Talk:Russian separatist forces in Ukraine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Equipment section!

For an article on "Donbass People's Militia", this article looks remarkably like a collection of weapons? Is the article a weapons manual? See what Wikipedia is not, per is not indiscriminate collection of lists, cruft, etc. The entire "Equipment" subsection is three times the length of the subject of the title and detracts from the content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Combat forces section tagged

All sources for the relevant section are Russian yellow press or independent propaganda sites (i.e., ultimately, self-published). Reliable sources are needed, particularly when speculating on the nationality of volunteers who have joined the separatists. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Now most of sources are independent. 94.45.129.180 (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Time to rename the article?

Both Kiev & Moscow sources reported on September 16 the creation of the "United Armed Forces of Novorossiya", so I think that the article should be renamed and expanded to the rest of Lugansk battallions (Zarya, for example).--HCPUNXKID 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead. RGloucester — ☎ 23:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

New page for Equipment

As Iryna Harpy mentioned, the article is getting too lengthy due to the equipment section. Now that the militias merged into a single group, we should move the section into a new page called "List of equipment of the United Armed Forces of Novorossiya". SkoraPobeda (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Support: too many content for one article 94.45.129.180 (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There is also a Batman unit.

Don't know who commands it. They have a bat patch.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=226850&d=1414697342 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Er, not exactly sourced evidence, is it. Find some WP:RS, not a photo with someone's own childhood batsignal flag used to personalise the military vehicle they use. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The Batman unit is commanded by Alexander Bednov. http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/a-prelude-to-a-farce-prearranged-ballots-for-kremlin-backed-breakaway-regions-370349.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Do you know whether they are directly affiliated with the Army of the South-East? It would be useful if you could provide their name in Russian or Ukrainian for further sources and information. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK it is an independent unit affiliated with the NAF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I ran a google search in Russian based on the info you've provided, but it doesn't yield any reliable sources for further information, I'm afraid. That's not to say that there aren't some sources, but they're they're so WP:SPAM that I wouldn't be able to use them for the purposes of Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

After your long wait, I finally added it. We also have the SSI and flag of it thanks to MrPenguin20. SkoraPobeda (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work you've put into salvaging the article, SkoraPobeda and MrPenguin20. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem Iryna! SkoraPobeda (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

another unit, the Rusich reconnaissance and assault unit

They have a sunwheel patch.

[depreciated URL] liveleak /view?i=adf_1413145576&comments=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Just added it. It was disbanded last month. SkoraPobeda (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Aliya unit's patch

http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/s/t/starshinazapasa/alia.jpg

http://www.globalterrorwatch.ch/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Battalion-Aliya.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

not facebook

To the anon IP who keeps adding a link to the photo gallery from Vkontakte [1] - from your edit summary it appears you've misunderstood my point. Yes, I know Vkontakte is the Russian version of Facebook. But that is precisely why it's not encyclopedic and why it's not appropriate to include a link here. When I said "Not Facebook" I did NOT mean "it's not Facebook so we can't put it here". What I meant is "Wikipedia is not Facebook, or Vkontakte, so we can't put it here. It's an encyclopedia not a social networking site". See WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Volunteer Marek  04:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Note, also, that linking to such a site is considered to be WP:SPAM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

is this even real

Borodai says that "Novorossia" is a dead concept and rebels themselves on the ground refer to the "Armed Forces of the Donetsk People's Republic", not the "NAF" - is this original research at this point to attribute this group as a functioning unit? It certainly is not centralized. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 02:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea whether it exists or not. We have the sources that say it was formed, but not much else. It isn't "original research" in that sense, at least, because we didn't make up the concept. I have no way of verifying anything on the ground, so really there is nothing to be done unless someone can provide an RS that definitely says that the merger of the militias failed. RGloucester — ☎ 02:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Aliyah" Battalion

"Aliyah" battalion was an immigrant battalion used by the Israeli army for settlement patrol. Later it began a registered non-profit association dedicated to direct Russian-speakers in Israel's attention to fight againt "terrorism and violence" (See Russian Wikipedia article: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BE%D0%BD_%C2%AB%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%8F%C2%BB). It was disbanded around 2002.

A person called "Avigdor Eskin" (Авигдор Эскин) strolls around telling that he is the establisher of this organization, which is not true. No Israelis are fighting in Donetsk and there is not evidence to establish that they call themselves "Aliyah" or acting on behalf of the Israeli government. The patch depicted in the pictures article is a patch of the IDF and was not seen in Ukraine whatsoever. The picture of the patch is from Israel and not a recent one.

Israeli Russian-speaking Channel 9 article of this "Aliyah Battalion". http://9tv.co.il/news/2014/06/02/177085.html Note the comments speaking of it being not true. Israel's ambassador to Ukraine, Reuven Din-El, has said that "No Israelis are fighting in Ukraine" http://evreiskiy.kiev.ua/posol-izrailja-v-ukraine-batalon-alija-13365.html

Please erase that for it is not true. 12:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moto53 (talk • contribs)

How to stop anonymous delete

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

---

There is this IP (94.45.129.180) that is constantly deleting my contributions about Essence of Time armed division (in Vostok) and Bryanca SSSR (in Prizrak). I'm now here on Wikipedia, there is a way to stop him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhorg (talk • contribs) 00:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mhorg, please stop adding "Essence of Time" advertising, based on their claims.
Firstly, citating sources are: 1)YouTube Video (at "Essence of time" youtube channel) 2)"Essence of time" site.
It is a violation of following WP rules: 1) Self-published sources as sources on themselves 2) Original research - Not confirmed by sources, other than "Essence of time". It is impossible to find this information even on separatist sources.
Secondly, these edits are not neutral ("liberation of Donetsk airport"). 94.45.129.180 (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The presence of an armed force of "Essence of Time" Movement is a fact, documented many times by Graham Phillips and other sources that are now in Donbass. The group had three killed during the defence of Monasters. Whats needed more? http://www.phillip-butler.com/uncommon-valor-the-bbc-forgot/ comment added by Mhorg (talk) 1:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Take it to WP:ANI please. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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

my revert of a non-neutral source

I made this revert because it was referenced from a clearly non-neutral source. Unfortunately Ukraine is at an information war, so statements about opponents must be carefully filtered in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you on being cautious about the screening process for sources. This is a matter that's been brought up time and time again with regards to events in Ukraine. Mouthpieces for either side (be it government outlets like RT, Sputnik, et al, or Euromaidan press) are WP:BIASED sources which are fine for presenting official positions where they're DUE, but not RS within the context of this article. As it stands, VM has added an RS for inclusion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

RNU Volunteer Corps structure flag

The reason why I reverted it is because the flags on the side are for the most notable battalions and brigades. The RNU Volunteer Corps have neither been notable enough or big in size to just put that swastika-having flag in the middle of all the other flags. Show me at least two recent RS about the RNU being active in the fighting for Donetsk Airport or Debaltseve. If not, then you're showing me that you just want it there so that people can see that there are neo-nazis in the militias. No kidding, there's all sorts of volunteers in it ranging from communists to monarchists. SkoraPobeda (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources are already given. They don't have to be recent to make the unit important. This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

So basically a neo-nazi unit with probably less than 100 people is as important as Vostok, Sparta, or Somalia? By that logic, I can throw in the Chetnik flag just because I feel that 250 Jovan Šević fighters are as important as they are. SkoraPobeda (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

They're important because they're getting covered in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed the coverage for RNU, bout in refs and in google. Here are my two major findings:

• there is no "RNU Volunteer Corps" in English news.
• The section in question says: "armed groups, which took the oath for Donetsk People's Republic". I saw no evidence of any major neo-nazi military unit taking this oath and operating under an identified name.

Therefore I would agree with deletion per WP:NOR until better evidence.

That said, there is indeed the evidence that RNU, Dugin's, and others are volunteering in Donbas. But they are included in other formations, either individually or as companies, but not as a major military unit worth notice. This may be a subject of another article, about Russian volunteers in Donbas. Do we have any? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Now, about " so that people can see that there are neo-nazis in the militias". As it is, there is nothing wrong with this. There is plenty of noise that there are neo-nazis on the Ukrainian side. Same goes with Russian side, right? In any revolution, civil war, etc., thugs and extremists are only happy to flex muscle and are welcome until victory and then quietly gotten rid of not to mar an image of the "Victorious Truth and Justice". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

RNU they have a web page for advertising of volunteers and the name of the unit is "RNU Volunteer Corps" in Englisch [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamburg322 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

And always post pictures of as volunteers at the front with the RNU patch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamburg322 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If that's their page, then they are in reality called the "RNU Volunteer Units", not "Corps". As for Staszek's question, we don't currently have any article like that. What we can do is create a new one called "Foreign volunteers in Donbass". If it would be an article just for the Russian volunteers, it could become a stub. But if it was about foreign volunteers, we can put all of the units that are not officially pledged to the DPR or LPR and Ukraine. We can use the sources from the War in Donbass article about foreign volunteers. Then there could be a section about volunteer neo-nazis from both sides, like pro-Ukraine Swedes and pro-Russia RNU Volunteer Units. What do you guys think of this? SkoraPobeda (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thats a good idea , a good example is the article about the foreign fighters in Bosnia Foreign fighters in the Bosnian War — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamburg322 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There's definitely a need for such an article (or stub at this point). Currently, there are various articles lending themselves to misleading/mischaracterising content (per WP:SYNTH) such as this. The fact is that generic characterisation based on volunteers being attracted to 'causes' doesn't tally with RS descriptions of the nature of this form of warfare where the political ideologies of a minority of foreign volunteers is tolerated by the majority, but doesn't necessarily sit easily with them. What is essential, however, is that such an article be based on RS. We can't cherry pick sources in order to tailor them to fit our own understanding of the issues at hand. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we write only who in this combat unit fights and not their political motivation Hamburg322 (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I assume you mean that their political allegiances would be content for the split off article in order to keep the lengthy section on this article down to a more manageable list, Hamburg322. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

NAF acquired Kord machine guns from Russia

https://pp.vk.me/c625724/v625724290/358aa/_1Lng03SCc4.jpg

207.35.219.34 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Big problem with "Novorossiya" articles to be addressed

I've reverted SkoraPobeda's latest changes for a few reasons, but most prominently because we're now facing WP:OR issues surrounding the articles. We all know that the project folded at the beginning of May, but the content is conflating various militias under that umbrella as if it were still an ongoing project.

