Talk:International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic/Archive 1

Archive 1

This page should be deleted

There is no "international recognition" for either of these states as the only ones who recognize it are areas that are part of Ukraine. Ergzay (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems this just changed with Russia recognizing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.169.228.168 (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

PR China

Why is the entry removed? It’s one of the states that expresses concern because the Chinese government does not recognize Donetsk or Luhansk.

Support or oppose to be readded back? -184.147.23.236 (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

"Expressing concern" is not the scope, it's opposition to the recognition. China's statement does not include opposition to the recognition but rather just a desire for peaceful negotiations. --eduardog3000 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Syria

Here's a single news source indicating Syrian recognition of the two republics. Has any official statement been released by the Syrian MFA?

https://shafaq.com/en/World/World-leaders-condemn-Putin-s-decision-to-recognize-Donetsk-and-Luhansk-Syria-stands-by-Russia Orthorhombic, 10:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I removed it. This and the only other sources I can find only refer to the Syrian FM's quote supporting Putin's decision. No indication formal recognition has occurred yet. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 12:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

If we are going to have a section of countries that denounce recognition, logically we should also include countries that support recognition. Do we need a new section for that? --eduardog3000 (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Syria's state news agency now reports Syria is "ready to build relations" and that "President Bashar al-Assad expressed Syria’s readiness to recognize the Donetsk Republic". --eduardog3000 (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

States or organizations expressing concern regarding recognition of Donetsk or Luhansk independence

I don't think this "concern" section is really necessary for the page (nor the image that's been added to the head section). All states will have concerns over the impacts of such events. Expressing those concerns isn't really taking a position on the recognition of the republics so isn't all too relevant. --eduardog3000 (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yemen

Here's a news source stating that Yemen's Hauthi government has recognized the two republics, I don't know the validity of this publication though or of any official sources.

https://etleboro.org/g/867a0ed80c36267edb42b72fd0720c08en/sanaa-supports-moscow%E2%80%99s-recognition-of-%E2%80%98donetsk-and-lugansk%E2%80%99-independence Magnús Hjálmarsson ^Talk 12:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This only says they support the decision, which may be a situation similar to #Syria. I don't think there's anything to add to the article yet, but let's keep an eye on it. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 12:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I've created a #States or organizations supporting recognition of Donetsk or Luhansk independence section for Syria. The Houthis should probably be included there, but I'm unsure of what the subsection for them should be. --eduardog3000 (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Eduardog3000 and Tartan357: Houthi led government is an unrecognized government, not an unrecognized state. It is like military junta in Burma or Taliban in Afghanistan.--Panam2014 (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

"Unrecognized governing bodies" perhaps? --eduardog3000 (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to "Governing bodies with limited recognition". The Houthi government does have recognition from a handful of countries including Iran. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Belgian flag

I noticed that in the section talking about the UN member states or organizations opposing recognition of Donetsk or Luhansk independence the flag of Belgium has the incorrect aspect ratio. It uses the aspect ratio for the civil ensign of Belgium (2:3) instead of the aspect ratio for the flag of Belgium (13:15). I don't know if there is a reason for this but if there is please tell me. The aspect ratios for flags such as Kazakhstan and Ireland are correct so I can't think of a reason why the aspect ratio for the Belgian flag would be incorrect. I am sorry if this is something that can't be changed, I am not very good at editing images and formatting. Sorry is this is a dumb thing to bring up. MidnightSooty (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)MidnightSooty

The flag ultimately comes from Template:Country data Belgium. There was actually a conversation about that on its talk page a couple years ago. You'll have to take the issue up over there if you want it changed. --eduardog3000 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Nicaragua?

Does that statement really count? --Limiteddx (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Gabon and Ghana

Should they be added in green on the map, because of their security council vote? 2600:100F:B01A:58E3:0:45:EBCA:AF01 (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Map of the international diplomatic situation of the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics.

