova's own existence is an anomaly of Soviet interference, and that it should (or would or could) unite with neighbouring Romania. Nonetheless, Transnistria does indeed have a significantly longer history than the Donbas region of Ukraine as being a separate region (not that I'd agree that it should be an independent state).

As for South Ossetia and Abkhazia, I'm convinced that these two regions have some kind of self-determination because they are both home to unique ethnic groups in comparison to BOTH the Georgians and the Russians. The South Ossetians are related to the North Ossetians inside of Russia, and they want to combine with that group and effectively join Russia, but they are not Russians per se. This is why the Abkhazia-&-South-Ossetia duo is not a perfect analogy to the Donetsk-&-Luhansk duo, even though the two sets of territories might appear to be superficially similar at first on account of being apparently "Russian-backed". Do note that even though Donetsk-&-Luhansk is somewhat distinct from the Ukrainians (especially in the west of the country) due to being largely home to either Russian-speaking (ethnic-Ukrainian) or ethnic-Russian people, it's not really distinct from Russia.

The Donetsk-&-Luhansk situations is more similar to Artsakh in relation to Armenia, or Kosovo in relation to Albania. Except, particularly in the Kosovo-Albania relationship, there are strict rules in place prohibiting the two countries from unifying, at least in the short term. As for Artsakh, the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh was an autonomous region prior to Azerbaijan's declaration of independence in the early 1990s. However, it's hard to argue that the Artsakh-occupied territories outside of Nagorno-Karabakh were part of this arrangement, which is a major reason that Artsakh had to concede these territories to Azerbaijan at the conclusion of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, aside from having effectively lost control of a lot of this territory anyway. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. There was no separatist movement in DLNR before invaders created one in 2014. “Russian-speakers” is not an ethnic or other identity group in Ukraine. Kyivans speak Russian (or did until now). Putin’s “New Russia” went nowhere because Ukrainians in Donbas, including the ethnic-Russian minority, are really distinct from Russia.

This is sinking into speculative WP:CHAT and no longer about the content of the article. It’s okay to sum up what reliable sources say, but not useful to build a controversial personal model of the subject which is not supported or supportable by RS and present it in discussions. —Michael Z. 20:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I specifically said that the reason that Donetsk/Luhansk is different from the other cases is that it's clearly a case of Russian interferences with Ukraine. I tend to classify a movement as illegitimate when it involves heavy outside interference, and especially when it involves irredentism. Clearly, there are Russian-speakers and ethnic-Russians inside of Ukraine (e.g. Crimea was mostly Russian). But the point that I'm making is that the actions that have taken place in these territories have been largely motivated and executed by Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It is also problematic to describe Donetsk and Luhansk as merely "Russian-backed" because a lot of evidence points to the fact that they were either Russian-created or Russian co-created. So, reducing the role of Russia to merely a "supporter" rather than a direct actor is actually taking a non-neutral position on the topic. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Terminology is changing as the Russians make plans for annexation and have openly stated they intend to occupy a larger part of Ukraine and impose régime change. A Washington Post article now refers to “The Donetsk People’s Republic, a Russian proxy state in east Ukraine, said it expects to capture the entirety of the Donetsk region, which it claims as its territory, by the end of August.”[11][12] —Michael Z. 21:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

"Russian proxy state" seems accurate and supported by sources. If I understand the expression well, it is synonymous with Russian client state, which is also supported by sources. "Client state" is well-established in political sciences and international law. While "puppet state" has a negative connotation and "quasi-state" is exceptionally uninformative and confusing, "puppet quasi-state" is probably a neologism. To me it sounds like a complicated way to say "no good at all". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A client state is subordinate in some way, while a puppet state is under control. Technically, the term state is problematic because the Donbas proxies do not have the capability of sovereign statehood, and are not recognized as such. —Michael Z. 23:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

That's why I've specifically (and others as well) opted to use the term "quasi-state" rather than "state". Essentially, a quasi-state is something that is similar to a state but is not exactly a state. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer short definition "self-proclaimed republic" from Britannica (see the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic). Then below in "History" you can cite the criticism if that puppet state, etc. PoetVeches (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I think "self-proclaimed" is misleading. The people of Donetsk have not proclaimed themselves a republic in any way that is recognised as legitimate by independent standards. The occupying force has 'proclaimed' it. What descriptors are used for descriptions of Vicky France or Rhodesia for instance ??? Marlarkey (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The current "breakaway puppet quasi-state..." is accurate and supported by reliable sources, but could be "breakaway puppet regime" for clarity. In addition to "puppet", "proxy" is well supported by reliable source also and thorough examples have been provided above by Volunteer Marek and Czello. The full sentence could be shifted from "breakaway puppet quasi-state proclaimed within the territory of Ukraine, and militarily occupied by Russia and Russian-backed separatists" to "breakaway puppet regime proclaimed by Russian forces within the territory of Ukraine". Details like quasi-state can be discussed later on in the text. Additionally, agreed that "self-proclaimed" is potentially misleading due to the "self" part. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk PR map

I believe that we should present two maps for the Donetsk People's Republic in the infobox. One should correspond to the pre-2022 front lines, whereas the other should correspond to the most recent front lines with the disclaimer that the territories are controlled by both Russia and the DPR. I've initially started this discussion over at Talk:Luhansk People's Republic#Luhansk PR map. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

The article was unilaterally edited to indicate that the DPR was annexed by Russia and thus no longer exists. However, because the annexation treaty has not yet been ratified by the Federation Council of Russia, the DPR still exists, and the article should be edited to reflect that.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/10/03/russia-duma-ratify-annexation-ukraine/. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it was ratified today, but that doesn’t matter because the annexation treaty was effective when it was signed September 30, but that doesn’t matter either because if the DPR is annexed it continues to exist (as much as it ever had). Only its declared status is changed. —Michael Z. 22:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's right, physical existence continues and status has changed. Whether that new status needs a new article or not is subject of discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)