Before any more changes are made, I think we need to treat this (and other articles) as historical and move any relevant content that might be lost to existing articles for DPR, LPR, etc. If the content is not appropriate to other articles, it may be time to consider some form of 'after' Novorossiya article. I'm at a loss as to how to do this without original research as to an appropriate WP:TITLE. Any thoughts/comments from other editors? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Move them to draftspace and mark them as historical, its a big step yes but its better than having loads of unverifiable info. Its either do that, or AfDs where I would suggest something along the lines anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No one ever said Novorossiya is cancelled. Oleg Tsaryov said there is no plan to expand it at the moment unless Minsk 2 is out the window. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? How are the Mink II protocols going to 'suddenly' disappear? Cancelled... unless you have a WP:CRYSTAL ball. Enough WP:SOAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ranks

Why somebody deleted ranks of Pro-Russian forces? I've posted yesterday all ranks which are in use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.56.3 (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read the above section (and the rest of the talk page). You're developing content for a project that has been closed. There is no way of defining ranks, etc., for a non-existent militia. This is why we're trying to work out how to handle the content already in the article. Essentially, this is an historical and conceptual 'force', which means that ranks and most of the content are original research if they are being treated as being an ongoing reality. Most of this content should be merged to the DPR and LPR articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Viking battalion

Needs to be added to the article.

http://i59.tinypic.com/118hij4.jpg

http://i59.tinypic.com/dpemvl.jpg

http://i59.tinypic.com/25q3qyo.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

NAF Aistenok counter battery radars

https://twitter.com/onlinemagazin/status/556034738247720960

207.35.219.34 (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Kord machine gun

at 3:45

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7bvEE9dbr4w

207.35.219.34 (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

1st Slavyansk brigade

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMPWDRwKHKs

216.165.210.167 (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

New licenses needed for flags/insignias

Currently, there is an unresolved problem that is quite annoying. Flags such as the Donbass People's Militia, Somalia Battalion and some insignias have been deleted over licensing issues. MrPenguin20's Somalia Battalion flag was nominated for deletion over the "self|cc-by-sa-4.0" license. I tried preventing it from getting deleted by placing the "PD-textlogo" in its place, only to still have it deleted regardless. The problem here is that we need Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics licenses for the sake of identifying flags and insignias of various factions. "PD-UA-exempt" doesn't apply since they are not a part of Ukraine. Also, I couldn't find any copyright laws on the DPR's website so far either [3]. Iryna Harpy, perhaps you can help us find a way to create at least some temporary exempt license, to prevent any more of these unnecessary deletions. SkoraPobeda (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is extremely frustrating. I've had to work around legal issues over images in the past, but it's highly convoluted on WikiCommons as they apply international and local laws for recognised sovereign states to images that are 'representative renderings' of symbols, emblems and flags for unrecognised states and their militia. WikiCommons are probably being overly cautious and are possibly following an inaccurate reading of legal constraints surrounding such material.

Rather than temporary workarounds, have you tried taking this to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions (or Wikipedia:Teahouse in order to find out how to contact the correct legal team)? There is a legal team on WikiCommons, but I can't remember how to contact them offhand. The sysops on the various wikis only deal with legal issues in as far as they're aware of them, but it would be better to take it straight to the experts. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not yet, but thanks for the links. I'll ask them about it in the near future. SkoraPobeda (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd follow up this line of enquiry myself, but - like you and others - I'm swamped with other issues to address. Unfortunately, there aren't enough NPOV editors with enough time to stay on top of important details for improving the content of articles to go around. I'll try to get to it ASAP if you don't get there first! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! I'm hoping together we can put an end to this ridiculous copyright issue. SkoraPobeda (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

After finally asking the Teahouse people, they redirected me to a couple of links including the WP:Copyright on emblems. My solution to this problem for now is to use the "insignia" license that I was not aware of. It is very fitting, and until the DPR and LPR actually make laws about copyrights, I don't think we'll have a real license for them. SkoraPobeda (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Well done, SkoraPobeda! Thanks for pursuing this issue and finding a viable work-around. (Oh, and wishing you a Happy New Year, as well as a wonderful Christmas... which we've yet to have!!! I still have plenty of time to wish you a Happy Old New Year...) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Iryna, I wish you the same! Hopefully this will be a good answer to the unnecessary deletions. I'll pray for peace in Ukraine in 2016 (ironic for my "soon there will be victory" username from 2013, no?). The common people and their families on all sides do not deserve this war and suffering. SkoraPobeda (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that anyone who knew anything about politics/economics understood that the dismantling of the Soviet Union was handled disastrously. Whether it be the Western plutocrats or the Eastern European oligarchs who plundered the coffers of the state/s, they're all cut from the same cloth. History has shown us time and time again that it's inevitably the ordinary people who suffer the consequences. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

That is right. Perhaps one day there will be a diplomatic solution to this war. All of the nationalist flag wavers of either Russia or Ukraine just aggravate the situation with wanting one side to obliterate the other. Nobody thinks of the long term effects, and how dangerous this is if it was to become a full scale civil war between many armed groups. SkoraPobeda (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Russian armed forces involvement

It is no longer correct to suggest that official Russian involvement in only suspected. Even Putin now admits Russian armed forces involvement - though it was never actually in doubt.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not true. Putin in his annual Q&A said "We never said there were no people there [in Donbass] who carried out certain tasks including in the military sphere, but that doesn't mean there are any regular Russian troops. See the difference." He is referring to Russian military advisers, like the American ones who trained Ukrainian personnel in Lviv. It doesn't mean the American Army is actively involved in the war, Putin still emphasized that there are no regular Russian soldiers. Even The Guardian says "There was no opportunity for a follow-up question to examine how many military specialists Putin believes were in Ukraine." [4] I have said this once, and will repeat it again. Viktor Muzhenko, the Ukrainian Chief of the General Staff himself admitted in January 2015 (during the Battle of Debaltseve) that there were individual members of the Russian Armed Forces and Russian citizens among the NAF, but no regular Russian Army soldiers fighting Ukraine. The translation is in the description, [5] SkoraPobeda (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. I've already posted yet another warning on this user's talk page regarding using talk pages as SOAPBOXES... and I'm not the only one to have done so. I think we're all sick to death of these propaganda warriors from all sides. They're WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

That's for sure, I'll keep my eyes out next time. SkoraPobeda (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

What Viktor Muzhenko said out of context is irrelevant here. We know that around 10,000 regular troops are fighting in Ukraine, regardless the language gymnastics. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 21:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this even a real thing?

Looking at the article, it seems to be a lot of original research. "Novorossia" doesn't exist and never really did. The article mostly lists different militia groups that operate under different commands. Without a central command structure, how can this article, quite flatly, pretend there is a "United Armed Forces of Novorossiya"? If they are disunited and decentralized and not operating under the name 'Novorossiya'? I think at the minimum the article should be renamed 'Pro-Russian militant groups in Ukraine' or something, because it's mostly just a fan fiction. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 21:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Armed Forces of Novorossiya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151210182424/https://es-us.noticias.yahoo.com/paganos-rodnovery-participan-conflicto-ucraniano-143039699.html to https://es-us.noticias.yahoo.com/paganos-rodnovery-participan-conflicto-ucraniano-143039699.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 2016

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

The result of the move request was: Suggested Move unopposed. clarified move to singular Separatist forces of the War in Donbass (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

---

United Armed Forces of Novorossiya → Separatists forces of the War in Donbass – WP:common name and common sense. No majority of independent, reliable English-language source does refere to the armed forces described in this article as "United Armed Forces of Novorossiya" and even before they hardly did but rather called them "separatists", "pro-Russian rebels" etc. The Novorossiya (confederation) project has been put on hold for more than a year now and the armed forces described in this article do not fight for (a) "Novorossiya" (anymore). (As far as I know the armed forces described in this article do not call themselves "United Armed Forces of Novorossiya" (anymore).) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC) --See relisting comment — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

As a person who has edited for this article many times, I agree that there should be a name change for the reason that the Novorossiya confederation was put on hold. Only the new title should be one that everybody agrees to, "Separatist forces of the War in Donbass" is one idea, it could also be "Anti-government forces of Donbass" or something else. I'd like to hear other suggestions from editors. SkoraPobeda (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• (relisting comment: please consider this comment procedural) @SkoraPobeda: Is it "Separatist forces" or "Separatists forces"? Also, there does not seem to be opposition to the current proposal. Per typical RM procedure, we can probably proceed with the move as unopposed. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

"Separatist forces" is the correct term. I guess since nobody here opposed, it can be moved. SkoraPobeda (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Structure (information about central command and control and organisation between all separatists military groups missing in this Wikipedia article)

The "Structure" section doesn't say anything about how organization. It just lists a bunch of different military groups.... in a way that makes it look these groups don't coordinate anything.... Is there a central command who tells these groups what to do?

The section should look (ideally) like FARC#Organization and structure. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Update needed? Is the listing of separatists different armed groups up to date?