The map is wrong and doesn't show a lot of countries support ukrainian territorial integrity

Red Gabriel (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2022

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No clear consensus for alternate titles. A new RM can be opened for those. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

---

International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic → International recognition of the Donbass region – The name is too long, better to change to Donbass. The locations of Donetsk and Lugansk are connected, and the Donbass is also a geographical and geopolitical term. Beta Lohman (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I sympathize with the effort to shorten it, but "Donbass region" is not a state, it is a region. Everyone recognizes that a region exists. This needs to be worded more precisely. Maybe "separate Donbass republics" or "Donbass secessionist states" or simply "Donets and Luhansk republics"? Walrasiad (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably it could be renamed to International recognition of the Donbass republics? Also, how to change the proposed name?--Beta Lohman (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are three problems with the proposed title: first, the title would not match with Donbas (one "s"). Second, by Donbas, one generally refers to the broader region (most of which is beyond the control of the separatist republics), so enlarging the title to "Donbas" would be incorrect; and third, the two breakaway republics, while similar and propped up by Russia, are distinct from one another and have different leaders, institutions and constitutional arrangements, and so cannot easily be lumped together. The current title is fine, as it complies with WP:AT's concision requirement: the title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Pilaz (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per the solid arguments above. The Donbas region has geographical, historical, mineralogical, and political definitions, none of which correspond to the subject entities. —Michael Z. 14:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. The Donbass region is not the subject of this, Donetsk and Luhansk are. Liamthereal (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per Walrasiad. This makes it seem like it's the recognition of the region itself existing. If you want to shorten it, maybe "International recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics" would be better? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I like this suggestion. I would back it as the least troublesome. Walrasiad (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose current proposal While I agree a shortening of the current title would be helpful, the current proposal is not the most suitable. As noted above, the Donbas is larger region, much of it not under the control of pro-Russian separatists. This article is about the recognition of two specific "states", not the region as a whole. I agree "International recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics" may be a more appropriate shortening. AusLondonder (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose current proposed title. A region is not a political entity. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment It seems that International recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics is approaching consensus, with three editors supporting to some degree, and no-one explicitly objecting to it. Pinging those who participated before this alternative was proposed in case they want to chime in: @Pilaz, Mzajac, and Liamthereal:. I also want to point out we have a couple of articles with related scope which should probably be made consistent with any consensus arrived at here: International representation of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic; 2022 evacuation of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics. Colin M (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I object to it on procedural grounds. Silence on a proposal does not imply tacit consent. No prejudice on another RM on this, though. Noting that official sources prefer the longer wording: Japan, MFA Poland, NATO (although it prefers the shorter title). I believe we would benefit from this on a separate discussion. Not opposed to the concept as a whole, but it needs some serious WP:COMMONNAME debate, while also keeping in mind that we are not bound by journalistic conventions since we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Pilaz (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hm. Shortening the title to International recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics serves the WP:CRITERION of concision, but reduces precision, since the Donetsk People’s Republic is not Donetsk, nor the Donetsk oblast. I realize its nature should be obvious from the phrasing, but I’m concerned that the prominent and routine non-standard abbreviation of these names will lead to confusion. For example, the “Donetsk Regional Civil-Military Administration”[2] is a legal entity of Ukraine and not a Russian proxy. I don’t feel the benefit (what benefit, exactly?) is worth it. —Michael Z. 17:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 6 April 2022

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. There doesn't seem to be any support for the move as proposed. The suggestion of "International recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics" gained some support, but it was validly pointed out that this could be potentially ambiguous. If there is still a desire to move the articles, may I offer the suggestion of lowercasing "people's republics" (as this is being used generically and may be less ambiguous) or replacing "People's Republics" with "breakaway states" (or some other equivalent). Number 57 18:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

---

International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic → International recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics – Come up with a new name. I suggest changing this name to simplify overly long titles. Beta Lohman※Office box 18:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 16:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the word "People's" is missing before "Republics" in the request, since it's in the official name of both entities. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed, that was the name being discussed as an alternative in the previous RM. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Why must it be added? The word republic already has the meaning of an independent entity.--Beta Lohman※Office box 22:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  It’s simply not the name of the entities. There is no organization known as the “Donetsk Republic” - only the Donetsk People's Republic. The proposed title is just kinda factually incorrect. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment, as per above a more factual request would be for International recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics Esolo5002 (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Would support a move to "International recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics" AusLondonder (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment, I'd also support a move to "International recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics". Erinius (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I reckon we should split the article into two separate articles, one for each de facto state:

International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic → International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic + International recognition of the Luhansk People's Republic 2001:8003:9008:1301:A88B:2633:A2C4:EB02 (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you give a reason as to why? Great Mercian (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Because we might have different countries which may recognize one of them but not the other. The lists could become quite different. 2001:8003:9008:1301:F813:952F:9746:1731 (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

There’s literally not a single sentence nor table row in the article that applies to one of these and not the other. Splitting would be a POV fork based on the false impression that these are really independent. —Michael Z. 18:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