The current "Structure" section lists a bunch of different military groups. Is this list currently up to date? An Ukrainian military spokesman today spoke of there being a separatists "9th Regiment" (Novoazovsk), and another "7th Brigade" (Debaltseve). None of which is currently mentioned in this Wikipedia article.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The list is what I helped create since 2014 based on DPR and LPR groups that are identifiable. RS does not cover the modern names of some of the newer and reformed military units, so that is why I am not able to update them. Technically, the Donbass People's Militia no longer exists. It is currently called the 1st Army Corps of the Ministry of Defense (DPR) (1-й армейский корпус Министерства Обороны ДНР). Since Reuters, BBC, Associated Press, The Guardian and others that are often used in War in Donbass articles don't cover it, we can't really change them. Unless we use Russian or Ukrainian language sources, which would be considered non-RS. SkoraPobeda (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this update SkoraPobeda. It gives insight in what is going on in Donbass (the Donetsk People's Republic appears to be better organised then in which 2014). I am also not a fan of using Russian or Ukrainian language sources, which would be considered non-RS. The only reason I put information in the article by the The Ukrainian Week is that without information about the command structure of these forces it would look like there is no coordination of these forces. Without coordination logic dictates that they should have been overrun by the Ukrainian army a long time ago. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It's understandable, August 2014 had a lot of major battles and hard to believe two years have passed. Yes, the DPR and LPR forces are a lot better with equipment, military structure, and all other aspects since 2014. Both sides of this war learned new tactics and reorganized in different ways. Just for interest, I found an English list (although I disagree with the title) of detailed brigades and battalions of the DPR 1st Army Corps and LPR 2nd Army Corps. I wish RS would cover it more like the diagram so that we can actually update and rename some of the groups. SkoraPobeda (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Separatist forces of the war in Donbass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140529090427/http://lb.ua/news/2014/05/28/268065_gospogransluzhba_sredi_terroristov.html to http://lb.ua/news/2014/05/28/268065_gospogransluzhba_sredi_terroristov.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20141225192545/http%3A//drugoros.ru/news/4137.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://wayback.archive.org/web/20141225192400/http%3A//drugoros.ru/news/4177.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006180713/http://bmpd.livejournal.com/957262.html to http://bmpd.livejournal.com/957262.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Novorossiya was not implemented

There is no forml novorossiya today. The article must be correctd accordingly. Also the title is false because polls consistently show that the majority is for staying within ukraine.- üser:Altenmann >t 19:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Separatist forces of the war in Donbass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140423233203/http://ukrainianpolicy.com/insurgents-identified-the-green-men-of-vkontakte/ to http://ukrainianpolicy.com/insurgents-identified-the-green-men-of-vkontakte/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151009033911/http://rg-dnr.info/page/o-gvardii to http://rg-dnr.info/page/o-gvardii

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Strangely formulated line

"Although the Russian government often denies direct involvement stating that their soldiers were there voluntarily and not under orders, some of them were detained riding their combat vehicles with documents proving their origin in Russian armed forces."

Russia did not deny their origin in the Russian armed forces. The sentence could be flipped: Although some of them [the soldiers] were detained riding their combat vehicles with documents proving their origin in Russian armed forces, the Russian government often denies direct involvement stating that their soldiers were there voluntarily and not under orders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.174.227.118 (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Ghost Brigade.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 16 October 2021

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Russian separatist forces in Donbas → Separatist forces in Donbas

Today I had moved the title Russian separatist forces in Donbas to Separatist forces in Donbas - removing a single word. Through the revision and suggestion of Mikehawk10, this discussion will be taken here.

As you can may notice in prior discussions above, there was an agreed upon Requested move 4 August 2016, which changed the title from United Armed Forces of Novorossiya → Separatists forces of the War in Donbass.

The most recent title changes began on April 1, 2021: a new user named Falloutguy 1914 (who apparently has been blocked since August) unanimously moved the page to Separatist forces in Donbass. Then on April 5th, they moved it to Russian Separatist forces in Donbass - once again without any consensus. Then on April 14th, Mzajac changed it to Russian separatist forces in Donbas since most Wikipedia entries of the word Donbass had been changed to the Ukrainian spelling of Donbas. (Although this change still should not affect terms such as Donbass People's Militia since it's based on the Russian spelling, not Ukrainian one.)

However, the newer title Russian separatist forces is still misleading. My reasoning for this is because ever since the beginning of the conflict, the militias of the DPR and LPR have been mostly comprised of locals. Yes there are Russian volunteers and covert Russian assistance, though this does not in any way suggest that all of them are from Russia. They are Russian speaking, yes. Though they are local Ukrainian citizens that have Russian or Ukrainian ethnic backgrounds who predominantly speak Russian. By naming this article Separatist forces in Donbas, it makes it more NPOV and accurate; since the DPR and LPR forces are most commonly known as separatists. They might be occasionally called "Russian-backed separatists", but regardless, they are just separatists and not Russian separatists. — SkoraPobeda (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I have changed my focused reasoning for the move since it came from an original research standpoint, which I admit may not have been the best suggestion for it. However, I can't emphasize enough that most reliable sources still call them either Russian-backed separatists or pro-Russian separatists. There appears to be very few examples of them being called Russian separatists. Sources from this year - 1 2 3 4 5 I still propose my suggested move of shortening the title to Separatist forces in Donbas, or having a new suggested title altogether. — SkoraPobeda (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose  The title of this article should not be based on some imagined demographics of the membership in this armed militia (if it were, then keep in mind that the Russian Federation claims to have issued over 600,000 Russian passports in the non-government-controlled region of the Donbas, and and it’s a fair bet that most or all of the members are in fact Russians). The association or disassociation with the Russian Federation of this militia is a hot-button issue, given the denial of the Russian Federation of its responsibility for the self-proclaimed republics, despite its many admissions of “support” and “people in the military sphere,” and so on, and the thousands of pieces of evidence of Russian soldiers, Russian mercenaries, Russian equipment, supplies, and economic involvement. Consider the diverse titles of this article in other Wikipedias: uk:Окупаційні війська РФ на Донбасі, “RF occupation forces in Donbas”; ru:Народное ополчение Донбасса, “Donbas people’s militia.” The title shouldn’t be changed without evidence that the new name conforms to a WP:NPOV. I suggest a good move proposal should refer to the details in WP:TITLE, specifically the WP:CRITERIA, and especially give evidence of the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable, neutral sources. —Michael Z. 19:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

You mentioned "it’s a fair bet that most or all of the members are in fact Russians." You should specify that they may be Russian citizens, but to say they are just Russians is to suggest that none of these fighters were born in the Donetsk or Luhansk regions. Pro-Russian separatists maybe, but Russian separatists? That's a far stretch. And in your linked Ukrainian Wikipedia article Окупаційні війська РФ на Донбасі, it says with translation: "During the summer of 2015, according to the head of the National Security and Defense Council, Oleksandr Turchynov, terrorist forces formed by local and Russian volunteer terrorists were replaced by structured military units of the Russian regular army." Turchynov's one-sided claims are not verified at all... — SkoraPobeda (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I meant Russian citizens. I see in one of your edit summaries[6] you wrote “The title is misleading since they are Ukrainian born, but ethnically Russian”: a dubious statement, and anyway no basis for a title.

Regarding the quotation from ukwiki, I think a more accurate translation is something like they were turned into or restructured into military sub-units of the RF regular forces, so I don’t think your characterization of Turchynov’s statement is based on a clear understanding of its meaning; anyway, that is also neither here nor there regarding this move request.

Other commonly used formulations like Russian-led militants or combined Russian–separatist forces are also accurate, especially when referring to July 2014 to February 2015, when RF regular forces formations were deployed wholesale; we only don’t know to what degree. —Michael Z. 22:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Dubious or not, I explained my position more clearly here, which you call imagined demographics. With the question of regular RF troops participating, that is a very touchy subject because certain false unit claims have been claimed as facts. A perfect example is the Second Battle of Donetsk Airport, where the Sparta and Somalia Battalions and Vostok Brigade were the only units that took part on the DPR side. Ukraine claims that Russian Spetsnaz GRU and Marines participated too. Their evidence? A screenshot of a Sparta Battalion soldier with a Russian Marine patch that you can buy online... Overlooking the fact that Arsen Pavlov was a former Marine himself and trained his troops with those tactics, such untrue claims made their way onto English Wikipedia.

The Turchynov statement only shows that he believes the people who opposed the Ukrainian military in the region were "local and volunteer terrorists", and they afterwards integrated with the Russian military. Even if they aren't replaced by the Russian military, it doesn't change the fact that he sees local armed opposition as terrorists. Ukraine to this day is the only country in the world to call the DPR and LPR terrorists, while the RS of other countries refer to them as just separatists. So now let's get back to the subject at hand. Again, the title of the article was originally Separatist forces of the War in Donbass before it was moved in April to Russian separatist forces in Donbass. All you did was follow up by removing one letter and keeping the title, despite the original move not being approved beforehand. Now you're opposed to bringing it back to a more simplified Separatist forces in Donbas? (We can also return the longer and previously agreed on Separatist forces in the war in Donbas as an option.)

And if we want to talk about consistency, I've looked through all War in Donbas articles; there is only 1 entry out of all articles that calls them Russian separatists. Dozens of examples call them pro-Russian Separatists. Even this implies that they are still locals which happen to be pro-Russian. What you seem to be suggesting is Russia giving supposedly 600,000 passports to DPR/LPR residents makes them officially Russians, and the line between local Russians and foreign Russians is blurred; therefore the military formations of the DPR and LPR are Russian Separatists? Correct me if I'm wrong in what you are trying to say here, because this is confusing. If my summary of what you're saying is true, then how is my "they are Ukrainian born, but ethnically Russian" any wrong? — SkoraPobeda (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

No, your facts and logic are not all correct. But as I said, our original research and speculation about who had what passports at which battle is not a basis for titling this article, and I’ll not indulge your invitation to chat about it (WP:NOTFORUM). I’ve outlined above a suggestion for a good move proposal. —Michael Z. 13:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I'll leave it to the other editors then, since you haven't addressed the title being moved half a year ago without any prior discussion. — SkoraPobeda (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It was stable for six months and now there’s a move request in progress, so it’s being addressed. —Michael Z. 01:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

And again, the previous title was stable for 4 and a half years until a unilateral move was made. All I did was shorten it to a title that I did not see as a controversial move either, since they are hardly ever called Russian separatists. Above is my updated reasoning for the move which is stand by with. — SkoraPobeda (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

User:SkoraPobeda, the updated proposal is a baby step in the right direction. But this article is specifically about the armed militants’ militia organizations. The example links given mainly aren’t referring to their militias, but to the region’s self-proclaimed “government” entities, or even more generally as a side in the conflict. Certainly the four dudes in track suits that kept OSCE monitors from moving in or out of their hotel were not identified as the “United Armed Forces of New Russia.” One could use this corpus to argue for merging the two D/LNR articles and rename them “Russian-backed separatists.” It does shed light on a problem though, that the unrecognized “governments” and “armed forces” are not recognized or distinguished as such. In the Minsk ceasefire agreements, Ukraine, Russia, and the OSCE only refer to them as “unlawful military formations . . . as well as militants and mercenaries” (Minsk Protocol) or “armed formations from certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblast of Ukraine” (Minsk II Package of Measures). So I think you have to find more specialist quotations that specifically refer to the militia forces organizations, to name these more-specific articles. —Michael Z. 16:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per detailed argumentation by Michael Z--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Michael Z specifically pertaining to speculative demographics—blindlynx (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

You folks are missing the main point that the current article title is still misleading. I admit my original demographics point should not have been the dominant one. Though could any of you kind editors point to many sources that actually call them Russian separatists? — SkoraPobeda (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The term “Russian separatists” is in use in the news, including by The Guardian,[7] NPR,[8] Slate,[9] the Independent,[10] Reuters,[11] ABC News,[12] Deutsche Welle,[13] Time,[14] and many others (here’s a search: "Russian separatists" -"pro-Russian separatists" Ukraine). I post this as counter-example to objections against the name, but I still believe that determining the best title for this article would be served by a survey of specialist sources that refer specifically to the armed militia, and not just generally to the quasi-state entity or entities. —Michael Z. 19:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

“Russian separatists” appears in “about 3,090” Google Books results from 2014 to the present.[15] and 370 Google Scholar results from 2014 to the present.[16] —Michael Z. 19:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Deletion of far-right Russian nationalists

A small group of editors have recently deleted content about far-right Russian nationalists from this article and related articles. Please see the discussion here. ~Asarlaí 17:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The content appears to be well sourced and calling it "original research" either fails to understand what original research actually is or is just a disingenuous edit warring tactic. Page should be unprotected and content restored. Volunteer Marek 09:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The issue has now been brought to the dispute resolution noticeboard. ~Asarlaí 11:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

If RS mention it so do we. Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Alexander "de Krog" Matyushin

I restored the information about Alexander "de Krog" Matyushin being a neo-Nazi and member of Russkiy Obraz. He has a totenkopf tattoo, was a member of NBP and ESM, head of Russkiy Obraz in Donetsk, and described himself as an "Orthodox fascist." Please let me know if you believe he was not a neo-Nazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) 05:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Disconnected Phrases: You used two sources, one is maidantranslations.com which is an unreliable WP:SPS and other is a book by Robert Horvath which only describe him as "a former NBP militant". Segaton (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Segaton:The second source was for the picture of his totenkopf tattoo and the picture of him giving the Nazi salute and the interview with him. The book names him the Donetsk head of Russian Image (РУССКИЙ ОБРАЗ), a neo-Nazi organization best remembered for a concert and a string of murders. If being a major player in a neo-Nazi organization does not make one a neo-Nazi, then I will add another book source that specifically names him a neo-Nazi. I didn't think this uncontroversial claim needed that many sources. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The quote in the new source is "The Donetsk Republic youth organisation was led by Image member and Donetsk neo-Nazi Aleksandr Matyushin (also known as 'Varyag' and 'Aleksandr de Krog')..." Disconnected Phrases (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I already saw that right after you added and got no issue. Segaton (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If you have any doubts about Russian Image being a neo-Nazi organization, I'd say, they coordinated closely with Blood and Honor, United Brigades 88 (OB-88), and BORN (Боевой организации русских националистов) sprang directly out of Russian Image. For more on the links between Russian Image and BORN, check out the murder trials of Russian Image's founders Nikolay Tikhonov and Ilya Goryachev. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

add more content on right-wing nationalism

(from Donetsk People's Republic & Right-wing nationalism)

According to the Italian newspaper la Repubblica, well-known Italian neo-fascist Andrea Palmeri (former member of the far-right New Force party) has been fighting for the Donetsk People's Republic since 2014 and was hailed by Gubarev as a "real fascist" when he joined the DNR militias. Professor Anton Shekhovtsov, an expert on far-right movement in Russia and abroad, reported in 2014 that Polish neo-fascist group "Falanga", Italian far-right group "Millennium" and French Eurasianists had also joined the Donbas separatists.

An article in Dissent noted that "despite their neo-Stalinist paraphernalia, many of the Russian-speaking nationalists Russia supports in the Donbass are just as right-wing as their counterparts from the Azov Battalion".

In April 2022, news outlets noted that a video posted on Donetsk People's Republic's website showed Denis Pushilin awarding a medal to Lieutenant Roman Vorobyov (Somalia Battalion), while Vorobyov was wearing patches affiliated with neo-Nazism: the Totenkopf used by the 3rd SS Panzer Division, and the valknut. However, the video did not show Vorobyov getting his medal when it was posted on Pushilin's website.

in addition, link the articles "Far-right politics in Ukraine & Pro-Russian separatism" and "Donetsk People's Republic & Right-wing nationalism" on the right-wing nationalism section here.

187.39.133.201 (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move from Russian separatist forces in Donbas → Pro-Russian separatist forces in Donbas

It's frustrating that we have to do this again so soon. Mzajac, it is confusing that you tell me to bring the discussion here, while you unilaterally changed the title of the article last year without any backed discussion. Despite my last requested move being overlooked, this time I thought my new move was going to be neutral enough to where nobody would oppose (By adding just one word).

So let me ask you then, what is the issue with calling them Pro-Russian separatists? Where are the sources that directly call them Russian separatists? They are mostly referred to as pro-Russians by most reliable sources. Al Jazeera 1, Al Jazeera 2, NPR , NBC. There was only one example I could find where they are called Russian-separatist authorities, and yet in their title they still called them Pro-Russian separatists... The Guardian

Another title idea might be Russian-backed separatist forces in Donbas? (Like TFSA, Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army in the Syrian conflict.) SkoraPobeda (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I moved the article to correct the capitalization, and to match the spelling of a moved main article. I thought these would be uncontroversial and there were no objections. After your previous move proposals, you might have understood that the designations of the identity of the Russian proxy forces is controversial. I think it is, and so this renaming deserves an RM to get more input and agreement. Participants in the discussion might review previous moves, listed at the top of this talk page.

I think we should see evidence of references directly to the Donbas military formations, not to the Russian proxy governments, because they have a different relationship with Russian forces. I see at least one of the sources cited above calls them “Russian-backed forces,” collectively. And it’s not clear whether some sources distinguish them at all when they refer to “Russian forces” or “Russian troops.” —Michael Z. 23:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I was going to open a thread on the same topic, then I saw the discussion. "Pro-Russian" is by far the more widespread and correct denomination. Their defying feature is political rather than ethnic. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Source, please?

“Political” in being established by Russian citizens, in accepting Russian citizenship, imposing Russian language, Russian education, Russian religion, Russian mobile phone and power grids, Russian vehicle licensing if I remember correctly, Russian officers commanding their military, and forcibly mobilizing their population and sending it to fight in Russia’s war for Ukraine.

Sources do also call them Russian-led and just Russian separatists or Russian proxy forces. —Michael Z. 18:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're giving too much meaning to the "pro" there. "Russian-separatists" is wrong because they are not Russian. Yes, Putin gave them Russian citizenship but they are also Ukrainian citizens, and in any case it's not their ethnicity or nationality that defines them, but their allegiance to the Russian government and to its proxies. Re Source, please? If I google "the pro-Russian separatists" (article "the" is important), I get 58.500 results. Among them, I get Human Rights Watch [17], 3+ articles by Amnesty International (e.g. [18]), 8+ articles by the New York Times (e.g. [19]), 20+ articles by BBC (e.g. [20]), Foreign Affairs [21]. "Pro-Russian separatists" is also used in the officials documents of the EU (e.g. [22]). If I google "the Russian separatists" basically I get Wikipedia articles, plus a lot of quora.com entries and little more: 61 results overall, and among them only a couple of BBC (e.g. [23]), one Deutsche Welle [24] and one NYT [25]. So "Russian separatists" is basically a mistake and we should correct it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you mean “they are not Russian”? (And they are Russia’s proxies in Ukraine.) You’ve already said their defining feature is political, and they are politically ultra-Russian. They are Russian citizens. They identify with Russian nationality, culture, and probably ethnicity. Their allegiance is not just to Russian government, but to extremist Russian ultranationalism, imperialism, and Orthodoxy.

Googling is not a good indication of usage in reliable sources. Have a look at WP:SET and use Google Books and Google Scholar. Certainly using “Russian separatists” is not a mistake if the sources you cite are using it. And let’s try to actually survey the terminology for the separatist militants’ forces rather than the republics, the leaders and warlords, or the general population. —Michael Z. 19:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said - and I think we are in full agreement on this - they are loyal to Russia: they are politically ultra-Russian, as you say. But obviously that doesn't make them Russian; it makes them pro-Russia, or am I wrong? With regard to the sources, there is simply no argument. You yourself can do a research on Google Books. You'll see that they are called "pro-Russian" everywhere, almost in each and every result one gets. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I count 36 book results since 2014 of “Russian proxy forces”[26] (Google says “Page 4 of about 2,280 results”), 161 for “Russian militants”[27] (“Page 17 of about 20,100 results”), and 112 for “Russian separatist forces”[28] (“Page 12 of about 13,900 results”). —Michael Z. 14:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's focus on "Russian separatist forces". If I make a research looking for books with "Russian separatist forces", the NEAR TOTALITY of the results I get contain "pro-Russian separatist forces", e.g. "Ukraine in the Crossfire", "The Return of the Cold War: Ukraine, The West and Russia - Pagina 114", "The Territories of the Russian Federation 2020", "The Drone Age: How Drone Technology Will Change War and Peace", "Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law Volume 19, 2016", "Market Power Politics: War, Institutions, and Strategic ... - Pagina 8" and so on. Moreover, the very few "true" "Russian separatist forces" I get refer to something different, e.g. "This allowed joint Russian–separatist forces not only to recapture" which means "joint Russian and pro-Russian separatist forces" (The Handbook of European Defence Policies and Armed Forces); " overall losses of Russian/separatist forces" again meaning "Russian forces + pro-Russian separatist forces" (Not Only Syria? The Phenomenon of Foreign Fighters in a ... - Pagina 65). Please compare "the Russian separatist forces" with "the pro-Russian separatist forces"; the article "the" is important because if you search for "Russian separatist forces" only you will also get "pro-Russian separatist forces" results. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m unconvinced by that. There are other names just as common.