De facto states are considered independent states with disputed sovereignty. 2001:8003:9008:1301:F813:952F:9746:1731 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

That defies logic, since disputed means “not universally considered.” —Michael Z. 19:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

A further counterargument would be this article: International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia - if those two are combined, I don't see a world where the DPR and the LPR should be separate. ObsidianPotato (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

This article also needs to be separated as Abkhazia and South Ossetia may receive recognition from different countries in the future. 2001:8003:9008:1301:F813:952F:9746:1731 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose  Donetsk is a city. The Donetsk Oblast is a legal entity. There are three Donetsk Republics, including the related but distinct Donetsk Republic (political party). Just use the unambiguous names, because there is too much confusion already about the identity of an illegal foreign-controlled entity that uses disinformation to obscure its nature. This is supported by the WP:CRITERIA, especially precision. It is not “overly long”; it is just right. —Michael Z. 23:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Wouldn't the term "Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics" be mistaken as a single country? —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 07:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment / conditional support for "International recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics". Everything in the sources and in this article that applies to one seems to apply to both. ObsidianPotato (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment #2 we could also consider "International recognition of the DPR and the LPR" but I suppose people would find those too ambiguous ObsidianPotato (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  The native abbreviations DNR and LNR are just about as common, and collectively they are sometimes also referred to as DLNR or D/LNR. —Michael Z. 15:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple red links in “Main article” notices

This edit by user:HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith should be reverted. The purpose of {{Main}} is for article sections in summary style, “after the heading of the summary, to link to the subtopic article that has been summarized. . . . Use of this template should be restricted to the purposes described above.” If there’s no objection with a basis in our guidelines, I’ll remove these links. —Michael Z. 18:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Crap, sorry. Should have done my research here, I guess. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Free space under UN member states

Please correct.Xx236 (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

China's statement isn't "against"

It only says the UN charter must be safeguarded, not the "territorial integrity of Ukraine": The UN charter also has the people's rights to self-determination, which the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republic at the very least claim to uphold as one of their principles. The Chinese statement doesn't ssay anything about oppossing the independence, or recognition, of Donatsk and Luhansk. It is deliberately vague. To cast it as opposition is disingenous. --190.188.113.46 (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Much Ado About Nothing

This page describes some parallel reality using 94,116 bytes. A list of 'we do not recognize' countries would be enough. There exists no 'international recognition' and any authonomy of the two areas was destroied in February.Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Officially, there are indeed three countries and two breakaway republics that recognise the DPR and LPR, namely Russia, North Korea, Syria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia. With that being said, I do believe that you are correct in your assessment that the DPR and LPR aren't exactly independent countries in the de facto sense. They are only independent in the de jure sense (according to the laws of the five aforementioned countries as well as the internal DPR and LPR laws). The two statelets are nominally independent in Russian and related laws, but they are controlled by Russia, to the point of being direct puppet states (not even slightly, but completely). They are also being militarily occupied by Russia, which is a related albeit distinct issue. By the way, I've seen a lot of descriptions across Wikipedia stating that the DPR and LPR are recognised by "three breakaway states" each, one of which includes the DPR and LPR themselves recognising each other (for example, this is the case over at the article "List of states with limited recognition"). However, in my view, this is bogus since the two statelets are inextricably linked, to the point that they are basically a single unit, indistinguishable from one another. The fact that one of these statelets is recognising the other and vice versa is effectively meaningless in a geopolitical sense, so the tally of countries recognising them should really be considered to be "five" at the moment, not "six". Recognising yourself doesn't count! Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

"International representation of DPR and LPR" article should probably be merged into this article

I am not creating an official merge request just yet, but I think the "International representation of DPR and LPR" article should be merged into this one. I might first create a request for comments over at that article. So far, the activity over at that article is very low, much lower than the activity at this article. The two articles are obviously closely related. At this point, the other article is a lot smaller than this article, to the point that it virtually has no reason to exist at the present time. The situation may change in the future, so that that article might be deemed worthy of existing on its own. But as it stands, there is no reason to not simply streamline the contents of that article into this one. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that article should be taken to AfD (which can reach a consensus to merge, see {{Afd-merge to}}, and you can propose that). A merge discussion is also a possibility, but the concern is notability related, and I think you will get a clearer result at AfD. I doubt there will be consensus to keep, as the sourcing just isn't there and none of these offices are diplomatically accredited, with the exception of the embassies in Moscow. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)