Another issue confusing naming is that currently more sources consider these formations part of Russian forces. As a quick test, I scanned the first five articles in news results for “Lysychansk,” where in the battle of Lysychansk supposedly DLNR forces were the vanguard that occupied the city. Who does the media say took the city? Not cherry-picked:

1. Newsweek:[29] “Russian forces claimed to have captured Lysychansk.”
2. Reuters: [30] “its fall to Russian forces,” although “Moscow-backed separatist proxies have been fighting Ukraine” in reference to the last eight years.
3. Washington Post (MSN):[31] “Moscow announced earlier in the day that Russian forces had captured Lysychansk”
4. Ukrinform:[32] “Armed Forces of Ukraine have struck the barracks of Russian invaders”
5. RFE/RL:[33] “victory for Russian forces,” “Russian occupation,” but individual identified in photo captions are “Russian-backed separatists” and “separatist forces.”

 —Michael Z. 17:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

We couldn't name this article "Russian forces (in Ukraine)" because that would include both the Russian army and the pro-Russian separatists. Based on your investigations, which denomination do you think is more common in RS on the subject of this article, Russian separatists or pro-Russian separatists? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m not suggesting that. But it is an indication that their identity is not completely separate from Russian forces’. Before the open invasion Russian forces were in eastern Ukraine covertly, and the press often conflated the two as “separatists” or “Russian-led.”

Look at MH17 coverage, for example, where the press is well aware that investigations found that a Russian missile was used, operated by a Russian crew, and with the direct participation of GRU and FSB, but rarely goes deeper than to say it was “separatists” with a “Russian missile” or something to the effect.

Since the invasion by 200k Russian forces, they continue to conflate them, but more often identify them as Russian forces, and occupied Ukraine as “Russian controlled” in the scope of the war. They rarely identify “separatists” or “militants” generically when specific military formations or individuals are referred to, and even more rarely identify one or other of the so-called DLNR republics, typically clumping them together.

The “DLNR forces’” identity has never been clearly defined in the press, and never separated from Russian forces’. —Michael Z. 15:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. It basically reflects what one reads in this article, if I'm not wrong, especially in the lead section and in the section "Relationship with Russia". Obviously these are crucial information that this article needs to provide. But with regard to choosing the title, we should follow WP:TITLE ("Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources") and stick to WP:COMMONNAME. "Pro-Russian" is by far more common. It is also more precise, because the separatists are not necessarily Russian but are always (as far as I know) pro-Russia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Well, the separatist units, at the battalion level and up, are acting under direct command of Russian Army officers. Hence, they are actually Russian rather than "pro-Russian" forces and described accordingly in sources. These forces, just as the entire administration of these "republics" are directly controlled by Kremlin. My very best wishes (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of The Other Russia.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Use of the words "neo-nazi" and "extremist"

im going to start a discussion about this here.

so, due to the varyag, rusich and svarozhich units having either been named after neo-Nazi units (varyag) or having Slavic swastikas on their badges (and links to neo-Nazi extremism, such as rusich and svarozhich), i think its appropriate to put them as such, furthermore, the use of extremist also makes sense. the rule, as far as i saw, mainly applies to BLP (biographies of living people), not to battalions or divisions, and considering what is mentioned in the section, using "extremist" should apply on this case, any opinions on that?

ZoopyCat (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Incidentally, there is an interview with Rusich’s commander Milchakov where he explicitly says “I am Nazi,” on top of all the previous sources that talk about him being Russian fascist or Nazi. —Michael Z. 02:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Heading is fine. Rusich has Neo-nazis so it may need specific label but far-right is fine for other two. Shankargb (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 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.

---

result:
No consensus. See strong opposition and not quite enough agreement below to rename this article at this time. As is usual with no-consensus outcomes, editors can discover new arguments, strengthen old ones and try again in a few months to garner consensus for this title change. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 03:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Russian separatist forces in Donbas → Pro-Russian separatist forces in Donbas – "Pro-Russian" is BY FAR more common in all reliable sources (see my comment here above at 19:13, 5 August 2022) and is also more precise, because the separatists are not necessarily Russian, but are always pro-Russia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I made a mistake. For some reason, this requested move has not been listed in WP:RMC. Can anyone help please? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: No mistake made by you. Bot's down. I am manually clerking the list while the bot recovers. Adding to the list now. – robertsky (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Super Ψ Dro 09:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose  If WP:COMMONNAME is the only rationale, please show evidence it’s the most common term in WP:reliable sources compared to, say, Russian separatist forces in Eastern Ukraine, or separatist militias, or Russian militants, or, or Russian-led, Russian-supported, Russian proxy, or something else compared to the current title. I don’t believe the discussion above shows such evidence. —Michael Z. 20:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  The discussion above shows evidence that "pro-Russian separatist forces" is (by far) more common than "Russian separatist forces". If, however, you think that other denominations are even more common, then it's up to you to show that that is the case. Besides, even if, say, "Russian-led separatist forces" were more common, that would not be a reason for maintaining "Russian separatist forces", which is basically a mistake (by the way, I doubt that Russian-led, Russian-supported etc. are not more common; "Russian affiliated armed groups", however, is the denomination used by OHCHR and other international agencies and organisations, so it's worth considering; I created a redirect a few weeks ago). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  Anyway, note the following:

  • If I search on google "Russian-led separatist", I get 4.790 results; "Russian-supported separatist", I get 2.410 results; "pro-Russian separatist", I get 132.000 results.
  • If I search "Russian separatist forces in Eastern Ukraine", as proposed by User:Mzajac, what I get is mostly "pro-Russian separatist forces in Eastern Ukraine". E.g., "pro-Russian" in Deutsche Welle, The Times, Business Insider Radio Free Europe Yale MacMillan Center Reuters The Guardian Washington Times The Moscow Times American Military News France24; "Russian" in US Embassy in Ukraine (title), Euractiv (image caption) ABC News (possibly a typo?). Note that many apparent "Russian separatist forces in Eastern Ukraine" are in fact "(combined) Russian-separatist forces", which means "Russian forces + pro-Russian separatist forces".
  • Analogously, if I search for "Russian separatist militia", most of the results I get are "pro-Russian separatist militia".
  • "Russian militants" is too generic, but again, one mostly gets "pro-Russian militants" - please have a look, it's very easy to verify. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Searching in Google is not evidence of usage in WP:RS. A list of individual sources that support one choice is not evidence of relative frequency. —Michael Z. 17:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  How do you suggest looking for evidence of usage in WP:RS that you could find convincing? Note that if one searches in Google Scholar the results are even more unquestionable: they all use "pro-Russian", and "Russian separatist" is nearly non-existent. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I already commented in the previous section just above, the separatist units, at the battalion level and up, are acting under direct command of Russian Army officers (this is sourced on the page). Hence, they are actually Russian rather than "pro-Russian" forces and described accordingly in sources. These forces, just as the entire administration of these "republics" are directly controlled by Kremlin. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

"Russian" here does not mean that the forces are composed by ethnic Russians, only that they belong to Russian military forces (not "pro-Russian" military forces!), even though they are not officially a part of the regular Russian army. Russian army in general also does not composed only by ethnic Russians. I have no judgement about relative frequency of different terms, but "Russian separatist forces" is a correct descriptive title, and it can be found in references. My very best wishes (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support They are pro-Russians so the title must clearly say that. Mainstream sources like Al-Jazeera,[34] The Guardian,[35] Washington Post,[36] VOA,[37] Reuters,[38] are also clear in this regard. Segaton (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support as reasonable. These separatists are largely "Pro-Russian" than "Russian" themselves. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  What are they exactly? Donetsk, Luhansk, and “pro-Russian” are not national identities. They don’t identify as Ukrainian, and their leadership demonizes Ukrainians. The Russians have made over 720,000 of them Russian citizens.[39] —Michael Z. 18:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed they are not identified by their nationality, which can be Russian, Ukrainian, Russian and Ukrainian (dual citizenship) and also foreign. They are identified by their political goals and allegiances and by their military activities. We have WP:CRITERIA precisely to avoid unfettered NNPOV speculations about the authentic nature of the subject ("they are not truly Ukrainians, they are foreign enemies!"). All reliable sources refer to them as "pro-Russian separatists" with the sole exception of Wikipedia and quora.com (which are not RS). "Russian separatist" is not based on sources and is not a WP:NPOVTITLE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  They are trying to annex themselves into Russia. This makes them at least Russian by self-identification. So, the descriptor "Russian" can simply mean that they identify as Russian. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  It would make more sense to call these people "Pro-Russian" if they were some highly foreign ethnic group like the Crimean Tatars or the Kalmyks or any one of the Caucasian ethnic groups. The fact of the matter is, they are ethnic-Russians and/or ethnic-Ukrainians (who, mind you, are not that distinct from Russians anyway), and they self-identify as Russians, and they are supported by Russia to a significant degree, and they want to become the newest provinces of Russia. How are they not Russian, again? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's also not like we could just waltz into the occupied territories and conduct an independent census on the ethnic ancestry and self-identification of the citizens of the DPR and LPR. If we aren't Russian sympathizers, we will get shot on sight. These people are terrorists. Ukraine has never had access to those regions ever since they broke away in 2014, so there has not been any major connection between the Ukrainian government and the regions since then. On the other hand, the Russian government has been working hard over the past 8+ years to assimilate those people into the Russian civilization. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  To me, the so-called "reliable sources" mean nothing when it is impossible for a non-sympathizer to step inside the territory, or at least not whilst closely monitored by armed escorts. If I can't actually go inside the territory of the DPR and the LPR myself in order to have a look on my own to figure out what's what in there, then I'm frankly not going to accept any "reliable sources" at face value. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose not even russians are pretending they're distinct anymore—blindlynx 14:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support Common name as apparent from mainstream sources. Common sense also applied per Gitz666. NavjotSR (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  • How is "Pro-Russian" concise when "Russian" is even shorter? I am confusion. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - The forces are clearly Russian-supported the vast majority of the time. Indeed, in the past, it may have been legitimate to argue that they were somewhat separate. Now, after the February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the links between Russia and the so-called "Pro-Russian forces" are undeniable. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Still they don't become "Russian separatists" but still remain "Pro-Russian separatists". If you want to talk about Russian war then you have 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  If they are ethnic-Russians, then we can still refer to them as Russian separatists. Their ethnicity is a major factor here, which is why I personally consider the situations in Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be different; those people belong to Caucasian groups, so they absolutely aren't Russian. On the other hand, the people inside the DPR and LPR seem to mostly be ethnic-Russians. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Jargo Nautilus Nobody here is denying their links with Russia. We are denying that they are Russian themselves, and that their being Russian is the defining feature that best identifies them. By the way, you yourself speak of "so-called pro-Russian forces", which I find quite indicative: the very sentence "the links between Russia and the Russian forces" wouldn't make any sense, so if you want to speak about those links and how they evolved in time you need to use "pro-Russian" terminology. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Read my replies to your comments above. There's really no way for us to know for sure what these people are since we have no way to independently verify this information. The "reliable sources" won't cut it because the international media has barely been able to scratch the surface of what is actually happening in the occupied territories. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  We also have to clarify that if they are not Russians, then what are they, and can you prove what you think they are? I can think of alternative descriptions being, "They are Ukrainians", or "They are Donetskians and Luhanskians". Personally, I am doubtful of the existence of Donetskian and Luhanskian national identities. That means the most likely candidate is "They are Ukrainians". In the citizenship sense, they maybe can be described that way (although maybe not after many of them have acquired Russian citizenship). In the ethnic sense, it seems that most of them actually are ethnic-Russians, with ethnic-Ukrainians being a minority (and they are persecuted for their identity too). Indeed, we could possibly refer to the citizens of the DPR and LPR as "Russian-Ukrainians", "Russians in Ukraine", or "Ethnic-Russians". The descriptor "pro-Russian" is a bit ridiculous considering that most of these people seem to be Russians themselves. Indeed, maybe the descriptor "pro-Kremlin" (i.e. pro-Russian Federation government) makes more sense since this doesn't preclude the possibility that they are ethnic-Russians themselves. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  I quote: "they are not truly Ukrainians, they are foreign enemies!", which is a quote of yours from above that is seemingly tongue-in-cheek, i.e. accusing the opposition of holding this viewpoint, which implies that you yourself hold the opposite viewpoint. It can be presumed from this quote that you personally hold the opinion that the citizens of the DPR and LPR should be labelled as "Ukrainians, from inside Ukraine", presumably as some kind of "pro-Russian dissidents in Ukraine", to be precise.

  Let's be clear; the agenda of the Russian Federation at the moment (and maybe for many years prior?) is that Ukraine is not a real sovereign state. The stated goal of the February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is to eradicate the Ukrainian people as a nation, and to absorb the Ukrainian-speakers and Russian-speakers alike into the Russian civilization. The war is genocidal by nature, and, contrary to Russian claims, the genocide is mainly being conducted by the Russians, not by the Ukrainians.

  Overall, it's pretty preposterous to assert that these "pro-Russian dissidents" actually identify as Ukrainians. They are on the side of a regime that doesn't even recognise the existence of Ukraine as a nation. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  It can be presumed from this quote that you personally hold the opinion that the citizens of the DPR and LPR should be labelled as "Ukrainians, from inside Ukraine". No, it can't. I argued that their nationality and/or ethnicity are irrelevant for the purposes of deciding the title of this article. Political goals ("pro-Russian separatist...") and military activities ("...forces in Donbas") are sufficient for identifying the subject. This is the denomination RS use, and so should we. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Quite frankly, you are kidding yourself if you think that race and ethnicity are not major factors here. This entire war in Ukraine is about eradicating the Ukrainian nation and absorbing its citizens into the Russian civilization. The entire situation is ethnic and racial. Not to mention the fact that the official Russian line is that the Ukrainians are "persecuting" Russian-speakers and ethnic-Russians in Ukraine. The Russian Federation cited "self-determination" (of ethnic-Russians) when they recognised the autonomy (2014) and then sovereign independence of the DPR and LPR breakaway states. Do not deny your Russian sympathies; the comment you made about Ukrainians (the one that I highlighted) clearly indicates your political stance. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I quote in full: We have WP:CRITERIA precisely to avoid unfettered NNPOV speculations about the authentic nature of the subject ("they are not truly Ukrainians, they are foreign enemies!").

  According to this entire sentence of yours from above, you believe that there must be some kind of an "authenticity" about the DPR and LPR separatist movements, beyond just merely being puppets of Russia. What this suggests is that you think the Donbas separatists have their own independent agency outside of the wider Russian agenda.

  I would argue on the contrary that the DPR and LPR are primarily driven by the Russian Federation, even if not 100%. Before the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, there was less evidence of this. Now, with the war still raging on, it's pretty clear that the DPR and the LPR are under complete Russian control. So, any semblance of legitimacy in these two statelets that once existed is long gone now. We report the facts as we know them, not as we were once speculating about them. You have suggested above that the DPR and LPR might have been more independent before and have only recently become more closely linked to Russia (which was also something that I threw out as a hypothetical). However, it is indeed more important to gauge the situation on the ground now, not the situation that might have existed before. We know now that the DPR and the LPR have always been inextricably linked with the Russian Federation, almost certainly since the very beginning. The mask has come clean off. They have revealed who they truly are. And, in the words of the tyrant Lavrov, "they are not afraid to show it".² Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Furthermore, do you deny that the DPR and the LPR are "foreign enemies" of Ukraine when they are quite clearly slaughtering Ukrainian civilians indiscriminately at the moment? What is their body count now? It must be in the thousands, especially in Mariupol, for example. Conversely, how many Donbas civilians did Ukraine kill between April 2014 and February 2022? Civilians, not combatants. Not many, I suspect? Now, who are the foreign enemies here? Do you still deny your political bias? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - the separatists see themselves as Russian and most of them have Russian passports or come from Russia itself. ~Asarlaí 09:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• oppose. Per common name. Panam2014 (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Could you please explain @Panam2014 why do you believe that "Russian separatist forces" is the common name of the subject of this article? The overwhelming majority of reliable sources (including Human Rights Watch, BBC, the Council of the European Union, Foreign Affairs) use "pro-Russian separatist forces". See references here above at 19:13, 5 August 2022. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  As I've pointed out below, I actually prefer the term "Russian-backed separatists". I'm not sure why you seemingly haven't mentioned this term at all. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Quite frankly, the term "pro-Russian separatists" sounds silly to me. The term "Russian-backed separatists" sounds more logical. Mind you, I don't really care what your sources say, since you can obviously cherry-pick however you like. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  The separatists are not defined by being pro-Russian. That's simply a characteristic that they may have. The defining characteristic of the separatists is that they are anti-Ukrainian, I would argue. So, why not instead refer to them as "anti-Ukrainian separatists"? That actually makes more sense, if you think about it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  "Russian-backed separatist forces" is quite rarely used in reliable sources. "Pro-Russian separatist forces" is way more common, and it is also more concise as it avoids the compound participle adjective "Russian-backed". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  "Anti-Ukrainian separatists" is still on the table. Alternatively, we could call them "ethnic-Russian separatists in Donbas". We know that they are separatists in Donbas, so an adjective is only necessary to differentiate them from other potential separatists in the same region. We could just call them "separatists in Donbas". By the way, "Russian separatists in Donbas" is more concise than "pro-Russian separatists in Donbas". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's also unclear why we have to refer to these groups as "forces" specifically. We could refer to them as "militias" instead. "Ethnic-Russian separatist militias in Donbas" has a nice ring to it. Or, "Russian separatist militias in Donbas". Or "Russian-backed separatist militias in Donbas", if you want to spice things up. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think this discussion is productive: we should just follow the sources. Plus an excessive number of comments might discourage participation from other editors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Panam2014, your comment above, oppose. Per common name, is not clear. "Common name" is the reason given by those who support the requested move. Did you mean "support" and wrote "oppose" by mistake? If that's not the case, and you meant what you wrote, could you please explain why you believe that "Russian separatist forces" is the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject of the article? If you don't explain your views, the closer will not know if and how to take them into account. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support calling it Pro-Russian separatists in Donbas or alternatively Russian-backed separatist forces in Donbas. All in all, the title itself is a complicated issue. Since these separatist forces (outside of thousands of Russian volunteers) are former Ukrainian citizens who became DPR/LPR and/or Russian citizens, most of them are ethnically Russian or Russian-speaking, and they have views that stem back to the 'Russian Spring' movement of 2014 in Southern and Eastern Ukraine. The original idea was to become autonomous within Ukraine, being pro-federalization, until they changed it to separatism of joining Russia due to the start of Ukraine's brutal ATO. Hence why it is easier to call them Pro-Russian separatists. I apologize for the Original Research here, but it is relevant to bring up points that have to be addressed when talking about the issue of this title. SkoraPobeda (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  To clarify, the "ATO" refers to the Ukrainian "Anti-terrorist Operation Zone". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Absolutely more realistic, concise, and commonly accepted name. "Pro-Russian" is also in line with 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine needs to be renamed to 2014 Russian fomented unrest in Ukraine per the sources in the page. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support More frequently used title and provides a better description of the separatists. Shankargb (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose "Pro-Russian separatist forces" per Very Best Wishes. Support "Russian-supported separatist forces" per Michael Z. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. From CNN to BBC, New York Times, the Guardian, Washington Post, Human Rights Watch, even the Council of the European Union in its official documents: all sources call them pro-Russian, but some editors have decided that actually they are Russian, even if they were born in Ukraine and have a Ukrainian passport, because Russian is what they truly are. This is the piece of OR that the Wikipedians (and quora.com) have to offer to the world... Anyway, it's been going on for quire a while, isn't it time for asking for a closure? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, some earlier sources call them "pro-Russian", but newer sources have unraveled evidence of how the unrest was fomented by the Kremlin and how the separatist forces were supported by the AFRF, FSB and GRU. This "separatism" is entirely a Russian military operation which is why the article is titled Russian separatist forces and not Ukrainian separatism. You could perhaps write another article about the pro-Russia political movement, what's left of it. IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Could you please share some newer sources calling them "Russian separatists"? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  I voted to call them Russian supported, not Russian, as a middle way. Most of the sources cited on the page calling them "Pro-Russian separatists" are from 2014. Putin admitted they were actual Russian soldiers in the field in December of 2015 [40]. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  1. I voted to call them Russian supported. But that's not an option here. If you vote "oppose", you get "Russian separatist forces". To have "Russian-backed separatists" you'll have to open another RM
  2. Most of the sources cited on the page calling them "Pro-Russian separatists" are from 2014. Sources continue to call them "pro-Russian". A few examples from 2022: Politico, Reuters, Guardian, Al Jazeera, EJIL_Talk!, Euractiv, Washington Post, ABC, NBC. Nobody calls them "Russian separatists".

  Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Just because I oppose the move to the proposed title doesn't mean I support the current title. I think Russian-supported separatists is a good compromise and doesn't require a new RM. Even the the ABC and NBC articles you linked to call them "Russian-backed". IntrepidContributor (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Those forces aren't Russian per se, but Ukrainians who wanted to join Russia, thus, Pro-Russian.LordLoko (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: As mentioned by others, this separatism is a fiction fomented by Russia. DPR and LPR are a Russian military operation and all pretence to the contrary was dropped on 21 February 2022. —Legoless (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support clearly common name and sensible than any other option. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Common name based on sources and also they are not Russian but pro-Russian Ukrainians (admit mostly ethnic Russians, but still Ukrainians). EkoGraf (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Pro-Russian separatist forces is the most appropiate term. "Rusian separatist forces" is incorrect as it implies that their members are ethnic-russians, or that they are forces from the Russian government, or even that they are inside Russia. The ethnicity is one of the elements used by the forces (and by the Russian government) to justify their fight, but it's not the objective or end of the fight. The end is a political one: being integrated as part of the Russian state. Also, they are not part of the Russian government as most, if not all of them, are part of the two separatist proto-states of Luhansk and Donetsk, which exists and developed outside of the Russia. Magnetizedlion27 (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment

I was under the impression that Western media tended (before February 2022) to refer to these people as "Russian-backed separatists". I'm okay with this descriptor, although I oppose "pro-Russian", since that implies that they aren't Russians themselves. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should refer to them as "Russian-backed" (or whatever other synonym of "backed") forcees. The majority of the armed groups that have existed throughout history, be it the armed forces of a state or a VNSA (violent non-state actor), have been supported by other states and/or non-state groups. For example, we don't refer to the Viet Cong as the "North Vietnamese-backed Viet Cong", or -communist forces. Or the Afghan mujahideen as the "United States-backed mujahideen", or -muslim rebels. They were their own groups apart from other groups that have ever existed. They acted under their own name and were known as such. And so it is with the separatist forces. What I'm trying to say is that, it doesn't matter how much support or control they have from Russia, that is just a fact. Facts are not equal to terms/names used for a certain group; they are part of its definition/description. Magnetizedlion27 (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment #2

As I've suggested in some of my comments above, the descriptor "Russian" can refer to two main things. Either, it refers to the links between the separatists and the Russian government (i.e. "the Kremlin", "the Russian Federation", etc.), or it refers to the ethnic (cultural), racial, genetic, linguistic, or national (self-identification) identity of the separatists. Whilst it might be somewhat difficult to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that these separatists are inextricably linked to the Russian government, I believe that it's a lot easier to prove that these people are ethnic-Russians. So, they can still be described as "Russian" either way, regardless of whether they have proven links to the Russian government or not. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you kidding? They are linked to the Russian government. There is no debate. This week more Russian officials were openly installed in the “DLNR governments,” for a total of 21 that we know of. Russian forces are using DLNR conscripts to fight to occupy more land in in Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions. —Michael Z. 14:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference between the pre-2022 situation and the post-2022 situation. Post-2022, I honestly cannot tell the difference between the DPR/LPR and Russia anymore. They have basically been absorbed by Russia during the war. However, before 2022, it might have been argued that the DPR and the LPR had some kind of autonomy away from Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Evidence suggests that not all "citizens" of the DPR and the LPR actually identify as Russians.¹ It's pretty unclear as to what "DPR and LPR citizenship" even is. I'm just using that term as a shorthand for people who are ruled by the DPR and LPR governments. A lot of DPR and LPR residents seem to actually be either Ukrainian citizens or Russian citizens. And if there's such a thing as DPR and LPR citizenship, then I think it isn't recognised by the international community, except for maybe by Russia and Russia's proxies elsewhere. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Which evidence? That Russian separatists are press-ganging Ukrainians to fight for the Russians and that makes them not Russian? Sounds like WP:OR. The first paragraph of your cited source refers to “the Russian side.” —Michael Z. 14:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I said that they don't identify as Russians. One of the details in this article said that some of the DPR residents actually have Ukrainian citizenship. By definition, anyone who has Ukrainian citizenship can be considered to be a citizen of Ukraine (obviously), even if they don't actually live in the core area of Ukraine but instead live in the DPR. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction: It says that they have Ukrainian passports, not citizenship. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is such a thing as a DPR and LPR citizenship and passport. It is recognized by Russia, Syria and North Korea as well as the limited recognized countries of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. SkoraPobeda (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

It will be helpful to provide some sources/links about this since there's no Wikipedia article on the topic. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment #3 - Catching up with the discussion

First, I would like to add that since my initial comments, I didn't realize it would turn into this large discussion/debate. A main issue with the whole title for me is that it suggests that they are from Russia. Sure, they can identify as Russian and have definite Russian military assistance now. But as far as the DPR 1st Army Corps and LPR 2nd Army Corps goes, these are separatist military formations that went from being militias in 2014-2015 to becoming a regular ground forces based off of the Russian military. (Even though they aren't actually a part of the Russian Ground Forces.) Perhaps you are right Jargo, maybe the title should be renamed something closer to "Russian-backed separatist forces in Donbas", since that would be an accurate assessment of them as well. As I stated back in May, in the Syrian war, the Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army (TFSA) is generalized with that name, despite their official name being the Syrian National Army (SNA). The topic at hand here is two separatist military formations being generalized to something we can all agree on. Yet as @Gitz6666: was saying, RS tends to call these armed groups as pro-Russians. That's just how they've been called since 2014 to this day. Prior to Falloutguy 1914's unilateral move on April 5, 2021 of turning the title from Separatist forces in Donbas to Russian separatist forces in Donbas, there were no problems over what to name the title for years. One word - 'Russian' - was able to change a whole meaning. And the same goes now with the word 'Pro'. This is definitely some next level debate over the use and addition of one single word.

I also would like to bring up a few quotes said by Jargo earlier: "The war is genocidal by nature, and, contrary to Russian claims, the genocide is mainly being conducted by the Russians, not by the Ukrainians." and "Conversely, how many Donbas civilians did Ukraine kill between April 2014 and February 2022? Civilians, not combatants. Not many, I suspect?"

I have been following Ukraine's crisis since November 2013 (and yes, my user profile doesn't hide what my views are). My mom in fact was lucky enough to visit her relatives in the Donetsk region prior to the war - in August 2013. Imagine, she landed in Donetsk Airport a whole year before it was destroyed, who would have thought back then? Life was stable and nobody cared whether you were Russian or Ukrainian, at least in Eastern Ukraine that is. In the Western Ukrainian regions, they never liked Russians or the entire Soviet period despite gaining plenty of new territory through their independence, this is a fact. Now with this war, everything has been portrayed very different by each side. The West and Ukraine share the same narratives, they go hand-in-hand all the time. Many fellow editors who live in America or Canada with Ukrainian roots will see things only from their side (and understandably so, since they probably have relatives who are in the military with their lives at stake). The non-RS perspective by the separatists and Russian media is the one that typically gets ignored the most. However, since my family and a few acquaintances are still there in Donbas, they have had first-hand experience and of course try to keep certain details to a minimum. What is clear is that despite my family being under Ukrainian control all these years, the Ukrainian government did not and still does not care about the people of Donbas. They have not paid them their salaries for half a year prior to Russia's invasion (at least in my mom's town). To make matter worse, outside their town is currently under the control of a neo-Nazi Right Sector paramilitary known as Ukrainian Volunteer Corps. And it is a fact that Ukraine's government uses them, along with Azov, Kraken Regiments and many others to not only fight the war, but to punish civilians. Both in separatist/Russian and Ukrainian controlled territory. Jargo, civilians in Donbas have been shelled non-stop by Ukraine for 8 years now. This has not been reported by the RS media. Donetsk and Gorlovka/Horlivka have been hit the hardest all this time. You can look up the Anna Tuv Story to get a glimpse of it. Over a thousand civilians died by Ukrainian shelling (mostly by neo-Nazi paramilitary groups, not standard Ukrainian Army) from 2015-2022, that is for sure. I'm sure DPR/LPR and Russian sources would put the estimate higher. Ukrainian war crimes are hidden under the blanket excuse that "Russia did it", and so nobody bothers to investigate it because Western sources take Ukrainian spokesmen at face value every time. Ukrainian false flag attacks have occurred many times since Russia's invasion. And Mariupol was a siege because the major neo-Nazi groups were holding the civilians as human shields, when they tried escaping, they were killed by Azov. This is confirmed by independent Telegram videos and by certain Western journalists who interviewed dozens of civilians in Donbas, and they become completely vilified for disagreeing with the official narrative. These men are Graham Phillips and Patrick Lancaster. With time, their brave journalism will be acknowledged. For now, we get contradictory media statements on how for example "Ukraine launched a successful counter-offensive in Kherson" only for it to be a total disaster and the media tries to quietly shift gears. Most people have little to no knowledge of how this conflict was built up in 2013-14, especially with US State Department involvement in regime change. SkoraPobeda (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

thanks for your comment. May I ask you to please edit it so as to leave the comment part here and move the survey part ("Support" etc.) above, in the survey section? So we keep the discussion as orderly as possible. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. SkoraPobeda (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I will get back to you on these comments later, but I will point out that some of these allegations you are making against Ukrainians are pretty profound and specific. Especially the usage of the term "Nazi" or "Neo-Nazi". It sounds like something straight out of the Russian propaganda narrative. I will accept that you are a Donbas native (I think?), but it is difficult to tell which information comes directly from you and which comes from the Russian state television. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

From what I understand, you must be one of the relatively "freer thinking" ethnic-Russian/Ukrainian people. A lot of the media in Russia or Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine (including the Donbas) is not free, with the narrative being tightly controlled by the media. I personally live in Australia, and while I don't think Australia's television is necessarily the best in the world, there is definitely free speech in this country. I tend to make up my own mind about things from reading the internet (which, crucially, is not blocked here, unlike how it is in China, for example) and from talking to various people either in real life or on the internet. By the way, I basically never watch the Australian television; I have literally not watched the TV at all since April 2021 (over a year now). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, well, considering that you live in the United States, that does make sense as to why you would have more freedom of speech. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Please mind WP:NOTFORUM. This conversation is off-topic and should not be held here. Use your User talk pages please. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

SkoraPobeda started the conversation. You should tell him that it is off-topic. Bear in mind that he directly mentioned and quoted me, so I had every right to respond to him in the manner that I did. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I will get back to you on these comments later: please, do it in their user talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes Gitz, I apologize for the long comment. All further forum type discussions will be taken to our personal talk pages. SkoraPobeda (talk) 16:59, 3 September 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.

Why Separatists?

Why would you even call them separatists? Separatists are by definition trying to set up an independent state. While so-called LPR/DPR were waiting to be annexed by Russia from the very start. I thought that would be obvious if not in 2014, then at least after Feb 24, 2022. We don't call https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Democratic_Republic separatists, do we? Lvoloshyn (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

That’s a good point. I presume Russia now considers them Russian military: the 1st Army Corps (Donetsk) and 2nd Army Corps (Luhansk). The latest ISW report refers to the “Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) People’s Militia” and “the Russian proxy Luhansk People’s Militia.”[41] —Michael Z. 22:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Earlier report: “Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) militia,” “DNR and LNR’s ‘people’s militias.’”[42]  —Michael Z. 22:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2022

Link of source No. 63 is outdated. Article has been moved to: https://tass.com/world/739790 Catastropeia (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The militias were controlled by Russia

The militias were financed, armed and controlled by Russia. The article should describe the connections. Some local leaders were killed.Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

We kind of do, what do you think we do not say? Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The name certainly does not.Xx236 (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

'It is alleged that since September 2015, the separatist units, at the battalion level and up, are acting under direct command of Russian Army officers', a 2016 reference. Nothing new since 2016? Xx236 (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Wagner group's role is underestimated in the text.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7829/j.ctv26jp68t.13#metadata_info_tab_contents

The whole book may be useful https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7829/j.ctv26jp68t Xx236 (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this a request for a title change? Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it is a fair complaint that this is a key defining characteristic, but it is only first mentioned in the fifth paragraph, after plenty of other text that gives a different impression.

The article could also mention that the Dutch court that convicted three of the first Flight MH17 defendants for murder did find that “the situation from mid-May 2014 onwards was one in which the Russian Federation exercised overall control over the DPR.”[43]  —Michael Z. 23:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines

“The militias were responsible for shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in July 2014, but the separatist leaders denied it.[8]”

The source cited here still stands as (albeit reasonable) conjecture re: the claim that the militias were responsible. 83.137.6.235 (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Why not just "Donetsk and Luhansk People's Militias"?

Shouldn't we move this article to Donetsk and Luhansk People's Militias? No RS calls these forces "Russian people's militias in Ukraine", while "Donetsk and Luhansk People's Militias" is supported by RSs [44] [45] [46]. That title is also more NPOV because it neither assumes that these forces are "Russian" (the annexation of Luhansk and Donetsk is not internationally recognised) nor that they are "in Ukraine" (which Russia and their allies deny). Finally, "Donetsk and Luhansk People's Militias" corresponds to the official name of these forces, and it's more simple, precise and recognizable to readers. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

No comments? Is this acceptable to everyone? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

No. The second source uses “so-called,” and the third “Donetsk and Luhansk ‘people’s militias’” with scare quotes. These are signals that this identity is not genuine, and should probably not be used thusly in isolation. Certainly the collective descriptive title should not capitalized as if a proper name.

Regarding NPOV: they are Russian and they are in Ukraine, according to reliable sources.  —Michael Z. 17:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a RS using "Russian People's Militias"? I found a few "pro-Russian People's Militias", but nothing more. However, there are a few RSs using "Donetsk People's Militia" and "Luhansk People's Militia", and more sources (especially academic sources) using "Donbas People's Militias".

Calling them "Russian" is a bit like endorsing the annexation, isn't it? or at least it's like acknowledging that the annexation is effective and capable of changing the status (citizenship) of the people living there. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see it saying anything about the people living there (the majority fled, incidentally, and none had a choice to oppose freely) or endorsing the annexation. These illegal military formations were created by Russians and transparently passed off as a Ukrainian movement for “independence.” Now they openly belong to Russian occupation forces in Ukraine, and it’s clarity to title them as such.

That said, I’m withdrawing my previous opposition, and would agree to identifying these with the DLNR, but clearly labelling them so as not to confound with the cities or oblasts. “Donetsk People’s Militia,” for example, wrongly names this as a unit of the city of Donetsk.

ISW, for example, names them specifically when they refer to the “Donetsk People‘s Republic (DNR) forces,” “Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) People’s Militia,” “LNR People's Militia,” or “Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republic (DNR, LNR) units.”[47] The title is long, but c’est la vie: Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic people’s militias. I still think the current title is a perfectly acceptable descriptive name for these collectively, since DLNR are Russian “republics.”  —Michael Z. 19:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The proposed renaming does remain problematic because this article does cover other units, like the international legions. And what happened to Rusich Company, which should be listed here as a former Russian militia that joined Wagner Group?  —Michael Z. 20:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

There's no need of repeating "people". If we are ready to depart from their official name (which is OK) and we want to make it clear that they belong to the Russian republics rather than the Ukrainian oblasts (which is also OK), then we could simply call them "Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics' militias". Incidentally there are a few good sources calling them so: [48] [49] (book "Putin’s Likely Course of Action in Ukraine", Institute for the Study of War). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I don’t want to refer to the Donetsk People's Republic as Donetsk, for the WP:CRITERION of WP:PRECISION. Also WP:CONSISTENCY, as the entities’ full names were used to avoid confusion in:

• International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic
• 2022 evacuation of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic

Although not in this one:

• Mobilization in Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics

 —Michael Z. 20:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker (as is obvious). I don't know if there's an ambiguity or if "Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics" makes it sufficiently clear that there are two republics, one is DPR and the other LPR, and they have militas. How would one understand the term "Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics' militias" if one knew nothing about them? 1) militias of the Luhansk People's Republic and militias of Donetsk, or 2) militias of the Luhansk People's Republic and militias of the Donetsk People's Republic? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Both full names makes it unambiguous.

I have also just opened Talk:Mobilization in Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics#Requested move 12 November 2022.  —Michael Z. 20:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, let's see how that RM goes and then decide whether to move this article to Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics' militias or to Donetsk People's Republic's and Luhansk People's Republic's militias. I prefer the first title because it's more simple and short, and I believe that any ambiguity ("does the city of Donetsk have a militia?") can be solved in the opening sentence. The second title sounds too bureaucratic to me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay. But there is a WP:CRITERIAORDER, and precision (any ambiguity being solved) is more important than concision (simple and short).  —Michael Z. 02:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

What about Militias of the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics? I think there's no ambiguity here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Would the above proposed title be acceptable to anybody? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to be pushy, but I haven't got an answer to my question above. Shall we move this article to militias of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics? or perhaps Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics militias? While there's no ambiguity ("Republics", meaninig that Donetsk here is not the city), these titles have the following pros:

• They don't imply that the annexation succeeded in changing the legal status of the territory and population of Donetsk and Luhansk (from Ukrainians to Russians);
• They are shorter than "Donetsk People's Republic's and Luhansk People's Republic's militias";
• They are close to their official names;
• The have been used by RSs in English (e.g. [50][51]);
• The are recognisable, i.e. easy for readers to understand.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

What is their current status as part of Russian forces?  —Michael Z. 07:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

These militias have little detailed coverage in reliable sources because their very nature and composition have been concealed and the subject of disinformation by them and their controlling Russian political powers, and many sources only vaguely refer to them, lacking firmly established precise nomenclature. They don’t have two separate articles because they aren’t really legitimate separately defined subjects, and are often lumped together with each other and with their supposed “separatist republics.” And to a significant degree, I’m sure their own members don’t even know their actual status with those that are in overall control of them.

We do know that the Russian Federation has declared them Russian after its crazy “annexation” and has stated it plans to integrate them into Russian forces, and that they have long been considered the 1st and 2nd Army Corps subordinate to the RF’s 8th Combined Arms Army. We know the RF has also forcibly conscripted people from other parts of occupied Ukraine now.

There are reasons it’s hard to agree on a more precise title when it implies things that are more precise than the actual public knowledge about the subject.  —Michael Z. 16:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's very hard to write a decent article on this subject, for many reasons. The events are too recent and still ongoing; the fog of war prevents the creation of truly independent and reliable secondary sources. Even for us Wikipedia editors, political passions make our NPOV policy too demanding for many. And yet, while it is difficult to write the article, it should not be too difficult to agree on the title. Since we've ruled out "Pro-Russian separatist forces in Donbas", I think that "Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics militias" is a reasonable alternative. But calling them "Russian" is wrong on sooo many accounts... Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)